| Revision as of 03:10, 16 September 2012 edit173.76.45.254 (talk) →controlled and administered by Japan?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:12, 31 December 2024 edit undoCyberdog958 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers3,699 edits Closing requested move; not moved using Move+ |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{notice|1=This talk page is for discussion of the ] article; any discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands should be taken to ]. Thank you for your cooperation.}} |
|
{{Notice|1=This talk page is for discussion of the ] article; any discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands should be taken to ]. Thank you for your cooperation.}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Senkaku Islands sanctions}} |
|
|
|
{{Notice|1=This page has ''']''' under the guidance of the ] in regards to '''the title of this article'''.}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{notice|1=This page has ''']''' under the guidance of the ] in regards to '''the title of this article'''.}} |
|
|
|
{{ITN talk|15 June|2008}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=B|importance=High|geography=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan |class=B |importance=high }} |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|geography=yes|ryukyu=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject China |class=C |importance=high }} |
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan|importance=mid }} |
|
{{WPEASTASIA|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=mid }} |
|
{{WikiProject Islands|class=C}} |
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Copied multi|list= |
|
|
|
|author=Pete Hunt |
|
* {{Copied multi/Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=392117104|to=East China Sea|to_diff=392118220|to_oldid=390322926}} |
|
|
|
|title=China and Japan's Misplaced Pages War |
|
* {{Copied multi/Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}} |
|
|
|
|org=] |
|
|
|url=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu?page=full |
|
|
|date=2013-02-05 |
|
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130212053624/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu?page=full |
|
|
|archivedate=2013-02-12 |
|
|
|author2=] |
|
|
|title2=China and Taiwan clash over Misplaced Pages edits |
|
|
|url2=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49921173 |
|
|
|org2=] |
|
|
|date2=2019-10-05 |
|
|
|accessdate2=2019-10-05 |
|
|
|archiveurl2=https://web.archive.org/web/20191004233045/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49921173 |
|
|
|archivedate2=2019-10-04 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
{{ITN talk|15 June|2008}} |
|
|
|
|from1 = Senkaku Islands |
|
{{Refideas|free=yes|f1=, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain.}} |
|
|
|
|from_oldid1 = 392117104 |
|
{{reqphoto|collapsed=yes|in=Japan|in2=China|in3=Taiwan}} |
|
|
|
|to1 = East China Sea |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config|archiveheader = {{aan}}|maxarchivesize = 150K|counter = 9|minthreadsleft = 4|minthreadstoarchive = 1|algo = old(21d)|archive = Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive %(counter)d}} |
|
|
|
|to_diff1 = 392118220 |
|
{{Archives| auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3|units=weeks |index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
|
|to_oldid1 = 390322926 |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from2 = Senkaku Islands |
|
== Nixon-Sato Summit in November 21, 1969 == |
|
|
|
|from_oldid2 = 389961837 |
|
|
|to2 = Senkaku Islands dispute |
|
|
|to_diff2 = 389961806 |
|
|
|to_oldid2 = 389961263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
It is crucial to understand and to be added to the main article content that Okinawa (including the areas of the ] of 24°-26° and ] of 122°-124° of ] that encompasses Diaoyu Island or Diaoyu Islet) was bilaterally decided to be reverted to Japan by the Joint Communique between US and Japan in 1969. See http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/docs/19691121.D1E.html (] (]) 18:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)) |
|
|
:I don't see any mention of Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands in that document. Since it's not there explicitly, we would need a reliable source (and by that, I do ''not'' mean a Japanese government/advocacy source) that said that Senkaku was built into that agreement. And, in any event, this would almost certainly belong in ], not this article. ] (]) 23:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Refideas|free=yes|f1=, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain.}} |
|
Thanks. It would be reasonable to add a link of ] to this article because they are geographically inter-related with the governance on the areas of ]. (] (]) 01:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
|
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands, result of the debate was not move, 27 July 2007 |
|
Unfortunately, Okinawa or ] belong together as the Americans defined this geographical context after World War Two and then reverted these islet(s) to Japan, and indisputably caused the ]. (] (]) 14:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands, result of the debate was not move, 24 September 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → ?, result of the debate was not move, 4 January 2012 |
|
