Talk:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)

1462:

Japanese ADIZ in order to provide a moral justification/equivalency argument for the creation of the zone. That was one reason the article got tagged as POV, above. There were two ways of balancing the article and one way was to remove content about the other ADIZ as irrelevant while the second way was to leave it in but characterize it as a background history of the area to which the Chinese ADIZ is being applied. The second route provides more information to the reader and I support it, but that doesn't mean the article has shifted its topic. For a shift to the zones, plural, in the East China Sea you should propose a name change so this can be properly discussed as such. It is not appropriate to continue to add topic-shifting content without a consensus that this is what Knowledge (XXG) wants to do. At the moment there is already an

1552:? Does it, or does it not, say "Ministry of National Defense The People's Republic of China" in the banner on the top of this webpage? Is this, or is this not, a website controlled by the Chinese government? Now what does it say, in English, after the word "effective"? Is that word "control" or is it not? Where are the sources for "monitoring and early warning"? I searched for this phrase and found a grand total of zero sources that used this terminology in the context of this ADIZ. I gave the URL for the Economist's use of "air traffic restrictions" in my edit summary. The Economist is not alone here. 462: 1891:. Though it's sourced, the sources do not show any evidence. Those sites might be reliable, but not this news release. IMHO, just saying "Chinese Navy expelled foreign airplanes" is not good enough. As it's an identification zone, if the news is a fact, Chinese Navy must have identified the unknown foreign airplanes, taken photographs of them as evidence and clarified what/who they were. Without such information, I think sources are not reliable and they are improperly used. The news could be a piece of domestic propaganda. 3045:

but not saying "only JCS's news are reliable" (I'm sorry if I did misunderstood Oda though). Also thank you for reminding me that the news was from TNA, I almost missed it out. However, I would still support adding the JCS report provided by Oda into the article since the report is official and is directly related to the status of such ADIZ. JCS might not be reporting every single incident, but their information should be considered reliable. Finally I would suggest everyone to use English here and stop going off topic,

452: 431: 720: 696: 3014:亲爱的香港朋友，我也是香港人，不过是新移民，广东话普通话都行，打广东话费劲，我这里就将就着写，估计您老也看得明白。我看了一下您老历来的编辑和在维基上的“贡献”，真是另我汗颜啊。就从这里您问的两个问题，就是显出您自己理解上和知识上的问题了（您尽管去投诉，看看是否人身攻击），恐怕不胜任这里的编辑要求啊。大公报引述的是台湾中通社的消息，放狗搜搜都是可以找到的。中通社不“亲中“了吧？Oda朋友的反复要求，这个页面也是明确的。别人都看得明白，为什么就你看不到？我说的阅读能力（literacy），有错么？您老应该提高一下。回复您老的问题真是有失身分。您老以后的问题我都不回答。请您老不要在follow up我的发言，谢谢！还有，你们港独招小朋友有牢狱之灾啊，连”扮民主派“的大状都不愿意出庭辩护啊。有时间多读读书，看看别人写的wiki。对维基做破坏贡献，显示出您的literacy的问题，宣扬分裂国家、煽动陆港仇恨就是您不对了。不胜任维基编辑可以不做嘛。English: The above 2178:. They were placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty, and were included in the areas whose administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, which came into force in May 1972. Clear enough? 561: 536: 879: 828: 191: 288: 403: 1533:

early-warning. If you can provide primary source translation of Chinese Defense Ministry about translating it as "control", please provide one. If not, shut up! ADIZ is not territorial airspace (China's ADIZ includes her territorial airspace of Diaoyu Islands, though), how can you control? It's for "identification". Are you kidding me? Even Japan doesn't say control about its ADIZ.

730: 338: 246: 222: 2962:, sourced from Japanese media, stated that on April 23, 2013 China sent 40+ jet fighters to East China Sea and Japan "scrambled planes to intercept". But we cannot find a corresponding press report from Japan Joint Chief of Staff. Bottomline: Japan Joint Chief of Staff selectively releases "reports" to his favor and therefore it's unreliable. 628: 607: 1589:"Beijing defends flight restrictions as ‘legitimate action’." I could go on, but it should also be possible to just use logic here. If you are JUST monitoring me and warning me, what do I have to do? Nothing, of course. You warn me that I am in your zone and that's the end of it. But that's not the case with the rules here. At 2360:? The media reports used as ref. are just saying "China did this and it was Japanese planes" without showing evidence. They might have convinced Chinese people that was a fact, but not the rest of the world. But...it's maybe a good idea to leave the section as it is, because it looks as if China does not control the zone. 360: 349: 327: 316: 2204:, Japan should give back Taiwan Islands as well as affiliated Diaoyu Islands to China. I cannot find any country except Japan and USA (and maybe 1 or 2 puppet country) recognizing Japan's "administration". Again, Knowledge (XXG) is NOT a place for you to promote Japan's view, which is twisted and contrived. 1370:

state's Zone there is naturally a conflict. The noninterference of the US B-52 transit may/or may not suggest the PRC's zone is targeted at particular states. As usual the Chinese seem to be playing the long game. Personally I find the timing with the Iranian interim nuclear deal conveniently suspicious.

2969:

after the establishment of ADIZ (East China Sea), they notice mainland China's jet fighters did intercept US's and Japan's military aircraft though their radar. "The flash points overlap in the radar screen meaning they are within 1 nm." However, we cannot find such corresponding press report(s) from

2761:

I removed the Dailynews.sina material as it is incorrect information. I have no idea its significance. STSC, please explain why it should be included in the article. And please do not use your interpretation. It's a misuse of the source. If you can provide RS with evidence, both Onodera's comment and

1848:

I. Wanderer has posted statements that have no probative value to inform the readers. He had posted statements that are only inflammatory tending to demonize China. This should be against the principle of Knowledge (XXG) which should be the enlightenment of issues objectively. Therefore, I hope he

1812:

Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be NPOV and articles should not be written as debates on issues. I suggest that you reword the Identification Rules section to remove comments such as "It is actually not factually correct to say that...", "The fact is..", "The truth is..." and instead provide a simple

1794:

Since Chinese ADIZ has the same requirements as American ADIZ, it is obviously a lie to say that the Chinese ADIZ is unusual. I would appreciate help in making AW to stop this mendacious edit war which serves to degrade the quality of Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) should be a place of knowledge

1766:

has made several changes, including adding material that simply duplicates info here, and also has deleted cited information that clarifies how China's ADIZ differs from other zones. User:Liang1a has not however ever explained his actions despite repeated requests to do so. Any advice or help would

2404:

I would support adding the conflicts between Japan and China in the ADIZ (i.e. patrol operations from the 2 countries, announcements by the Foreign ministries) as the ADIZ is currently under dispute. The page is about the Chinese ADIZ but should not be limited to Chinese information only, otherwise

1908:

I strongly second this on the condition that American B-52 flying over ADIZ is also removed from the article since US doesn't provide any "evidence" in the form of photos! All reliable sources or photos simply say these B-52s flown over ADIZ. But how can you prove that the photo depicting the B-52s

1782:

