I removed Baekdu Mountain from the template. To the best of my knowledge, none of the governments in the region are disputing any territory administered by any of the other governments. And it's not a situation where there's government in exile. It seems the only thing is that "some Korean groups" have a problem with what the Chinese government has been doing in the territory that it administers. But that hardly makes a territorial dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-02-14T15:14:00.000Z","author":"HongQiGong","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-HongQiGong-2007-02-14T15:14:00.000Z-Baekdu_Mountain","replies":["c-Kusunose-2007-02-14T16:01:00.000Z-HongQiGong-2007-02-14T15:14:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Hong Qi Gong"}}-->
Till now I've been going with whatever is listed on List of territorial disputes#In Asia and the Pacific. If you believe this isn't a territorial dispute, might I suggest changing the list? -Loren 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-02-14T16:45:00.000Z","author":"Loren36","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Loren36-2007-02-14T16:45:00.000Z-Baekdu_Mountain","replies":["c-HongQiGong-2007-02-14T17:01:00.000Z-Loren36-2007-02-14T16:45:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Loren"}}-->
The border between China and North Korea was settled long time ago, there is no so called "undefined" borderline. Only some South Korean nationalists claim it, and they also claim Manchuria, so should we add NE China to this template? This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.8.191 (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-05-25T08:23:00.000Z","author":"76.95.8.191","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-76.95.8.191-2013-05-25T08:23:00.000Z-Baekdu_Mountain","replies":["c-Jusjih-20230627052300-76.95.8.191-2013-05-25T08:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
The template suggests that it deals with East and South Asia, but it also includes Southeast Asia. Perhaps, the template should be renamed Territorial disputes in South Asia and Asia Pacific? __earth (Talk) 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-02-16T14:26:00.000Z","author":"Earth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Earth-2007-02-16T14:26:00.000Z-Inaccurate_title?","replies":[],"displayName":"__earth"}}-->
Wouldn't the template much more meaningful if did not contain any single claim by governments (and "governments") that lack both international recognition and the means to even give an appearance of meaningfully pursuing their territorial claims? In my opinion, the template should be split up into a) (real) international disputes, b) areas with independence/secessionist movements and maybe c) a list of claims of a certain former Japanese colony off the Fujian coast. Yaan 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-07T16:14:00.000Z","author":"Yaan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Yaan-2007-05-07T16:14:00.000Z-clean-up_proposal","replies":["c-Loren36-2007-05-07T16:19:00.000Z-Yaan-2007-05-07T16:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
P.S. why are there single entries for Matsu and Kinmen, but a single one for Taiwan and the Pescadores? Yaan 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-07T16:16:00.000Z","author":"Yaan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Yaan-2007-05-07T16:16:00.000Z-clean-up_proposal","replies":["c-Loren36-2007-05-07T17:16:00.000Z-Yaan-2007-05-07T16:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
I don't know why it is still here, but the dispute has long been settled before Indonesia and the Philippine were granted independence by the Netherlands and United States respectively. Everyone can go over the text, and clearly see that it has been resolved. It's not even inactive, the Philippines recognized Indonesia's sovereignty in the area. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-05-09T03:06:00.000Z","author":"Scorpion prinz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Scorpion_prinz-2007-05-09T03:06:00.000Z-Palmas\/Miangas_Island","replies":[]}}-->
This template lists Assam as being a territory controlled by India and claimed by India. If the only claim is made by India, maybe it should be removed from this template? Or if there is any other reason to have it there, maybe a comment could be added, explaining why it is there. (Stefan2 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-06-03T20:35:00.000Z","author":"Stefan2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Stefan2-2007-06-03T20:35:00.000Z-Assam","replies":[]}}-->
According to the leaders of both countries, there are no territorial disputes between Russia and China. Any claim to the contrary is patently false and designed to stir up trouble. The inclusion of Tuva into this crappy template looks inflammatory. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2007-07-22T23:00:00.000Z","author":"Ghirlandajo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ghirlandajo-2007-07-22T23:00:00.000Z-Tannu_Uriankhai,_Russia\/China","replies":[],"displayName":"Ghirla"}}-->