:Okinawa or ] are clearly seperated with Diaoyu/Senkakus Island by Okinawa trough geographically, rather it shares the same marine shelf with Taiwan. And it is never governed by Ryukyu Kingdom historically. So it will be misleading by mixing Diaoyu Islands with Ryukyu Islands, or by saying it's geographically inter-reated.] (]) 06:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands or Pinnacle Islands, result of the debate was no consensus, 28 December 2013}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
In fact, guess what, there was a state called ] that existed till late 19th century. Eventually, the dispute of Senkaku islands will produce the question of the legal status of Ryukyu islands, which is detrimental collectively to the Japanese southward intention in the region, national strategy of China, political slogan of Taiwan and American democracy in Asia. (] (]) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
| algo=old(21d) |
|
|
|
|
|
| archive=Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive %(counter)d |
|
== Edit request on 3 March 2012 == |
|
|
|
| counter=13 |
|
|
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize=100K |
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft=5 |
|
The correct name should be Diaoyu Islands |
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
] (]) 19:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{old move|date=24 December 2024|destination=Diaoyu Islands|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1265229546#Requested move 24 December 2024}} |
|
|
|
|
{{ESp|n}} Please read the sanctions at the top of the page and the conclusion of the RFC on article naming two sections above. Thanks, ] (]) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The islands are owned by a Japanese family. They have been under Japanese (or American) control for well over 100 years. There was little if any Chinese control or occupation before that. There are at least three possible names for the islands. As a matter of course the name used by the occupying power (whether legal or not) should be preferred. So Senkaku must be preferred to Diaoyu. If there is no agreement, I would suggest that the name should be Pinnacle, as that represents neither contesting power, and could be regarded as a neutral name.] (]) 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:"''As a matter of course the name used by the occupying power should be preferred''"—no, the WP:common name is preferred, as "Xisha Islands" is not used for the Paracels. ''GotR'' <sup>]</sup> 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes there are many inconsistencies in Misplaced Pages titles when it comes to the disputed islands... EX. Liancourt Rocks page - Korea occupies and administers it now but it's not titled as Dokdo(Korean name) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:01, 19 August 2012(UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I second this notion that the name Pinnacle Island be used. Or better yet, a mix alphabetic/numerical code be given to any/all disputed lands/islands on wikipedia. Also, inconsistencies in Misplaced Pages titles must be addressed. In most articles regarding East/Southeast Asian topics, where there is a Japanese equivalent/comparison, the Japanese names always takes precedent, and the actual original article is then later merged with it under the Japanese name. I don't wish to come across as anti-japanese, as this is most likely of a historic reason, as the west was first exposed to East/Southeast Asian culture through the interaction with the Japanese, but it needs not to be on wikipedia.] (]) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is a historically problem of WW2 when Japanese occupied many unlawful land of mainland, and returned by US as a politicall exchanging properties.] (]) 06:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Naming of the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|hatting this just to stop discussion per the Arbcom results and later RfC; however, anyone uninvolved is welcome to uncollapse if you think I'm wrong here}} |
|
|
I'm certainly no expert on the political status of the Islands, but would using the more neutral "Pinnacle Islands" be more appropriate as opposed to Senkaku/Diaoyutai? |
|
|
] (]) 19:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:This has been discussed a lot. There have been numerous renaming discussions, but they've all failed. And "neutrality" governs article content, not titles. The most common name in English is what decides what articles are called. E.g. "Bill Clinton", rather than "William Clinton". ] (]) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::How do you determine "most"? Number of google hits on a search? Number of times a term is used in the media? On both accounts, "Diaoyu Islands" beats out "Senkaku Islands" or "Pinnacle Islands." If what you've said is true, then this article needs to have its title changed.] (]) 23:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please note: this issue may not be discussed currently. Due to long term tendentious editing on the article, the article participants went to ]. After a few editors were blocked/banned, we had an RfC to determine the name. The consensus was that Senkaku Islands is the correct name. Based upon the discretionary sanctioning power authorized by the ArbCom case, ] stated that the naming issue may not be discussed again until 2013. We literally may not discuss the issue until then. Until that point, I suggest all interested participants review the archives (look in the top right hand side of this talk page) and see why the consensus was to use the current title. ] (]) 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, the US, which is officially neutral in the dispute, refers to the islands as the Senkakus. ] ] 07:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is English Misplaced Pages, not American Misplaced Pages. Like Japanese language means what most Japanese people speak, Chinese language means what most Chinese people speak, English language, I think, is the language most English people speak, American have no rights to define English.--] (]) 09:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 2012 Incidents == |