From Liang1a: If anybody is starting an Edit War it is Iloilo Wanderer. He had repeatedly deleted my posts when I had provided full references. He is also posting statements that are not factual. He said Chinese ADIZ is unusual because it requires all aircrafts to file flight plans flying in any

1733:

It's premature. Let's give this issue some time to shake out, and the other article to be fleshed out. I can see one article on the topic in general and then one article on the China zone, plural if they set up another one. The China zone is different enough -- controversial enough -- that I can

1517:

If you look at the statement on the Chinese Defence website that responds to the U.S. flight, it says "有效管控." This translates as "effective control." Someone changed it to "monitor" but this is not an accurate translation and it is also not consistent with the English translation appearing in the

1134:

If I. Wanderer persisted in posting these false statements, which are misleading and actuated by anti-Chinese bigotry, then I must immediately refute him. This will obviously degrade the credibility of Knowledge (XXG) which I hope I. Wanderer would not want to see. The solution is for I. Wanderer

1078:

There is a clear anti-Chinese bias in the tone and substance of this article. The entire effort by people like I. Wanderer is to demonize China. I hope Knowledge (XXG) will not be so petty but concentrate on providing an even and balanced knowledge base with the goal of enlightening the world and

3044:

Thanks for your reply. Firstly according to my understanding on Oda's replies in this page, he/she has been pushing for the use of sources with evidences (e.g. reports by the JCS with photos) instead of Chinese reports which included no evidence at all, in order to ensure they are reliable enough,

1532:

Firstly, three refs in the 1st paragraph do not say "control". Secondly, no link there is from Economist. If you can provide one, please provide one. Thirdly, if you translate "有效管控" into "control", that only means your Chinese is very bad. Air Defense Identification Zone only means monitoring and

2156:

Thanks, Lssrn45! I didn't bother to look them up. None of your sources recognizes Japan's "administration". You can search through the text by Ctrl + F. These are from mainstream international media (Australia, France, UK, USA, etc.) Furthermore, China Coast Guard's exercising administration over

1687:

At present I don't think there is enough material for separate articles except for U.S./Canada ADIZ and Chinese ADIZ. Because any Chinese ADIZ, either the current one in the East China Sea or a future one in the South China Sea would be in a contested maritime area there will likely be extensive

1512:

Just what the Chinese have introduced here may be disputed without just repeating in detail the new "rules." The question is how to summarize this. New "monitoring" is not accurate in my view since monitoring is passive and does place an onus on the monitored to respond. The Chinese media says

3076:

To aid the reader in sorting out all the controversies, how about adding a table comparing these ADIZs? For example: includes disputed territory (yes/no), discussed with neighbors before creation (yes/no), to whom applied (civilian flight, military flight, both), includes flights passing through

2218:

Knowledge (XXG) is also not a forum for anyone to promote their personal views but instead a place to provide facts and statements made by the two (or three) sides. There are already a number of third-party reliable sources by major medias recognizing Japanese administration. Please don't simply

2037:

Firstly it lacks international recognition. Whoever recognizes it? Japan alone says there is no dispute. But 99% countries think there is a dispute. Secondly, it is not a fact at all. Which country recognizes Japan's administration? China Coast Guard has been effectively exercising maritime law

1369:

From my understanding an ADIZ is an entirely unilateral action by a state and has no internationally legal recognition. There is precedent to their declaration, however it's still unilateral. These usually just exist for a state to have some preemptive warning. However when they overlap another

2537:

is 04:42-04:49 P.M. February 1, 2014. The press conference took place earlier than the Chinese news was published. I have no idea the Chinese news should be included in the article. Because it's out-of-date information. As the current version is a factual error, I am removing the Chinese news.

1461:

One can argue that the article SHOULD be about zones plural but that's not what it currently IS. The article was given the name East China Sea because that's the name China gives it. What happened was that the early article drew heavily on Chinese state-controlled media and so introduced the

1593:

it says "Third, aircraft ... should follow the instructions of the administrative organ .... China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions." "Follow the instructions" is a

1827:

As I have noted elsewhere, Liang1a, a single bullet point from a PowerPoint slide is not the final and complete word. The purpose of a Powerpoint show is to summarize, preferring the risk of oversimplification to spelling out every detail and nuance. The U.S. rules are spelled out in the

1425:

China only has one ADIZ, this one, whereas the Japanese and Korean ADIZ extends well beyond the East China Sea area. So in terms of the scope, and future scope, of the article it ought to be China, with expansion and a rename to China's ADIZ coming if China establishes or extends to other

1688:

media coverage of Chinese ADIZ and as a consequence enough material that I don't think articles on Chinese ADIZ should be merged into this article. This article should just summarize in the case of North American or Chinese ADIZ, with main article links available in the subsections.--

2992:

I could't find the sentence where Oda said "only Japan Joint Chief of Staff's news release is reliable of all military aircraft meet up", would you please show me the related reply just to clear up my mind. By the way just to remind you that your "third party source"

3127:

The reason I suggested it for this article is these are the controversial ones. If the US ADIZ must be also included in the chart, then yes it should belong to the main article, which actually goes into depth only about ADIZs in North America and the East China Sea.

1186:

Most references are links to the PRC Ministry of National Defense and in Chinese. There are no articles referencing the more recent rejection by Japan, the United States, and South Korea of this unilateral zone. Addition of these would add balance to the article.

1342:

This is undoubtedly biased. To what side... that is to be determined. This page should be put on hold until an international agreement is determined. Quite frankly, a page such as this is akin to making a page on fluctuating stock prices or the value of gold...

1389:

article is very similar and Knowledge (XXG) treats the Chinese creation as more or less a genuine entity. There should be some consistency to how these matters are dealt with. The reality of the entity for China does not mean that that it is internationally

2355:

I don't think so. Other ADIZ articles have no such section. What is the significance of the current content? Just because it was a new year's day? But as far as I know, every military forces work 365 days a year. And why there is no official report like this

2053:

This seems to be a biased comment. Firstly the reports on "CCG exercising effective maritime law enforcement" are basically, most if not all, from the Chinese medias only. Secondly for your reference here are some reports recognizing Japanese administration:

1466:

article that deals with zones in the plural and it includes a subsection for China and considers this article the "main article" for that subsection topic. As such, we should remain consistent with that and treat this as primarily concerned with China's

1813:

summary of the relevant US FAA requirements for the US ADIZ and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, unless you are able to provide a WP:RS that clearly states that China's ADIZ rules are not substantially different from those of the US ADIZ.

1320:

I haven't found it anywhere either. Go ahead and change it. I've seen a few examples of it being referred to as ECS ADIZ. ADIZ can be used whenever it is clear that we are referring to China's ADIZ in the East China Sea, otherwise we should clarify

2834:

Oh? So far, the Japanese government still has not denied that Japanese aircraft was expelled from the ADIZ. Actually, what you did is whitewashing the Japanese. Are you getting so desperate now using Falun Gong's Epoch Times to support your case?

