Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

中国の立場

しらないひとから恥知らずと罵倒されましたので丁寧な言葉でコメントしますが。中国はサンフランシスコ条約に署名（参加）していませんので、サンフランシスコ条約にもとづくかのようなアメリカの視点で記述してはいけない。日中間にサンフランシスコ条約は関係がない。１）日中共同声明と日中友好条約にふれるべきである２）日中共同声明では「台湾および澎湖諸島」にかんする中国の立場を日本はみとめたのだから「台湾の一部である尖閣を返還せよ」が中華人民共和国政府の見解である。これは台湾の帰属に関する微妙な外交関係を含んでいるのであるから、ろくな資料も読まず感覚的に編集することのないように。英語のお上手なわりにおべんきょうや調べごとがお好きではない五毛党の方もたくさんいらっしゃいますのでご注意くださいませ。敬具あらかしこ。--118.18.245.64 (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)ノートの記述を勝手に削除するひとがいますがやめてください。--118.18.245.64 (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please communicate to this user in Japanese that he needs to have proficiency in English to communicate here? Or that he might be better off at ja:? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and that we don't want conspiracy theory junkists posting here anyway? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Oda Mari gave him an informal warning, which the user proceeded to ignore. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(removed communist conspiracy theory bullshit and personal attacks) --118.18.227.236 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Riveting exposition there, 118.18.x.x (Osaka, Japan). What was your intended goal of calling Oda Mari a "communist party sympathizer"? To make foes? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

From now on, I think we should adopt a policy of deleting all non-English posts. Since a lot of us cannot understand Japanese, such posts would generally be useless. And by the way, Oda Mari has a very pro-Japanese position in this issue (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Just because he has the sense to play by the rules doesn't mean he is a communist sympathizer. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted them before myself. If this were an article about a music group, or a kind of fish, or something else relatively non-controversial, I think we could leave it up until a native speaker sees it. But I'd be willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases, someone who posts here in non-English is not providing us with helpful insight into the article (anyone who was would either be working on their native language's wiki, or they'd be taking the effort to try to get a translation, at least a machine one). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And another one just appeared. Deleted and user blocked. If it's too big of a problem, I can softblock the whole /17 range for a bit, as there doesn't appear to be too much activity coming from it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the same idiot. Maybe block all non-registered users from posting will help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed section and table

Just after the introduction and before the dispute discussion begins, would it be helpful to add a "Geography" section with the following table? Note that Chinese names come first in this table.

Geography

Table of of disputed Islands, Chinese first

Table of of disputed Islands Chinese name Japanese name coordinates Area(km2) Highest elevation(m) Diaoyu Dao (釣魚島) Uotsuri Jima (魚釣島) 25°46′N 123°31′E 4.32 383 Huangwei Yu (黃尾嶼) Kuba Jima (久場島) 25°56′N 123°41′E 1.08 117 Chiwei Yu (赤尾嶼) Taishō Jima (大正島) 25°55′N 124°34′E 0.0609 75 Nan Xiaodao(南小島) Minami Kojima (南小島) 25°45′N 123°36′E 0.4592 149 Bei Xiaodao(北小島) Kita Kojima (北小島) 25°45′N 123°36′E 0.3267 135 Da Bei Xiaodao(大北小島/北岩) Okino Kitaiwa(沖ノ北岩) 25°49′N 123°36′E 0.0183 nominal Da Nan Xiaodao (大南小島/南岩) Okino Minami-iwa(沖ノ南岩) 25°47′N 123°37′E 0.0048 nominal Fei Jiao Yan (飛礁岩/飛岩) Tobise (飛瀬) 25°45′N 123°33′E 0.0008 nominal

Three lines indicate the express POV of Japan, the PRC and the ROC ... and "feasible region" is the intersection of disparate data sets which are undisputed in our article about the Senkaku Islands?

Maybe this is not the way to handle this. Could this be a consructive step? --Tenmei (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the disputed aspects of this section are mirrored at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Dual-name usage in text, captions and table. --Tenmei (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Request edit to "Sino-Japanese co-development on the disputed islands" section

Regarding:

In 1997, a Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement regarding the fishing management and rights of sea area between China and Japan has been reached. It was "entered into force in 2000, the waters of the East China Sea are divided into four jurisdictional zones: (a) undisputed territorial seas; (b) exclusive fishing zones within each country’s EEZ; (c) a shared, intermediate fishery zone within the EEZ’s that straddles a hypothetical median line; and (d) high seas. While the principle of coastal-state jurisdiction applies in the former two zones, the principle of flag-state jurisdiction applies in the latter two. Crucially, with an enlightened view to immunise bilateral commercial fishery rights and related issues from sovereignty-related contestations, the territorial waters adjacent to the islands were excluded from the application of the fisheries agreement. Instead, the extant fisheries dispensation (the 1975 Japan-China Fishery Agreement), which deemed the areas around the islands as part of the high seas, was allowed to prevail.[44]