|
|
|
|
|
There should be a reference to the ], the discovery of which has caused the recent flare-up of territorial disputes. Ownership of the Gas Field could potentially make the nation trillions of dollars. |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else think that the 2012 incidents section is too long, violating ]? Should this be moved, perhaps, to ]? The events don't really have anything to do with the islands themselves--rather, it seems more about the political problems around ownership. ] (]) 05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree with Qwyrxian. Also, ] should be moved to ]. As there are already duplicated descriptions in both article, They can be simply deleted from this article.―― ] (]) 07:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I could live with a sentence in the "Dispute over island ownership" section that said something like, "Since 2010, there have been a number of incidents related to the islands that have caused significant diplomatic tensions between the parties, including the ] and the ]." Note that the latter would probably point to a section on the dispute article, not to an independent article (since I don't think the events are notable enough individually to be an article, and I don't think we'd be justified in linking them per ]). ] (]) 08:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Political problems around ownership" would seem intrinsic to the topic itself. If the Dutch were still maintaining a claim on Manhattan, wouldn't that be part of the Manhattan entry? -] (]) 04:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not if we had a separate article entitled ]; in that case, the dispute information belongs at the other article. Just like here. The idea is that since the topic is quite large, it made sense to split off the political dispute from the more "factual" geographic claims that appear here. ] (]) 05:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', I would support merger of both the articles regarding the ongoing dispute. A summary of the article should be left on this article, and the dispute article should be considered a ].--] (]) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Agree''' that the territorial dispute material should be moved to the ] article while this article should be about the geography. --] (]) 04:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' Incident sections should be merged into the dispute article as this is a geography article. ] <small>(])</small> 15:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Agree''' the incidents should be summarized here though; maybe have two "Main article:"s under Dispute over island ownership header. The article itself cannot be merged, it's very long. --] (]) 06:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Agree''' moving the current events out of the article to the ] is probably appropriate. --] (]) 02:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Since the discussion has been going on for a while, and there seems to be a fairly solid consensus in favor of removal, I'll remove the two sections once the full protection is over. The dispute article already contains much of the same info, so I don't think there's anything new to merge. ] (]) 03:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Addition to section on 2012 flag-raising incidents == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Following this existing sentence |
|
|
:Chinese protestors overturned Japanese-branded cars and smashed windows of Japanese-themed businesses. |
|
|
add the following: |
|
|
:Xu Wenguang, program director of ], drew attention to the contributions that the Japanese had made to the Chinese language and called the protests "cheap means of displaying your intolerance"; in an appeal to their patriotism, he asked the protestors to "strive to help this country gain respect from others." |
|
|
|
|
|
Cite the following as the reference: |
|
|
:<nowiki>{{cite web| url= http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4138| title=And the greatest Japanese export to China is... | date= August 21, 2012 | work= ] | publisher= ] | first= Victor |last=Mair| authorlink= Victor H. Mair| accessdate=2012-08-24| quote= To all those people calling for the boycott of Japanese products and those using this opportunity to attack the property of your own countrymen. You need to know that the biggest Japanese export to China isn't cars, or television sets or manga. It's language.... If you love this country, then strive to help this country gain respect from others instead of using cheap means of displaying your intolerance.}}</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. ] (]) 09:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:My opinion is that this should not go into the article. The article already talks too much about the politics, and if we were to start adding ''commentary'' on the events, it would get even worse. Should we then quote politicians who talked about the riots about the events related to the island? What about people commenting about those comments? I just think this would lead to bloating. However, I'm willing to continue to discussing it. Note, though, my proposal in the section above, to move ''all'' of this section to the dispute article. ] (]) 03:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Some artilce have good explanation for claim by many countires in South China Sea so maybe OK to give "commentary" with reference.] (]) 12:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with Qwyrxian. If you open the article up to political commentary then every viewpoint would have to be addressed, which would lead to a bloated article. ] (]) 09:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Owner name spelling == |