153: 2663:

No. It's still synthesis. Because there's no mention of "Japanese aircraft" in the question to Onodera in the Japanese source. As I pointed out above, the words "Japanese aircraft" cannot be found even in the Chinese source. Please read

2513:

is problematic. Onodera in fact say nothing about the report. He said "I am aware of it but have no comment". So Oda's removal is not justifiable. The old content state that "Japan didn't deny it". This is accurate and appropriate to

2554:

When Japan avoided to admit a Japanese aircraft had been expelled from the ADIZ, it really means they remained silent on the incident. The Sina's later report is accurate to say "Japanese Government remains silent" (日本政府保持沉默).

1828:

regulations, and we additionally have statements from U.S. spokespersons about how those regulations are clearly different and/or are interpreted differently from China. And China has admitted to a difference on the point.--

1594:

restriction. If you want to find another term, like "control," we can talk about that, but "monitoring" is NOT all that is implied here. Note that word "will" before "adopt defensive emergency measures." This is more like

1443:- This article is not about China's claim, there are many Air Defense Identification Zones in the same area as you can see from the map I uploaded. I think maybe this article should be moved to Air Defense Identification Zone 2849:

The Chinese government showed no evidence that Japanese aircraft was expelled from the ADIZ. Only words are not good enough to convince the world. It is natural and fair to mention that there were criticism on the scramble.

1279:

I've tagged this as having a Chinese rather than a global view and for POV concerns, for primarily the same reason. The article treats this as chinese creation of an Air Defense zone over their territory, not that of other

2582:

is clearly synthesis. As far as I know, 沈黙/silence means "a state of not speaking". Whatever the words were, Onodera commented on it and it's not "remained silent". It's your original interpretation. Please undo your edit.

44: 2577:

and interpretation. The Chinese source does not say the airplanes belong to Japan. 但是，解放军报没有说明这些军机是属于哪一个国家. The sentence, "The Japanese government remained silent about Japanese aircraft being expelled from the ADIZ", you

1786:"ANY AIRCRAFTS that wishes to fly IN OR THROUGH the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan BEFORE CROSSING THE ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11)." 410: 232: 1481:

I agree that this article should be about China's zone, that this article's name should be changed to reflect that, and that other articles be created and renamed to reflect each individual country. So there is a

2897:

If a reliably published source reports that the Chinese government has made a statement, then making recourse to a demand for "proof" of the statement does not seem to be grounds to dispute the statement in this

2475:

The Japanese government did in fact remained silent. Onodera said "we are aware of it and no comment". What's the difference between this and nothing is said? OK. It's fair to say "Japanese government hasn't

3206: 2192:

Downright bullshit. So which country recognizes Japan's "administration"? Can you face my question? Treaty of San Fransisco was not signed and is never recognized by Mainland China, Taiwan, or Russia.

147: 3325: 2237: 1868:

Now that South Korea has gotten into the act there are four states, including Taiwan, with conflicting unilateral declarations of jurisdiction over the air space in the East China Sea. Thoughts?

678: 3092:

The claim that US ADIZ doesn't apply to civil airplanes or air planes that don't intend to enter US territorial airspace is wrong. In fact, China's ADIZ has no difference in terms of rules.

2735:

was published on 2014年02月01日17:24 after the Onodera's comment. If the writer of Daily sina or 北京新浪网 had known the Onodera's comment, they wouldn't have published the article. The sentence "

3340: 668: 2196:

urged Japan to give back lands it grasped illegally and it's accepted by Hirohito when he surrendered. Even USA doesn't recognize Japan's "sovereignty" over Ryukyu Islands. Based on

1041:"namely airspace surrounding Chinese exclusive economic zone (EZZ) and territory Diaoyu Islands" assumes that the territory is uncontested PRC territory, but that is not the case 3345: 3335: 644: 2135: 966: 301: 258: 2762:

criticism would not be needed and they can be removed from the article. But the fact is not. China did not show evidence. If you disagree with me, please bring the matter to

2376:

I think it's relevant due to ADIZ overlap. I would suggest referencing Japanese or other non-PRC operations to specify such overlap or non-acknowledgement of China's ADIZ.

1167:

The tone of this section, in particular the use of quotes for "intercept," leans toward a pro-PRC stance. Perhaps taking a complete quote from the article would be better.

3355: 1849:

can be persuaded to put aside his obvious prejudice against China and post only facts objectively without needless sensationalization about the world is "denousing" China.

812: 3207:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140715032356/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/131130/japan-seeks-icaos-involvement-tackling-chinas-air-defe

3238: 3234: 3220: 2160:. It says it's the 76th since Japan's "nationalization". This is a solid proof that China Coast Guard's patrol are in fact taking place and JCG can do nothing about it. 3170: 24: 836: 706: 635: 612: 287: 3305: 2240:

The United States and Japan conducted backroom deals concerning the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao. If even the PRC is using the term, why shouldn't we?

1666: 1662: 974: 3320: 3310: 3300: 508: 3210: 2238:

http://www.globaltimes.cn/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Print.aspx?tabid=99&tabmoduleid=94&articleId=735265&moduleId=405&PortalID=0

895: 79: 168: 2893:

We are basically supposed to report the statements made in reliably published sources in a neutral manner. Points to consider that seem relevant to me are:

1447:(East China Sea). Japan already claimed most of this area as a ADIZ in 2010. If we want to be specific about China create a new section within the article. 3350: 3315: 1602:

by air traffic control, and air traffic control has the word "control" in it. As for the Japanese ADIZ being different, yes it is! As the New York Times

135: 2763: 1696:) 04:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I note that Iloilo Wanderer's comments above, in an earlier section, also imply opposition to the merger proposed here.-- 1579: 1012: 2104:

The zone China recently claimed includes a hotly disputed island chain which is under Japanese control, known in Japan as Senkaku and in China as Diaoyu

887: 2997:) is a newspaper set up by the CCP in 1949 and has been considered as a pro-China media. It might not be suitable to use their report in this article. 1948:

Bbb23, the real motive of Oda Mari's edits is just another issue; I suggest you deal with her disruptive edit-warring behavior as I requested before.

818: 518: 253: 227: 2060: 925: 918: 85: 1789: 1222: 2071: 129: 2258:

Thanks IP user! Your source have already stated clearly that "The Senkaku group is administered by Japan but claimed by China and Taiwan". --

1107:

US ADIZ actually requires all aircrafts to file flight plan or else be assumed to be hostile. I have explained this in my post with citation.

2158: 262: 991: 945: 932: 3093: 2978: 2515: 2039: 125: 30: 1486:

article already and then there can be an "Air Defense Identification Zone (China)", an ""Air Defense Identification Zone {Japan)", etc. --

3142:

I have now posted this suggestion on the main article. For the moment, I'm convinced that the US needs to be included in the comparison.

2940: 2918: 2649:

How about: "The Japanese government did not comment (没有作出回应) whether the foreign military aircraft expelled from the ADIZ was Japanese."

2523: 2469: 2061:

Japan has clashed repeatedly with its neighours in recent months over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands, claimed as Diaoyu in China

3360: 3330: 3196: 3031: 2276: 2205: 2161: 1534: 1350: 1206:

I think a map of the zone would put the situation in better perspective regarding the international concerns around the East China Sea.

