Talk:Senkaku Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Violation of NPOV[edit]

There's no problem with the name Senkaku Islands, a name in which I am in favor of. However, the way the name was changed is clearly in violation of NPOV, the basic fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It was changed without permission, without vote, and without consent out of nowhere, and we expect people who read this article to believe that the islands are really the property of Imperial Japan. Clearly, Wikipedia is descending to the level of what Japan, is doing to their children in elementary schools. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See the "Requested move" section above. Also please read WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, it wouldn't be surprising to say that new editors would come to such judgements, especially since many of them would have no idea as to what earlier discussions have been about. Surely when a new editor turns up, the last thing on their mind would be to read through the talk page archives? Perhaps consider creating a FAQ for this page, similar to the one at Talk:Kim Jong-un. --benlisquareTCE 05:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
An FAQ would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have read through the discussion prior to, and I do not need that explanation. Actually, the change was based on a technicality to change the name to Senkaku Islands, a name in which most editors were in favor of. So the article retains its neutrality and NPOV if there was democracy, rather than disagreement. Dark Liberty (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The suggestion of an FAQ is an excellent one. A tide of POV pushing swirls around all the articles relating to disputed islands in the East and South China Seas (pun intended), and it would be a good idea to clarify accepted editing practice for newcomers to the topic/Wikipedia. The question is, where to start the discussion? I suspect here is too parochial so perhaps the existing Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea would be as good a place as any to make a start but there may be better places out there. Ideas? ► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that an FAQ is necessary here WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request change to neutral name[edit]

Why is Dokdo called the obscure name "Liancourt Rocks" and yet this page is called "Senkaku Islands"? Shouldn't it be called the equally obscure "Pinnacle Islands"? Please apply all principles fairly. Either change this page to "Pinnacle Islands" or change "Liancourt Rocks" to Dokdo.

Please see the discussion archives in the header box above as to why there is no consensus to move the page to "Pinnacle Islands". ► Philg88 ◄ talk 18:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Pro-Japanese always win on Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you're unhappy with the article's name but it's not pro-Japanese, it's Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not "pro" anyone.  Philg88 talk 11:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering Japan acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands prior to annexing the Diaoyu islands and that Japan only has administrative control, the original name of the island should be represented. Wikipedia should not be biased toward US interests. At the moment, anytime someone quotes wikipedia to me I just laugh.....its just as corrupt and propaganda driven as US corporate media.

Furthermore, Japan acknowledged these islands were in dispute with China when their leaders met in 1972. The new book on the Senkaku/Diaoyu island crisis by Yabuki Susumu (矢吹晋), professor emeritus of Yokohama City University, one of Japan’s most eminent China scholars. The book (written in Japanese) is entitled:「尖閣問題の核心 」(The Core of the Senkaku Issue), and bears a subtitle:「日中関係はどうなる」 (What is to Become of Japan-China Relations). I believe that the book is the fairest and most objective, as well as the most thorough, exposition of the positions of both Japan and China, and–critically–the U.S., on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. At the risk of oversimplifying, I think I can summarize Professor Yabuki’s analysis and conclusions as follows: 1. The Japanese position on the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue is indefensible on several counts, including most fundamentally Japan’s unconditional acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (which required the return of all territories “stolen” from China). 2. The Meiji government’s annexation of the Ryuku Islands (theretofore an autonomous kingdom) in January 1885, within which the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were identified, followed three months later by the Qing Dynasty’s surrender of Taiwan and the Pescadores to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki (ending the Sino-Japanese War) are both mooted by the terms of Potsdam. The islands were and are clearly part of Taiwan, which in addition has the most legitimate claim to continuous use/occupation. 3. The Japanese position that Senkaku/Diaoyu is part of Japanese territory because it was awarded to Japan by the U.S. in the Okinawa Reversion agreement of 1971 is similarly contrary to fact. The U.S. awarded to Japan only administrative authority over the islands, not sovereignty. Sovereignty was specifically not transferred. The U.S. continued to maintain was undetermined between the three claimants and would only be determined through discussion and agreement. (As I noted in the last post, the Obama administration–in a monumental blunder–effectively changed this policy by failing to object to and stop Japanese “nationalization.”) 4. Japanese policy–and particularly public misunderstanding–has been based on the false assertion, uttered by then foreign minister Fukuda Takeo in testimony to the Upper House of Diet on December 15, 1971 that Okinawa Reversion had accomplished the restoration of Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Whether Fukuda misunderstood the issue, or intended to deliberately deceive the country through this testimony is unclear. 5. The Chinese position on handling the territorial issue was, before Japanese “nationalization,” grounded on the 1972 agreement between Prime Minister Tanaka Kakue-Premier Zhou Enlai, when the terms of Japan-China diplomatic relations were determined, to “shelve” the issue–i.e., to avoid any acts that sought to enforce one side’s claim to sovereignty. 6. Yabuki cites his own research and authoritative third party sources to charge that the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs removed from official transcripts of the Tanaka-Zhou discussions that agreement to “shelve” the issue, allowing future Japanese governments to fraudulently claim that the issue was not discussed and that China asserted a claim over the islands. 7. Under the circumstances above, the decision of the Noda government to “nationalize” the islands was a grave provocation, a fundamental change in the status quo, tantamount from the Chinese point of view to aggression and forceful annexation of Chinese territory. An equivalently forceful Chinese response to “balance” the level of its sovereign claim was inevitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerdantResources (talkcontribs) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)