|
|
|
|
|
I changed the spelling of the owner's name to reflect the one used in the article from BBC, but now I noticed that the original spelling was taken from a Japanese paper in English. So maybe they know better? Does someone know which source is better? --] (]) 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:The owner is Kunioki/國起. Hiroyuki/弘行 is Kunioki's brother. Hiroyuki was the owner of Minamikojima and Kitakojima until 2002. ] <small>(])</small> 17:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Purchase of islands == |
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest that the Japanese government buying the islands has not "nationalized its control". It is merely purchasing them from the Kurihara family.] (]) 09:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request on 12 September 2012 == |
|
|
{{collapse top|As I already said, we are literally not allowed to discuss a title change on this article until 2013. Anyone continuing to do so can be blocked under the Arbcom sanctions described at the top of the page.}} |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
The naming of the article is Biased, for disputed topic. it should be addressed as both Diaoyu Island and Senkaku. |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 02:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ESp|n}} It's clear that there is a longstanding dispute over the title of the article. It's not clear how this title was decided on, but it will take more than a suggestion of bias in the naming to get a change. —''']''' (]) 02:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not only was it a long process (multiple RfCs, mediation, and eventually an Arbcom case), as a result of said Arbcom case and the ruling of a neutral admin, we may not discuss the title of the article until 2013. ] (]) 03:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The title is biased. It needs to be changed right now. If I changed the title of the Hawaii article to "Japanese Hawaii", it would be changed right back. However, the Japanese seem to be allowed to unilaterally decide the name of these islands on Misplaced Pages. There is obviously some sort of payoff going on to have the Misplaced Pages administrators make that decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't an option. The title needs to change right now. It is blatantly offensive, racist and provocative. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Not going to happen for the reasons already given. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
I think the title should be changed to the English name. The English name is not disputed by either party and cannot be "wrong". Every referenced content should be allowed and non-reference content should expressed in a neutral way that does not offend anyone. I always thought Misplaced Pages was neutral. But looking at the way the disputes are settled by a committee (no guarantee for qualification) and certain authors who have more power than others, I start to think Misplaced Pages is just another subjective biased half knowledge portal. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Asian Characters in Opening Paragraph == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know who owns these islands and to be honest I don't really care. What I do know is that because of the number of different character sets in the paragraph it took me about 6 attempts to read the first 4 lines. Interesting and informative though this detail is, couldn't everything in brackets be moved into the infobox for the sake of clarity? |
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: |
|
|
Without those characters, it is impossible to discern the tones of the Chinese transliteration. They are necessary to even know how to pronounce the name of the Diaoyu islands (referred to in the article title as Senkaku, which is incorrect and illegal). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I really think Wade-Giles is unnecessary. I mean, no political entity or organisation has used Wade-Giles since the 1950s. Both mainland China and Taiwan, in addition to various UN departments, and various NGOs use ]. The Wade-Giles in the lede takes up a large chunk of space, and it really isn't helping readers at all. --] | <small>—] ] ]</small> 10:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I agree entirely. Wade-Giles isn't used at all anymore, and its use on Misplaced Pages baffles me. Chinese characters and pinyin are sufficient. However, the characters and pinyin definitely need to remain, to make the pronunciation clear. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The Wade-Giles were added quite recently by . It should be removed. According to the ], "''a non-Latin alphabet ... should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration''" and "''If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph''". So the non-Latin alphabets and pinyins should be included. ―― ] (]) 10:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I removed the Wade-Giles. If the pinyins are incorrect, please correct them. ―― ] (]) 11:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The article is highly biased and has ignored a lot of historical facts == |