2095: 763: 755: 484: 2739:" is not needed at all as Onodera, a part of the Japanese government, has already commented on it. The sentence is simply meaningless. 2107: 175: 1000: 567: 541: 99: 3216:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3186: 1934:

unless you have solid evidence to support it. Focus on content on this talk page. Repeated personal attacks may result in a block.--

2767: 104: 20: 1734:

see it being notable enough to be separate but I could also see the issue dying off. See to the discussion above re re-naming. --

2954:

considers only Japan Joint Chief of Staff's news release is reliable of all military aircraft meetup in Japan's ADIZ, like this

74: 3107: 3046: 1759: 1670: 1627: 1565: 1483: 3211:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/131130/japan-seeks-icaos-involvement-tackling-chinas-air-defe

2490:

I think it's more accurate to quote the original words from Onodera rather than adding any analysis that might be disputable.

2435: 1098:

I wish to call attention to the fact that I. Wanderer is initiating an edit war by continuing to make false statements about:

1059:

I changed the name of the disputed islands in the introduction to match the current name we already have i.e. Senkaku Islands

202: 2112:...disputed islands claimed by China, which knows them as the Diaoyus, but controlled by Japan, which calls them the Senkakus 2079: 1649: 1557: 2405:

some readers might think the Knowledge (XXG) is trying to hide the fact that Japanese fighters are also flying in the ADIZ.

767: 759: 743: 701: 475: 436: 141: 65: 1783:

direction through its ADIZ. But American ADIZ also requires ALL PLANES to file flight plans when flying IN ANY DIRECTION:

1603: 2912: 2068: 1989: 1151: 483:

related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3281: 2796:

2. The incident in Feb 2013 is not related to the ADIZ because the East China Sea ADIZ was not established at that time.

2111: 2818:

is. I restore the NTD content and add other source. What you do is whitewashing and pushing Chinese PoV. Please stop.

1909:

are exactly the ones flow and how can you confirm that the airspace they were flying through was exactly inside ADIZ?

2157:

waters in Diaoyu Islands is confirmed by the Japanese media, which call it "territorial water intrusion". One piece:

3286: 3151: 3137: 3122: 3101: 3086: 3061: 3039: 3009: 2986: 2861: 2844: 2829: 2807: 2781: 2756: 2704: 2679: 2658: 2624: 2608: 2594: 2564: 2549: 2502: 2485: 2417: 2399: 2385: 2371: 2350: 2335: 2301: 2284: 2270: 2249: 2231: 2213: 2187: 2169: 2151: 2047: 2024: 1995: 1957: 1943: 1918: 1902: 1877: 1858: 1837: 1822: 1806: 1776: 1743: 1725: 1705: 1682: 1639: 1615: 1542: 1527: 1495: 1476: 1456: 1435: 1419: 1399: 1379: 1358: 1336: 1314: 1295: 1269: 1248: 1234: 1215: 1196: 1176: 1155: 1088: 1068: 1054: 3030:

only moved to Hong Kong to continue publication. Oda's request is clear from above. Please improve your literacy.

2613:

The source does not say so. It says 沈黙. And what about the "Japanese aircraft being expelled from the ADIZ" part?

1515:"Any airplane that fails to follow such rules will face emergency defense measures taken by the Chinese military." 109: 2481: 2395: 2127: 2091: 1914: 1772: 1739: 1491: 3237:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2732: 2530: 2120:

The islands are under Japan's control and Tokyo has rejected the existence of any sovereignty dispute with China

2087: 1790:

http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

950: 3097: 2982: 2519: 2043: 1305:

I cannot find ECSADIZoPRC anywhere except this article. Can't we just use the ADIZ or China's ADIZ as needed?

208: 190: 2165: 1980:, I've just noticed that the sources all appear to be in Chinese. What bearing does that have on their use?-- 3272: 3178: 3035: 2280: 2209: 1538: 1354: 640: 257:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 1346: 1139: 572: 546: 2477: 2391: 1923: 1910: 2390:

Oppose. The page is specific for Air Defense Identification Zone established by China in East China Sea.

55: 3256:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3244: 2128:

China saw it as a provocation and sent vessels and aircraft to challenge Japan’s control of the Senkakus

1678: 1415: 643:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3177:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2321: 2103: 1755: 1586: 70: 3197:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131128215834/http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2013-11/23/content_4476143.htm

3147: 3143: 3133: 3129: 3082: 3078: 2955: 2357: 1768: 1735: 1514: 1487: 1329: 1288: 982: 2381: 2201: 1873: 1818: 1721: 1375: 1265: 1244: 1211: 771: 161: 3111: 3050: 2998: 2491: 2406: 2290: 2259: 2220: 2140: 1572: 3187:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140216065721/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201401120021

3077:(yes/no), how enforced (scramble jets or whatever) for each country in this region with an ADIZ. 2856: 2824: 2776: 2751: 2674: 2619: 2589: 2544: 2464: 2366: 2330: 2175: 2019: 1897: 1833: 1701: 1693: 1611: 1523: 1472: 1431: 1395: 958: 3241:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2966: 2925: 1653: 1188: 1168: 1101:

1. US ADIZ requires only aircrafts entering American sovereign territories to file flight plan;

1060: 1046: 3257: 2136:

Beijing ... sends planes through a region that includes the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands

1549: 3117: 3056: 3004: 2497: 2412: 2296: 2265: 2226: 2197: 2193: 2146: 1854: 1802: 1576: 1147: 1084: 451: 430: 51: 3200: 1590: 1674: 1635: 1452: 1411: 1230: 3264: 2665: 2574: 2038:

enforcement in the waters around Diaoyu Islands. Japan Coast Guard can do nothing about it.

1973: 1931: 2959: 2245: 2183: 2056: 1939: 1583: 1322: 1310: 1281: 1192: 1172: 1064: 1050: 3190: 2928: 2815: 2790: 2570: 1795:

without sensationalization and demonization of China or any other persons or countries.

719: 695: 3223:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2936: 2840: 2803: 2700: 2654: 2604: 2560: 2534: 2377: 2346: 2119: 2010: 1953: 1869: 1814: 1717: 1371: 1261: 1240: 1207: 878: 3263:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3230: 1045:. A rewording to indicate that the land is claimed by the PRC would be more accurate. 3294: 2951: 2851: 2819: 2771: 2746: 2669: 2614: 2584: 2539: 2459: 2431: 2361: 2325: 2123: 2014: 1930:("I strongly seconds the infamous Japanese nationalist Oda Mari"). It's considered a 1892: 1829: 1697: 1689: 1607: 1519: 1468: 1440: 1427: 1391: 1135:

to come to his senses and delete his false statements himself to avoid an edit war.

2904: 2075: 1981: 1850: 1798: 1763: 1569: 1561: 1553: 1410:

There are air defense identification zones of Japan and Korea in East China Sea.――

1143: 1080: 775: 735: 467: 3018:

news is originally from Taiwan News Agency (therefore not "pro-Mainland"). Also,

3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 2994: 2770:. Please do not add the Dailynews.sina material and remove the criticism again. 2099: 1631: 1448: 1226: 2599:

If you like, the "remained silent" can be changed to "neither admit nor deny".