^ http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/09/30/china-japan-trawler-incident-japans-unwise-and-borderline-illegal-detention-of-the-chinese-skipper/ ANU East Asian Forum, by Sourabh Gupta, Samuels International

I've actually found what seems to be a text copy of that very same agreement http://www.liosgr.com/digitalroppo/jouyakutou/H12jouyaku02.html

It clearly is very different from what is described by this Gupta. For example: 第十四条 １　この協定は、その効力発生のために国内法上必要とされる手続がそれぞれの国において完了した後、両締約国の 政府の間の公文の交換によって合意される日に効力を生ずる。この協定は、五年間効力を有する。その後は、２の 規定に従ってこの協定が終了するまで効力を有する。 ２　いずれの一方の締約国も、他方の締約国に対し、六箇月前に文書による予告を与えることにより、最初の五年の 期間の満了の際又はその後いつでもこの協定を終了させることができる。 ３　千九百七十五年八月十五日に署名された日本国と中華人民共和国との間の漁業に関する協定は、この協定の効力発生の日に効力を失う。

Thus, the 1975 Japan-China Fishery Agreement (the "extant fisheries dispensation" claimed by Gupta) was explicitly stated to have lost its force as soon as this agreement becomes effective.

Also:

第一条 　この協定が適用される水域（以下「協定水域」という。）は、日本国の排他的経済水域'及び中華人民共和国の排他的経済水域とする。

Clearly, the treaty is never meant to have anything to do with territorial waters, only EEZ waters.

Given this, it would seem appropriate to delete this entire passage, and perhaps include a link to either this copy of the agreement or another equivalent. At the very least, the claim can be clearly attributed to be the opinion of this ANU East Asian forum. --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the conflict between your text and the English quote above. Your quote is about EEZ and about the time period it applies? Can you please elaborate? In the English quote it divided the waters into 4 different regions. Only the first one (a) is "territorial waters" with no dispute where the Fishery Agreement does not apply? In sections 6 and 7, it listed the coordinates of the regions and shows that "the areas near the diaoyu/senkaku excluded in this agreement?San9663 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's start with the one easiest to see. According to Gupta, the "extant fisheries disposition", which according to him is the 1975 agreement, was allowed to prevail in certain areas. This would mean the 1975 agreement still has force, but it is explicitly said to have lost its force in the real 1997 agreement's Article 14.3. You don't think that's a big contradiction, and an outright lie? I mean, the line isn't hidden in some other obscure document, but right in a document whose total length was hardly long. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll also say that BTW, I've actually read an English translation of the 1975 agreement (since it is not in Japanese or Chinese, it is not authentic, but should be accurate) Nowhere does it designate any patch as "part of the high seas". In fact, it mentions explicitly in Article 1 that it excludes territorial waters. Take a look at the reference and see if you agree with me, but that's just a side story since the 1975 agreement has lost its force. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gupta is correct that you may reasonably summarize the agreement to saying it establishes B and C. However, there is nothing in the agreement that covers A&D. In fact, in explicitly stating the agreement is only about EEZs in Article 1, it leaves the problem of territorial vs high seas untouched. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

One may also note the rather minimalist official Japanese reply, which says the same thing as I do about the the content of the agreement , though they neglect to mention that the 1975 agreeement is already useless. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(The 1975 and 1997 agreements do not differ a lot?) So you are saying that the Fishery agreement is about certain EEZ area north of these islands, and does not say anything regarding (a) 'territorial waters with no dispute" and (b) excludes these islands and the surrounding. So you are saying that there is basically NO AGREEMENT at all around the islands. While Gupta says 'no agreement' implies "high seas", but you are saying he misrepresented the Agreement by (1) not using the word "implies" (2) whether it "implies" or not is still up to interpretation. Is this what you are saying? San9663 (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not too far off, though it'll be more accurate to say that from Article 1 onwards, the Fishery Agreement explicitly does not cover any territorial waters, disputed or not and regardless of its Lat-Long coordinates. The 1975 agreement had to write "excludes territorial seas", but it is not necessary this time because the very term EEZ has been defined to not include the 12-mile territorial sea under Article 55 of UNCLOS.

Also, "implies" would mean that the agreement itself does suggest what he's saying, though not in so many words. This is, IMO, and in the opinion of the Japanese government (and I suspect the PRC government) untrue.