|
|
|
|
|
The History section of the article is highly biased and a lot of actual historical evidence has been ignored. Clearly the creator of that section biased towards Japan. The section gives the impression that the islands belongs to Japan in the first place until oil reserve was discovered then Chinese started to claim it. |
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, Japan took the islands when they scored a victory in 1895. Long before that, islands was part of China. I am not trying to say who the islands belong however the following article reflects a more object view on the issue. Please add a section "China-Japan Ownership dispute" with following contents. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Since 1970 the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Japan have all put forward bold sovereignty claims over the islands, which are equidistant from Taiwan and the southwestern tip of the Ryukyus. According to Chinese sources the first mention of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is in a 15th-century document now held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Early sources tended to mention only the islands’ location on the voyage to the Ryukyus from China, but by the 17th century Chinese sources clearly named the maritime boundary between the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and the Ryukyus as the Heishuigou (‘Black Water Trench’), an area of high turbulence which we now know marks the edge of the continental shelf. In 1720 Xu Baoguang, the deputy Chinese ambassador sent to confer the royal title upon the Ryukyuan king, collaborated with the local literati to compile the travelogue Zhongshan Chuanxin lu (Record of the Mission to Chusan), which demarcated the westernmost border of the Ryukyuan kingdom at Kume-jima south of the Heishuigou Trench. Deputy ambassador Zhou Huang likewise identified Heishuigou as the boundary in 1756 and later the envoy Li Dingyuan noted the practice of sacrificing a live goat or pig when convoys crossed the trench. In the late 19th century the reformer Wang Tao, who had had experience of travelling in Europe, responded to the Japanese annexation of the Ryukyus by referring to Japanese sources which listed the Ryukyus as a separate country in 1670. He argued that even though the islands were vassals of both China and the Japanese state of Satsuma, the former relationship was more formal; the conquest of an inner tributary (Ryukyus) by an outer tributary (Japan) of China was a cause for outrage. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In contrast Japan’s argument largely ignored the historical position put forward in Chinese accounts. Claiming that the uninhabited islands were not occupied by any power, or terra nullius, Japan annexed the islands in 1895 shortly after its victory in the Sino-Japanese War. Japan claimed that the islands were ‘discovered’ in 1884 by Fukuoka merchant Koga Tatsushiro, who then applied to lease the land from the Japanese state. At the time, however, the interior ministry noted that it was still unclear as to whether the islands belonged to Japan, especially as there was detailed knowledge of the islands in Chinese and Ryukyuan writings, making Koga’s claims of ‘discovery’ difficult to substantiate. Nonetheless a Cabinet decision in 1895 ruled that the islands should become part of Japan, which provided the basis for their inclusion in Japan’s territories under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 that concluded the Second World War in Asia, but at which neither China nor Taiwan were present. |
|
|
|
|
|
:From the Chinese perspective there is little substance to Japan’s claims that the islands were not ‘occupied’, given that a fine distinction exists between ‘uninhabited’ and ‘unoccupied’. Sources suggest that there are graves of Taiwanese fishermen on the island. Although US occupation authorities in Okinawa administered the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands from 1945 until 1972 and used them as a training base, the US government did not see the transfer to Japan of the right of administration over the islands as equivalent to the transfer of sovereignty, which it insisted was a matter to be resolved by the relevant parties. Realising that such an ambiguity existed, the Okinawa Legislative Assembly, still under US control at the time, passed a resolution in August 1970 which declared the islands to be part of Japan and its claims were backed up by the then foreign minister Aichi Kiichi in the National Diet. In the meantime Taiwan issued an official protest, followed before the end of the year by similar complaints voiced by official Chinese media. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::None of this is appropriate for this page. You can't use this talk page to argue what is or isn't true, or whose claims are or are not correct. This page is only for suggesting changes to teh article, which must be done based on reliable sources, not your own personal opinions/research. ] (]) 04:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== controlled and administered by Japan? == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an uninhabited island. I thought no one's in control of it right now. Why does this article say it's controlled by japan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives| auto=yes |search=yes |title=] (]) |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=31|units=days}} |