560: 535: 3229:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2974: 2737:

The Japanese government did not comment on the aircraft expelled from the ADIZ

2241: 2179: 1935: 1306: 725: 457: 1926:, don't make accusations of nationalism against other editors, as you did in 2973:

Editors can verify my claim above by going to links listed above as well as

2932: 2836: 2799: 2731:

Onodera commented on the Chinese news at 04:42-04:49 P.M. February 1, 2014.

2696: 2650: 2600: 2556: 2342: 1949: 1042: 827: 1406:

Is this article specifically about Chinese air defense identification zone?

2457:

2 Should criticism of the Chinese news be included in the article or not?

2275:

I am deeply worried about your literacy. Please don't give up treatment.

2083: 2080:

China imposes airspace restrictions over Japan-controlled Senkaku islands

2965:

A 3rd party source also proves Japan Joint Chief of Staff's dishonesty.

402: 2529:

Did you read my edit summary and compare the sources? The timestamp of

2072:

The Senkaku islands, which are controlled by Japan but claimed by China

1606:, "The Chinese also imposed requirements that other countries do not"-- 1118:

Japan had already included Diaoyu Island long before China included it.

1221:

I've added one in, it's the best and most comprehensive I could find (

2096:...Senkaku Islands, which are administered by the government of Japan 1386: 245: 221: 2745:" has an error. According to the sources, the date is 2 February. 2728:

4. The Chinese identified the foreign aircraft as Japanese. Feb.2.

1630:. I think there is already some doubling up between the articles. 749: 480: 2341:

The readers should be informed how the Chinese defends the ADIZ.

1976:

to dismiss statements from RS on the basis of an assertion that,

2970:

Japan Joint Chief of Staff's press report since last November.

1463: 627: 606: 2108:

The islands are currently under Japanese administrative control

2219:

regard all sources as "puppet of USA" and ignore the reports.

2176:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/basic_view.html

2131: 2115: 2064: 1626:

I believe this article should be merged with the main article

184: 15: 2726:

3. Gov. of JPN didn't comment on the the news. 17:24, Feb 1.

2684:

OK. The events would be re-organized in the following order:

1550:

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/TopNews/2013-11/27/content_4476726.htm

1223:

File:Air_Defense_Identification_Zones_Map_East_China_Sea.gif

877: 826: 401: 286: 2693:

3. The Chinese identified the foreign aircraft as Japanese.

1123:

3. Chinese ADIZ is "unusual" in overlapping Japanese ADIZ.

3201:

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2013-11/23/content_4476143.htm

3181:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1591:

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2013-11/23/content_4476143.htm

2743:

Later on 1 February, PLA Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan confirmed ...

1129:

Japan's ADIZ had overlapped Taiwan's ADIZ many years ago.

1112:

2. Chinese ADIZ is "unusual" in including Diaoyu Island;

1005: 2713:

2. The Japanese did not comment on the foreign aircraft.

2690:

2. The Japanese did not comment on the foreign aircraft.

2320:

I propose removing of the Patrol Operations section per

3174: 2977:. Who is telling lies and who isn't is clear instantly. 2579: 2511: 2448: 2444: 2006: 1927: 1888: 871: 866: 861: 856: 783: 3191:

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201401120021

2324:

as I find no significance in the current information.

160: 2724:

2. Onodera commented on the news. 16:42-16:49, Feb. 1

2069:

China ships spotted close to Japan-controlled islands

3326:

Start-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance

2088:

The zone covers the Tokyo-controlled Senkaku islands

1750:

Edit war on Air Defense Identification Zone article?

978:: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. 770:. Current time in Japan: 08:50, September 21, 2024 ( 747:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 639:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 479:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 299:

This article has been checked against the following

3233:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2455:

1 Could Onodera's comment be thought as 沈黙/silence?

653:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject International relations

