Talk:China Coast Guard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article's table[edit]

What's the purpose of that table which states things that never happened like 'Patrolled and expelled sovereignty infringing JCG ships'? Citing Chinese references as 'Japan's Reaction' is probably wrong as well as it should be named 'Chinese reports of claimed Japanese response'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.176.225 (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Japan's reaction' section is unnecessary and should be removed. STSC (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The credibility of the Chinese official reports is indeed questionable, but the table is ok as it shows the CCG's performance in the disputed waters through multiple sources. lssrn45 | talk 07:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use other sources as citation. STSC (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, remove Japan's reactions. It's a page for Chinese CCG.Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove "Japan's reaction"[edit]

The "Japan's reaction" column in Section 3 is inappropriate in this article about Chinese CCG, and should be removed. STSC (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the table to Senkaku Islands dispute under section Incidents at or near the islands and leave a link to that section here. lssrn45 | talk 07:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to incorporate the content of the table in Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute#Incidents at or near the islands in summaries (not in a table or timeline format). STSC (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to remove Japan's reaction and put them as references. But we should keep the table for recording China exercising administration over waters around Diaoyu Islands. Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree to keep them as references as they do not support the Chinese views that claimed to have "expelled infringing JCG ships". Also oppose removing Japan's reaction only while keeping the Chinese section as most of the sources are from the Chinese gov't which are also primary sources, and some of them didn't reflect the true situations adequately. Anyway, instead of more disputes in this article, I propose to reorganize the table into summaries (not in a table or timeline format) that include conflicts occurred in the disputed waters in the main article, and leave a {{main}} link pointing to that section here. lssrn45 | talk 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This is a page for China Coast Guard. It's justifiable (理直气壮、无可非议) to list China Coast Guard's operations in a timely order. China Coast Guard's primary sources are reliable. We don't see evidence to refute it. However, it's unjustifiable to list Japan's reaction on CCG's page because it's not a page for it.Tiffany M-F Lee (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the Chinese sources are basically POV, I do not think they are as reliable as secondary sources such as news reports from third party medias. For example, there were no third-party sources that proved the CCG had "expelled" JCG ships. It's also POV to say JCG ships have "infringed China's sovereignty" in a Wikipedia article, unless specified that the information was only provided by SOA's website and Chinese media. However if this sentence - "The State Oceanic Administration of China claimed to have carried out the following operations in the waters around the disputed island" is written before the table to notify the readers, it's ok to leave the Chinese operation here alone. Yet I still support incorporating the table into the main article which will be able to present all materials in a fair and neutral manner. lssrn45 | talk 09:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The table should be relocated to the Senkaku Islands' dispute article and the POV language, "Infringement of sovereignty" needs to be removed, especially since Japan currently exercises control over those islands. Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deployments to Senaku/Daiyu Islands[edit]

Propose removing that table, as it would make more sense in history, aside from that the use of English is very poor and does not add to the overall quality of the article. 24.192.250.124 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Saw that you did, and someone moved it back w/o discussion, so I did it. 2600:100D:B126:633F:80C7:9DFE:D3F8:441B (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on China Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on China Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on China Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ensign[edit]

What ensign does the CCG use on its ships? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Coast Guard?[edit]

This isn't the largest. US Coast Guard is the largest with 50000+ personnel SReader21 (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China_Coast_Guard&oldid=1200852601"