|
::It is controlled by Japan because 1) Japanese patrol ships have never allowed any ships unauthorized by Japanese government to enter within 12 nautical miles of the islets; 2) No citizens from other countries have landed on the islets; and 3) there is no dispute in the sovereignty of the islets. |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
<!-- Please type all comments and discussions below this line. Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Illegal and provocative title == |
|
== Change the name == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<del>The name should be Diaoyu islands. When you use the Japanese name it is not neutral. ] (])</del> 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
The name used in the title of this article is illegal and provocative. It is the Japanese name for the Diaoyu islands. |
|
|
|
: Is the Diaoyu Islands really any more neutral from an international perspective? Ultimately, Japan controls the islands, so imo its easiest to stick with the current name. ] (]) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::<del>It is more neutral. The islands should be known by their Chinese name. ] (])</del> 15:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The fact that Japan administers the islands is the reason their name is on the article. If that changes in the future, then the name on the article will change to reflect that. --] (]) 16:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ok, according to you if we should use the name used by which ever country administers the island, how about we start with renaming the Paracel islands to Xisha islands. Since you have suggested that we should name islands according to which country administers the island, you can start renaming all the articles of disputed territories to the name used by the countries administering them. |
|
|
::::I agree Senkaku is not neutral, and seems to give connotations that these islands belong to Japan, when this is actually a disputed territory. This should be renamed to something more neutral regardless if it being occupied by Japan or not. ] (]) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The fact that Japan administers the islands is not in dispute. As for disputed territory, that exists all over the world, but there is typically someone that administers it regardless; it is exceptionally rare when there is disputed territory and nobody administers it, like the ]. --] (]) 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::regardless of administration ] prevails always in all matters as it is a core pillar of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This is not only because the actual rulers of the islands, a more important reason is that "Senkaku Islands" has long been the common name for these islands in the English-speaking world, well before China first made its sovereignty claim over them in 1971. In fact, the Chinese government itself officially referred to them as the Senkaku Islands prior to the 1970s. ] (]) 14:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 24 December 2024 == |
|
Japan have no justification for claiming the islands, so using their name is incorrect and causes offence to all Chinese. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
This racism and pro-Japanese bias needs to be fixed. Use both names or a neutral name. |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' Consensus to not move the article is present. <small>(])</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 04:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
It is no surprise that this bias is present, given the Admin linked at the top of the talk page is "Nihonjoe", who is clearly pro-Japanese. A pro-Chinese admin also needs to be appointed to balance this obvious bias, or a neutral party appointed. |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Diaoyu Islands}} – An indicates that "Diaoyu Islands" has superseded "Senkaku Islands" in terms of usage. ] (]) 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Waiting until 2013 is not an option. Fix it now. If the article was unlocked, I would fix it myself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''', looking at the graph more carefully , it's pretty spiky and not currently demonstrative of a long term trend. It's also not clear what type of media is being represented here.The islands still also remain under Japanese sovereignty and control, which also counts against changing the name. ] (]) 02:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' i skeptical regarding the name change, because unless a nominator quoting Chinese media, most media sources whenever in Japan or overseas, still calling it "Senkaku Islands" in respect of Japanese control of islands. ] (]) 03:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' – Current administration of the islands is Japan. --] (]) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''{{snd}}Google Ngrams results are not definitive, but even if they were, the trend is too recent and close. If you adjust the smoothing to 20 and beyond, Senkaku once again overtakes Diaoyu. <big>]]</big> 21:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