384: 298: 174: 3106:This comparison should belong to the main article 2924:Oda Mari, you're reminded not to include any more 817:This article has not yet received a rating on the 2958:. We can disprove it by many other sources. This 1978:The news could be a piece of domestic propaganda" 1094:I. Wanderer is posting false and misleading facts 762:, where you can join the project, participate in 3171:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) 1669:exist. Trim the description of China section in 1043:https://en.wikipedia.org/Senkaku_Islands_dispute 570:, a project which is currently considered to be 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 25:Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) 3341:Mid-importance International relations articles 3026:'s wiki entry's information is wrong). In 1949 1667:Air Defense Identification Zone (Washington DC) 1663:Air Defense Identification Zone (North America) 3219:This message was posted before February 2018. 2946:Japanese unilateral news release is unreliable 2764:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution noticeboard 2709:The order of events are chronologically wrong. 1575:to "air defense restriction from China," the 3049:is no way related with the CADIZ. Thank you. 2901:Is the Falun Gung affiliated source reliable? 2033:Diaoyu Islands is NOT "administered" by Japan 1079:not to contribute to bigotry and animosity. 8: 3346:WikiProject International relations articles 3336:Start-Class International relations articles 3022:was founded in 1902 instead of 1949 by CPC ( 1864:Re-title article East China Sea ADIZ dispute 656:Template:WikiProject International relations 271:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 2722:1. The Chinese expelled a foreign aircraft. 2687:1. The Chinese expelled a foreign aircraft. 1582:"China imposes airspace restrictions," the 188: 2786:The NTD content should be removed because: 2533:is 2014年02月01日 17:24 and the timestamp of 1972:While I don't think it is conformant with 844: 690: 601: 530: 425: 381: 295: 216: 3356:Unknown-importance Japan-related articles 3169:I have just modified 3 external links on 2715:"? It is totally wrong. The Japanese did. 1598:from air traffic control than just being 1566:"China Imposes Restrictions on Air Space" 754:on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to 2789:1. The "New Year's anti-Japan drama" is 2719:The chronological order should be this. 1163:Administration and Monitoring Operations 251:This article is within the scope of the 2717:Why did you omit the Onodera's comment. 1650:Air Defense Identification Zone (China) 784: 692: 603: 532: 427: 218: 3306:Start-Class military aviation articles 261:. To use this banner, please see the 3321:Mid-importance China-related articles 3311:Military aviation task force articles 3301:Start-Class military history articles 1558:"China imposes airspace restrictions" 582:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject East Asia 274:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 2768:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment 1883:Recent addition of Patrol Operations 741:This article is within the scope of 633:This article is within the scope of 566:This article is within the scope of 473:This article is within the scope of 2931:materials from Falun Gong's media. 1301:ECSADIZoPRC is something we made up 1260:Taiwanese ADIZ should be included. 1258:South Korean changes as well as the 636:WikiProject International relations 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3351:Start-Class Japan-related articles 3316:Start-Class China-related articles 2429: 14: 3173:. Please take a moment to review 3072:Suggestion: add comparison chart? 835:This article is supported by the 797:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Japan 493:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject China 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 1673:to a summary of this article.―― 728: 718: 694: 659:International relations articles 626: 605: 559: 534: 460: 450: 429: 358: 347: 336: 325: 314: 244: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3108:Air Defense Identification Zone 3047:Hong Kong Independence Movement 1760:Air Defense Identification Zone 1671:Air Defense Identification Zone 1628:Air Defense Identification Zone 1484:Air Defense Identification Zone 673:This article has been rated as 513:This article has been rated as 2009:as it was disinformation. See 585:Template:WikiProject East Asia 1: 3138:08:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 3123:08:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 3102:20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 3087:08:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 3062:12:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 3040:09:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 3010:07:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 2987:21:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 2862:15:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 2845:18:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2830:16:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2808:17:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 2782:09:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 2757:08:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 2705:21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 2680:15:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 2659:14:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 2625:08:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 2609:07:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 2595:06:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 2565:12:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 2550:10:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 2524:21:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 2441:Which version is appropriate? 2418:07:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 2400:03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 2386:22:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 2372:10:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 2351:16:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 2336:09:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 2302:07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 2285:03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 2271:23:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 2250:05:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 2232:07:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 2214:03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 2188:22:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 2170:21:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 2152:12:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 2048:05:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 2025:10:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) 1878:04:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC) 1683:04:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 1640:03:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 1616:07:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1543:06:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 1528:07:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1496:02:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 1477:16:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1457:09:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1436:05:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1420:05:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1400:04:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1380:03:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1359:02:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1337:23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1315:22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1296:21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1270:04:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC) 1249:03:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1235:03:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1216:21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC) 1197:07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1177:07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 1069:00:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 1055:07:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 848:WikiProject Japan to do list: 647:and see a list of open tasks. 487:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2741:Additionally, the sentence " 1996:10:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 1958:05:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 1944:00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 1919:21:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 1903:09:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 1859:21:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1838:01:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC) 1823:19:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC) 1807:20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1777:03:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1744:17:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 1726:18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC) 1706:06:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 1156:17:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC) 1089:18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC) 411:Military aviation task force 254:Military history WikiProject 2814:You do not understand what 2289:Have you read the article? 