I notice that the infobox has Taiwan claiming everything that China is claiming. I think this is kind of silly: while Taiwan does claim to be the rightful government of China, does it really enter every territorial dispute that China has? In specific, do they claim Tibet (it says here they do): but Tibet was invaded after the 1948 war. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-01T03:21:00.000Z","author":"Magog the Ogre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Magog_the_Ogre-2008-08-01T03:21:00.000Z-Taiwan_claiming_everything","replies":["c-Timdream-2008-11-24T06:35:00.000Z-Magog_the_Ogre-2008-08-01T03:21:00.000Z"]}}-->
is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states. Since tibet is not acknowledged as a political entity with effective sovereignty in any country, and the only dispute over tibet is between China and the illegal Central Tibetan Administration,I have removed it from this list. The same goes for Xinjiang Helloterran (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-03-14T16:59:00.000Z","author":"Helloterran","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Helloterran-2009-03-14T16:59:00.000Z-Definition_of_\"Territorial_dispute\"_and_Tibet_issue","replies":["c-Stepopen-2009-06-08T01:24:00.000Z-Helloterran-2009-03-14T16:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
First, there is not dispute on Mount Changbai/Mt Baekdu, it's just a claim of some South Korean nationalist groups, its government has never claimed it. Second, Jiandao is in the same situation as first one; onlt some radical Korean nationalists claim it's Korea, not Korean government. They also claim over almost entire North Eastern China because they believe Koguryo was Korean, and all Koguryo land should be Korean, but again, it's not recognized. I think these disputes were added by some Koreans, and they don't belong here. This template is about the official disputes between governments not private groups. Third, There is no dispute on Ryukyu Islands; China has never claimed the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.8.191 (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-05-25T08:13:00.000Z","author":"76.95.8.191","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-76.95.8.191-2013-05-25T08:13:00.000Z-This_template_is_so_wrong,_must_be_cleared","replies":[]}}-->
also, Philippines doesn't claim Sahba, and its attitude is very clear. It's just some Filipino nationalist groups. Please do not bring nationalism to this template; if the dispute is not based on government's official claims, it does not belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.8.191 (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-05-25T08:20:00.000Z","author":"76.95.8.191","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-76.95.8.191-2013-05-25T08:20:00.000Z-This_template_is_so_wrong,_must_be_cleared","replies":[]}}-->
The template shows the Senkaku Islands as Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. However, all other places in this list are shown with just one name. No offence to Chinese, but I propose the removal of 'Diaoyu Islands' from the template.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Talk with me) 04:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-09-21T04:17:00.000Z","author":"Seonookim","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Seonookim-2013-09-21T04:17:00.000Z-Problem","replies":[]}}-->
This page needs a cleanup (1)What are this ’’inactive disputes’’? If a dispute is inactive this means that: There is no dispute in the first place or the dispute was resolved. On this temple we are not dealing with historical disputes. I would suggest that this "disputes" should be removed (2)There is no distinction made between dispute/neclarities/or borders that were never formally agreed. (3)When we are talking about territorial disputes we should emphasize the government's position and not the opinion of some groups or private persons. (4)Paektu and Jiandao - As per 1962 border agreement between China and North Korea there are no disputes. Also we have a centuries old border agreement (1712) between Qing and Joseon states. We don't have a claim from South Korean government either. If there was ever a dispute in this case, this should be mentioned on the historical disputes or removed. (5)Pamir Mountains – as far as I know there was a border agreement between China and Tajikistan (in 2002) and with in Kyrgyzstan in 1999. China resolved all of those disputes with Central Asian countries.[2] Socotra Rock – from the article: In 2013, the PRC clarified their position by stating that China had no dispute with Korea on the issue.[3]. I’m removing Paektu, Jiandao and Pamir from the list. If someone wants to add them back, please, provide a reference from a governmental source, not the opinion of some nationalistic groups or as I saw on this page from Reddit site, from a sub-reddit/subtopic named MapPorn --Daduxing (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-07-26T09:48:00.000Z","author":"Daduxing","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Daduxing-2017-07-26T09:48:00.000Z-Cleanup","replies":[]}}-->
I'm scratching my head as to why is Hong Kong on this list. What is the territorial dispute of Hong Kong being part of China? I know there is a political movement around Hong Kong independence, but I think that is something quite different to the other territorial disputes on this template. Seaweed (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20220728183000","author":"Seaweed","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Seaweed-20220728183000-Why_is_Hong_Kong_on_this_list?","replies":[]}}-->
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.15.17.60