As for the general idea that without an agreement, disputed territorial seas = high seas, all I can say is that I don't think any government, especially those with disputed territories, will agree with that idea. Even those that are on the "not-in-present-control" side like China over the Diaoyu Islands or Argentina over their Malvinas, since it'll come to bite them in the butt if they ever get control. What they'll do is argue that the chunk of rock is theirs, and accordingly it is their territorial seas, instead of it being "high seas". So IMO it is hardly a valid interpretation, and not by a light year does it deserve to be enshrined in Wikipedia as an approved fact like it is now. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kazuaki Shimazaki, 13 November 2010

{{edit protected}} Please change

"In 1997, a Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement regarding the fishing management"

to

"According to Sourabh Gupta of Samuels International, in 1997, a Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement regarding the fishing management"

because text of source document being referenced is so different from what is asserted it is clearly wrong; details have been added to Article's Talk Page. IMO, adding the requested attribution is a proper, minimal interim measure pending discussion to remove the paragraph entirely.

References cited in support of edit request
References

Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay that can't hurt.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Portal

I'd like to add portal links to all of the involved countries. Would this be controversial in any way? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe -- IMO, this is not controversial. It is not so much an issue of creating or causing controversy; rather, the proposed portal links simply acknowledge an on-going controversy which is already followed by individuals and groups. Compare Talk:Spratly Islands dispute or Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute, both showing multiple protal links.--Tenmei (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial to me, as long as all of the relevant countries are included, of course ;) Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Geography section intro sentences

The previous sentence said that a dispute about the names is a proxy for a larger dispute. Unless there is a reliable source making this claim, then it's original research and cannot be included. Furthermore, I don't even think it's true--it makes it sound like the main public debate is about the names, and that that debate is hiding the deeper territorial debate. But in every bit of research I've done for this and the main article, the actual issue is always portrayed as a territorial dispute, with the name dispute being secondary. That is, this debate is not the same as the Sea of Japan naming dispute. China does not go to international conferences, diplomatic settings, or news reports and argue "These islands should be called Diaoyu!" Instead, they go to these settings and say "These islands belong to China!" Thus, there's no "proxying" going on here. If someone has a reliable source that uses that terminology, then I suppose we can consider including that, although it probably belongs in a section other than Geography. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I also raised this point in the Tenmei's thread in Talk:Senkaku Islands. As you said, the naming is only a dispute amongst we editors and is not actual matter of dispute between China and Japan. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-formatted inline note

Perhaps this format will make it easier to discuss a disputed article in a reliable source? In this format, the MOFA web page is the core of the supporting citation; and redundant clarity or emphasis is provided by: restatement + and see + compare. --Tenmei (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The noun concatenation may help to describe this parsed format. --Tenmei (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

People's Daily (8 Jan 1953): disputed sentence + inline citation support

Disputed sentence: The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953. Inline citation note: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3; retrieved 29 Jan 2011; restatement Representative Office of Japan to PNA, Newsletter #2, November 2010; see Item 3; excerpt, "... an article in the People’s Daily dated January 8, 1953, under the title of “Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation”, made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands"; accord Embassy of Japan in Israel, Newsletter #2, October 2010; see Item 4; and see Suganuma, Unryu (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. University of Hawaii Press. p. 127. ISBN 0824824938. To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan. compare "Why Japan claims the Senkaku Islands". Asahi shimbun. 2010-09-25.; excerpt, "In his book "Gendai Chugoku Nenpyo" (Timeline on modern China), Masashi Ando referred to a People's Daily article dated Jan. 8, 1953, which makes reference to the "Senkaku Islands in Okinawa"; Ando, Masashi (2010). (in Japanese). Iwanami shoten. p. 88. ISBN 978-4-00-022778-0. 「人民日報」が米軍軍政下の沖縄の尖閣諸島(当時の中国の呼び方のまま. 現在中国は「釣魚島」という)で日本人民の米軍の軍事演習に反対する闘争が行われていると報道. 「琉球諸島はわが国台湾の東北および日本九州島の西南の間の海上に散在し、尖閣諸島、先島諸島、大東諸島、沖縄諸島、大島諸島、吐噶喇諸島、大隅諸島など7つの島嶼からなっている」と紹介(新華月報：1953-7) {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help); read Google Chinese-English translation</ref>

Tenmei, there is no "dispute". The translation is totally wrong and the claims based on that translation are also wrong. Yes, there were many Japanese sources that believed it, but so did many American Republican media believed Obama to be a Muslim.

The matter was beyond settled (and you were there when we discussed it) but it appeared User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's loved the false information so much that they'd do anything to present it as truth.

If you would like to convince me of your good faith and editorial integrity, you can start by removing all contents and references associated with that Remin Ribao article. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)