1548:Do you see this link here: 970:to articles that need them. 909:Featured content candidates 3377: 3361:WikiProject Japan articles 3331:WikiProject China articles 3250:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3166:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2967:Taiwan media reported that 904: 819:project's importance scale 800:Template:WikiProject Japan 679:project's importance scale 519:project's importance scale 496:Template:WikiProject China 319:Referencing and citation: 3287:16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 3152:09:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2941:04:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2919:07:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2503:07:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 2486:03:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 2470:07:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2092:Foreign Policy Initiative 1844:Nationalism and Prejudice 1622:Merger or rename proposal 843: 834: 816: 713: 672: 621: 554: 512: 445: 409: 380: 277:military history articles 239: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 1754:I am trying to avoid an 1006:Japanese Knowledge (XXG) 946:Good article nominations 3162:External links modified 2573:, namely your original 650:International relations 641:International relations 613:International relations 385:Associated task forces: 330:Coverage and accuracy: 2733:中国战机年初一应对外国军机日本政府保持沉默 1508:"control" vs "monitor" 882: 831: 803:Japan-related articles 499:China-related articles 406: 363:Supporting materials: 291: 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 2975:JJCS's "press report" 2711:What do you mean by " 881: 830: 568:WikiProject East Asia 405: 290: 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 3231:regular verification 2445:by IP:54.199.176.255 1004:an article from the 986:Japan-related stubs. 764:relevant discussions 105:No original research 3221:After February 2018 2236:How about the PRC? 2202:Potsdam Declaration 2110:; ChannelNewsAsia: 1767:be appreciated. -- 1127:Liang's refutation: 1116:Liang's refutation: 1105:Liang's refutation: 1016:unassessed articles 768:lists of open tasks 758:, please visit the 352:Grammar and style: 305:for B-class status: 3275:InternetArchiveBot 3226:InternetArchiveBot 2436:disruptive editing 992:requested articles 983:Improve and expand 975:Pages for Deletion 959:Godzilla Minus One 883: 832: 588:East Asia articles 407: 292: 259:list of open tasks 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3251: 2860: 2828: 2791:original research 2780: 2755: 2678: 2623: 2593: 2571:original research 2548: 2468: 2370: 2334: 2198:Cairo Declaration 2194:Cairo Declaration 2138: 2023: 1928:this edit summary 1901: 1577:Columbus Dispatch 1349:comment added by 1159: 1142:comment added by 1074:Anti-Chinese bias 1034: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1021: 941: 940: 837:Ryukyu task force 791: 752:-related articles 744:WikiProject Japan 689: 688: 685: 684: 600: 599: 596: 595: 529: 528: 525: 524: 476:WikiProject China 424: 423: 420: 419: 416: 415: 376: 375: 365:criterion not met 354:criterion not met 332:criterion not met 321:criterion not met 263:full instructions 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3368: 3285: 3276: 3249: 3248: 3227: 3120: 3114: 3059: 3053: 3007: 3001: 2915: 2909: 2908: 2854: 2822: 2774: 2749: 2672: 2617: 2587: 2542: 2535:press Conference 2500: 2494: 2462: 2415: 2409: 2364: 2328: 2299: 2293: 2268: 2262: 2229: 2223: 2149: 2143: 2055: 2017: 1992: 1986: 1985: 1895: 1661:reason: Already 1654:above discussion 1361: 1158: 1136: 967:requested images 903: 902: 845: 805: 804: 801: 798: 795: 788: 786: 779: 738: 733: 732: 731: 722: 715: 714: 709: 698: 691: 661: 660: 657: 654: 651: 630: 623: 622: 617: 609: 602: 590: 589: 586: 583: 580: 563: 556: 555: 550: 538: 531: 501: 500: 497: 494: 491: 470: 465: 464: 463: 454: 447: 446: 441: 433: 426: 392: 382: 366: 362: 361: 355: 351: 350: 344: 340: 339: 333: 329: 328: 322: 318: 317: 296: 279: 278: 275: 272: 269: 268:Military history 248: 241: 240: 235: 228:Military history 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3376: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3291: 3290: 3279: 3274: 3242: 3235:have permission 3225: 3179:this simple FaQ 3164: 3118: 3112: 3074: 3057: 3051: 3005: 2999: 2948: 2917: 2913: 2906: 2905: 2498: 2492: 2478:Tiffany M-F Lee 2447:or the version 2439: 2413: 2407: 2392:Tiffany M-F Lee 2318: 2297: 2291: 2266: 2260: 2227: 2221: 2147: 2141: 2106:; NYDailyNews: 2057:Daily Telegraph 2035: 2005:I removed this 1994: 1990: 1983: 1982: 1932:personal attack 1924:Tiffany M-F Lee 1911:Tiffany M-F Lee 1887:I removed this 1885: 1866: 1846: 1769:Iloilo Wanderer 1752: 1736:Iloilo Wanderer 1624: 1584:Financial Times 1510: 1488:Iloilo Wanderer 1408: 1367: 1344: 1303: 1277: 1259: 1204: 1184: 1165: 1137: 1096: 1076: 1039: 876: 802: 799: 796: 793: 792: 782: 734: 729: 727: 704: 658: 655: 652: 649: 648: 615: 587: 584: 581: 578: 577: 544: 498: 495: 492: 489: 488: 466: 461: 459: 439: 390: 364: 359: 353: 348: 342: 337: 331: 326: 320: 315: 276: 273: 270: 267: 266: 230: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3374: 3372: 3364: 3363: 3358: 3353: 3348: 3343: 3338: 3333: 3328: 3323: 3318: 3313: 3308: 3303: 3293: 3292: 3269: 3268: 3261: 3214: 3213: 3205:Added archive 3203: 3195:Added archive 3193: 3185:Added archive 3163: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3104: 3094:54.199.176.255 3073: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 2979:54.199.134.208 2947: 2944: 2922: 2921: 2911: 2902: 2899: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2810: 2797: 2794: 2787: 2740: 2730: 2729: 2727: 2725: 2723: 2721: 2720: 2718: 2716: 2710: 2694: 2691: 2688: 2685: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2516:54.199.134.208 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2458: 2456: 2454: 2453:The points are 2452: 2442: 2438: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2402: 2317: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2234: 2040:54.199.203.158 2034: 2031: 2029: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1988: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1884: 1881: 1865: 1862: 1845: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1825: 1780: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1728: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1658: 1657: 1623: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1509: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1407: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1366: 1363: 1340: 1339: 1302: 1299: 1276: 1273: 1257: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1203: 1200: 1183: 1180: 1164: 1161: 1095: 1092: 1075: 1072: 1038: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1009: 996: 987: 979: 971: 962: 939: 938: 930: 923: 914: 913: 912: 901: 900: 896:A-class review 892: 875: 874: 869: 864: 859: 853: 850: 849: 841: 840: 833: 823: 822: 815: 809: 808: 806: 740: 739: 723: 711: 710: 699: 687: 686: 683: 682: 675:Mid-importance 671: 665: 664: 662: 645:the discussion 631: 619: 618: 616:Mid‑importance 610: 598: 597: 594: 593: 591: 564: 552: 551: 539: 527: 526: 523: 522: 515:Mid-importance 511: 505: 504: 502: 485:the discussion 472: 471: 455: 443: 442: 440:Mid‑importance 434: 422: 421: 418: 417: 414: 413: 408: 398: 397: 395: 393: 387: 386: 378: 377: 374: 373: 371: 369: 368: 367: 356: 345: 334: 323: 309: 308: 306: 293: 283: 282: 280: 249: 237: 236: 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3373: 3362: 3359: 3357: 3354: 3352: 3349: 3347: 3344: 3342: 3339: 3337: 3334: 3332: 3329: 3327: 3324: 3322: 3319: 3317: 3314: 3312: 3309: 3307: 3304: 3302: 3299: 3298: 3296: 3289: 3288: 3283: 3278: 3277: 3266: 3262: 3259: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3246: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3222: 3217: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3167: 3161: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3121: 3115: 3109: 3105: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3071: 3063: 3060: 3054: 3048: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3032:54.199.217.88 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3008: 3002: 2996: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2971: 2968: 2963: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2945: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2927: 2920: 2916: 2910: 2900: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2863: 2858: 2853: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2826: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2798: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2778: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2753: 2748: 2744: 2738: 2734: 2714: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2686: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2676: 2671: 2667: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2626: 2621: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2591: 2586: 2581: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2546: 2541: 2536: 2532: 2531:news.sina.com 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2512: 2504: 2501: 2495: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2450: 2446: 2443:This version 2437: 2433: 2419: 2416: 2410: 2403: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2368: 2363: 2359: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2332: 2327: 2323: 2315: 2303: 2300: 2294: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2277:54.199.212.32 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2263: 2257: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2233: 2230: 2224: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2206:54.199.212.32 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2162:54.199.179.22 2159: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2144: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124:The Economist 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2032: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2021: 2016: 2012: 2008: 1997: 1993: 1987: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1894: 1890: 1882: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1863: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1787: 1784: 1779: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1731:Oppose Merger 1729: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1715:Oppose Merger 1713: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1592: 1588: 1585: 1581: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1535:54.201.110.17 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1516: 1507: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1465: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1390:recognized.-- 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1364: 1362: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351:68.46.146.211 1348: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1300: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1274: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1256:The relevant 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1201: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1181: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1162: 1160: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1113: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1102: 1099: 1093: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1073: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1036: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1008:into English. 1007: 1003: 1002: 997: 994: 993: 988: 985: 984: 980: 977: 976: 972: 969: 968: 963: 961: 960: 955: 953: 948: 947: 943: 942: 937: 935: 934: 928: 927: 921: 920: 915: 910: 907: 906: 905: 898: 897: 893: 890: 889: 885: 884: 880: 873: 870: 868: 865: 863: 860: 858: 855: 854: 852: 851: 847: 846: 842: 838: 829: 825: 824: 820: 814: 811: 810: 807: 790: 787: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 751: 746: 745: 737: 726: 724: 721: 717: 716: 712: 708: 703: 700: 697: 693: 680: 676: 670: 667: 666: 663: 646: 642: 638: 637: 632: 629: 625: 624: 620: 614: 611: 608: 604: 592: 575: 574: 569: 565: 562: 558: 557: 553: 548: 543: 540: 537: 533: 520: 516: 510: 507: 506: 503: 486: 482: 478: 477: 469: 458: 456: 453: 449: 448: 444: 438: 435: 432: 428: 412: 404: 400: 399: 396: 394: 389: 388: 383: 379: 372: 370: 357: 346: 343:criterion met 335: 324: 313: 312: 311: 310: 307: 304: 303: 297: 294: 289: 285: 284: 281: 264: 260: 256: 255: 250: 247: 243: 242: 238: 234: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3273: 3270: 3245:source check 3224: 3218: 3215: 3168: 3165: 3075: 2972: 2964: 2949: 2923: 2892: 2742: 2736: 2712: 2509: 2440: 2319: 2076:The Guardian 2036: 2028: 2004: 1977: 1886: 1867: 1847: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1785: 1781: 1764:User:Liang1a 1753: 1730: 1714: 1645: 1625: 1599: 1596:instructions 1595: 1570:PBS Newshour 1562:The Diplomat 1554:The Guardian 1531: 1511: 1444: 1409: 1385:Yes but the 1368: 1345:— Preceding 1341: 1331: 1330: 1324: 1323: 1304: 1290: 1289: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1255: 1205: 1185: 1166: 1138:— Preceding 1133: 1130: 1126: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1077: 1058: 1040: 1037:Introduction 1011: 999: 990: 989:Create some 981: 973: 965: 957: 952:Vinland Saga 951: 944: 931: 924: 917: 916: 908: 894: 886: 780: 760:project page 748: 742: 736:Japan portal 674: 634: 571: 514: 474: 468:China portal 300: 252: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3028:Ta Kung Pao 3024:Ta Kung Pao 3020:Ta Kung Pao 3016:Ta Kung Pao 2995:Ta Kung Pao 2449:by Oda Mari 2430:Warning of 2322:WP:Not News 2100:Arutz Sheva 1756:WP:Edit War 1675:Phoenix7777 1412:Phoenix7777 1280:countries. 954:(TV series) 888:Peer review 756:participate 341:Structure: 199:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 3295:Categories 3282:Report bug 3144:Wikiabcpqr 3130:Wikiabcpqr 3079:Wikiabcpqr 2950:An editor 2569:It's your 1830:Brian Dell 1698:Brian Dell 1690:Brian Dell 1608:Brian Dell 1604:points out 1520:Brian Dell 1518:sources.-- 1469:Brian Dell 1441:Brian Dell 1428:Brian Dell 1426:regions.-- 1392:Brian Dell 1275:Neutrality 1182:References 766:, and see 3265:this tool 3258:this tool 3006:negotiate 2575:synthesis 2510:His edit 2414:negotiate 2378:Doyna Yar 2298:negotiate 2267:negotiate 2228:negotiate 2148:negotiate 1870:Doyna Yar 1815:Mztourist 1718:Mztourist 1372:Doyna Yar 1262:Doyna Yar 1241:Doyna Yar 1208:Doyna Yar 1001:translate 579:East Asia 542:East Asia 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3271:Cheers.— 2952:Oda Mari 2852:Oda Mari 2820:Oda Mari 2772:Oda Mari 2747:Oda Mari 2670:Oda Mari 2615:Oda Mari 2585:Oda Mari 2540:Oda Mari 2476:denied". 2460:Oda Mari 2432:Oda Mari 2362:Oda Mari 2326:Oda Mari 2316:Proposal 2084:France24 2015:Oda Mari 2007:addition 1893:Oda Mari 1889:addition 1758:over at 1365:Legality 1347:unsigned 1202:ADIZ map 1152:contribs 1140:unsigned 926:Pictures 919:Articles 302:criteria 233:Aviation 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3175:my edit 3113:lssrn45 3052:lssrn45 3000:lssrn45 2907:Ubikwit 2493:lssrn45 2408:lssrn45 2292:lssrn45 2261:lssrn45 2222:lssrn45 2142:lssrn45 1984:Ubikwit 1851:Liang1a 1799:Liang1a 1600:tracked 1467:ADIZ.-- 1239:Thanks 1144:Liang1a 1081:Liang1a 936:: None 929:: None 922:: None 862:history 785:Refresh 677:on the 573:defunct 547:defunct 517:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2666:WP:SYN 1974:WP:NOR 1652:. See 1646:Rename 1632:Ansett 1573:refers 1449:Ansett 1387:Sansha 1227:Ansett 1013:Assess 899:: None 891:: None 707:Ryukyu 205:scale. 126:Google 2926:UNDUE 2914:見学/迷惑 2898:case. 2816:WP:OR 2580:added 2242:Hcobb 2180:Hcobb 1991:見学/迷惑 1936:Bbb23 1564:says 1556:says 1332:Vesey 1307:Hcobb 1291:Vesey 1189:Xevix 1169:Xevix 1061:Ylinn 1047:Xevix 998:Help 933:Lists 872:purge 867:watch 794:Japan 776:Reiwa 750:Japan 702:Japan 490:China 481:China 437:China 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3148:talk 3134:talk 3119:talk 3098:talk 3083:talk 3058:talk 3036:talk 2983:talk 2937:talk 2933:STSC 2857:talk 2841:talk 2837:STSC 2825:talk 2804:talk 2800:STSC 2777:talk 2752:talk 2701:talk 2697:STSC 2675:talk 2655:talk 2651:STSC 2620:talk 2605:talk 2601:STSC 2590:talk 2561:talk 2557:STSC 2545:talk 2520:talk 2514:put. 2499:talk 2482:talk 2465:talk 2396:talk 2382:talk 2367:talk 2347:talk 2343:STSC 2331:talk 2281:talk 2246:talk 2210:talk 2200:and 2184:talk 2174:See 2166:talk 2044:talk 2020:talk 2011:this 1954:talk 1950:STSC 1940:talk 1915:talk 1898:talk 1874:talk 1855:talk 1834:talk 1819:talk 1803:talk 1773:talk 1740:talk 1722:talk 1702:talk 1694:talk 1679:talk 1665:and 1636:talk 1612:talk 1587:says 1580:says 1539:talk 1524:talk 1492:talk 1473:talk 1464:ADIZ 1453:talk 1432:talk 1416:talk 1396:talk 1376:talk 1355:talk 1325:Ryan 1321:it. 1311:talk 1284:Ryan 1266:talk 1245:talk 1231:talk 1212:talk 1193:talk 1173:talk 1148:talk 1085:talk 1065:talk 1051:talk 964:Add 857:edit 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3239:RfC 3209:to 3199:to 3189:to 2960:one 2956:one 2766:or 2668:. 2434:'s 2358:one 2139:-- 2132:SMH 2116:BBC 2065:AFP 1762:. 1648:to 1225:). 813:??? 778:6) 772:JST 669:Mid 509:Mid 176:TWL 3297:: 3252:. 3247:}} 3243:{{ 3150:) 3136:) 3116:| 3110:? 3100:) 3085:) 3055:| 3038:) 3003:| 2985:) 2939:) 2929:OR 2903:-- 2843:) 2806:) 2703:) 2657:) 2607:) 2563:) 2522:) 2496:| 2484:) 2411:| 2398:) 2384:) 2349:) 2295:| 2283:) 2264:| 2248:) 2225:| 2212:) 2186:) 2168:) 2145:| 2134:: 2130:; 2126:: 2122:; 2118:: 2114:; 2102:: 2098:; 2094:: 2090:; 2086:: 2082:; 2078:: 2074:; 2067:: 2063:; 2059:: 2046:) 2013:. 1956:) 1942:) 1917:) 1876:) 1857:) 1836:) 1821:) 1805:) 1775:) 1742:) 1724:) 1704:) 1681:) 1638:) 1614:) 1568:, 1560:, 1541:) 1526:) 1494:) 1475:) 1455:) 1434:) 1418:) 1398:) 1378:) 1357:) 1313:) 1268:) 1247:) 1233:) 1214:) 1195:) 1175:) 1154:) 1150:• 1087:) 1067:) 1053:) 956:, 949:: 911:– 774:, 705:: 391:/ 231:: 156:) 54:; 3284:) 3280:( 3267:. 3260:. 3146:( 3132:( 3096:( 3081:( 3034:( 2993:( 2981:( 2935:( 2859:) 2855:( 2839:( 2827:) 2823:( 2802:( 2793:; 2779:) 2775:( 2754:) 2750:( 2699:( 2677:) 2673:( 2653:( 2622:) 2618:( 2603:( 2592:) 2588:( 2559:( 2547:) 2543:( 2518:( 2480:( 2467:) 2463:( 2451:? 2394:( 2380:( 2369:) 2365:( 2345:( 2333:) 2329:( 2279:( 2244:( 2208:( 2182:( 2164:( 2042:( 2022:) 2018:( 1952:( 1938:( 1913:( 1900:) 1896:( 1872:( 1853:( 1832:( 1817:( 1801:( 1771:( 1738:( 1720:( 1700:( 1692:( 1677:( 1656:. 1634:( 1610:( 1537:( 1522:( 1490:( 1471:( 1451:( 1445:s 1430:( 1414:( 1394:( 1374:( 1353:( 1309:( 1264:( 1243:( 1229:( 1210:( 1191:( 1171:( 1146:( 1083:( 1063:( 1049:( 995:. 839:. 821:. 789:) 781:( 681:. 576:. 549:) 545:( 521:. 265:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index