Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bobthefish2 (talk | contribs)
2,027 edits
Line 765: Line 765:
:::::::With all due respect, the Okinawan islands did belong to Japan - they were being administered by the US at the time. And if China was recognising that the Senkakus were part of the Okinawan chain, it's a bit rich for it to packpeddle when Japan regained control of the latter.
:::::::With all due respect, the Okinawan islands did belong to Japan - they were being administered by the US at the time. And if China was recognising that the Senkakus were part of the Okinawan chain, it's a bit rich for it to packpeddle when Japan regained control of the latter.
:::::::There is no assertion that it was the prevailing opinion at the time. An image serves as a snapshot and/or example, nothing more. If people can't find other People's Daily articles from that period, well it's unfortunate, but we will work with what we have. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] ([[User talk:John Smith's|talk]]) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::There is no assertion that it was the prevailing opinion at the time. An image serves as a snapshot and/or example, nothing more. If people can't find other People's Daily articles from that period, well it's unfortunate, but we will work with what we have. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] ([[User talk:John Smith's|talk]]) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: If there is no assertion that it was the prevailing opinion at the time, then the right way of doing this is to note that in either the figure caption or in a related paragraph. As for your claim about the Okinawan islands, I will direct you to the link of a couple of wikipages -> [[History_of_the_Ryukyu_Islands#Post-war_occupation]] and [[Occupation_of_Japan]]. If you disagree with their contents, feel free to start an edit war in those pages.


== Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography ==
== Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography ==

Revision as of 22:05, 5 October 2010

Page move

I have revered the page move from Senkaku Islands to Diaoyutai Islands. While the mover gave the comment "no objections on the move". I see no recent discussion per WP:RM and previous one Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move resulted to stay at Senkaku Islands. --Kusunose 23:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for comments at here and there's no comments for 15 days, plus the link you pointed took place more than 2 years ago. The move is based on WP:COMMONNAME, as shown by # of Google results for those 2 terms and also by various governments not involved in the dispute. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "Citation needed"? A wrong title, I should say. It's unnoticeable. The section title should have been "Page move request". Oda Mari (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My first point was still valid, as I first did ask for more citation before deciding to to add a move request along. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Senkaku Islands is better in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCGN and WP:NCON. For # of Google hits, my search does not agree with your observation, for "Senkaku Islands" [1] (26,400 pages) outnumbered "Diaoyutai Islands" (6,850 pages)[2]. In any case, Search engine test is hardly conclusive; see also WP:NCGN#Search engine issues for problems for foreign geographic names.

WP:Naming conflict suggest some other methods for determining the common name. For reference works, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta uses Senkaku Islands (on Britannca, search for Diaoyutai and Senkaku produses no hits). For international organisations, this is a page hosted on un.org about a report authored by UN. Secretary-General and China; it says "concerning Diaoyu island" in the summary but it uses "SENKAKU ISLANDS" in subjects for classification. I also remember the United Nations Cartographic Section used "Senkaku Islands" in List of Territories but both links are currently not available. --Kusunose 08:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to you the 3 UN links you pointed. The latter 2 links, as you mentioned, are dead and cannot verify your claims. The first you you provided[3], did you even bother to check the contents, not just the title/summary of the pdf, to ensure that it supports your argument? When I click on the link to English on that page,[4] the pdf opens a UN document that supports my viewpoint. You just gave us reference that contradict your own views (facepalm). OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CIA Factbook uses Senkaku Shoto. Select Japan and see the map. And CNN site search result is 255 Senkaku Islands and 155 Diaoyu Islands Oda Mari (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The document itself is authored by China and it naturally supports the Chinese point of view. I'm aware of that. My point is that the UN's indexing/categorization system uses Senkaku Islands over Diaoyutai or Daiyou Islands, recognizes it as a common/standard name. --Kusunose 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand the reason for "not move" is because there is "no consensus". it is precisely because there is no consensus that we need to find a more neutral name. otherwise, unless wiki has taken a "first come first serve rule"?

when compared with Liancourt, this is simply inconsistent. you either call this some neutral name. or switch Liancourt to "Dodko" -- which Korea is administering at this point of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.23 (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all media report we see either Diayou/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu. Why cannot we just name this wiki item Senkaku_Diaoyu or Diaoyu_Senkaku while the debate continues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.24 (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either Senkaku or Diaoyu is controversial. I support the move back to Pinnacle. In fact, not only is Pinnacle more acceptable to the Chinese or those who are neutral, Senkaku is a literal translation of the word Pinnacle. Furthermore, google search/etc do not yield overwhelmingly different results to justify one over another.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.200 (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle Islands

I added a tag as even the title of the article is not npov.andycjp (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suspicious over the claim that the UN endorses Senakaku as a common name. The UN doesn't seem to take a position in this contentious topic. Kusunose, could you provide more details on it?
While the Columbia Encyclopedia filed the article under "Senkaku", it clearly mentions different common names for those disputed islands and I don't see the Columbia takes any position in suggesting which one is more common. In international media, it seems to be more common to use both diaoyu and senkaku interchangeably. BBC simply tag the island with "Diaoyu/Senkaku" on the map[5].
While it is true that the search result, which shows 245,000 results on Diaoyu islands[6] and 47,700 on senkaku islands[7], doesn't mean that diaoyu is more common than senkaku, it hardly supports senkaku is a common name too.
According to WP:Name, the encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalists to claim disputed islands and I don't see either senkaku or diaoyutai will achieve the required degree of neutrality. I suggest moving the article to Pinnacle Islands until there is a other better neutral choice.

--Winstonlighter (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do moves like this, please make sure you are doing it correctly. You moved the article to Pinnacle islands (lowercase "i") when it should have been Pinnacle Islands (capital "I"). You also didn't check the box to move all the talk archives as well, so they became inaccessible after the move. These issues have now been fixed as I've move the article to the correct title and moved the talk archives. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks joe for the help. hope the current title will permanently settle this issue. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it will be solved at least as much as the Liancourt Rocks issue. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please move the article by WP:Requested moves for a controversial move. It is clear the most common name is "Senkaku Islands". The following are the result of Google search:

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Phoenix7777, your move from Pinnacle islands to Senkaku islands seems to be based on a careful choice of search queries. Google results could often be misleading in many ways and hardly provides a way to drive "definitive conclusions".

By searching the most recent news:

  • "senkaku islands": 21 results [8]
  • "Diaoyu islands": 194 results [9]

Similar results can be found in German Google news:

Also on book', which yields different results by using another keywords, compared to your finely-polished keyword "diaoyutai islands":

  • "diaoyu islands": 3440 results
  • "diaoyutai" : 4,700 results.

WP:Name states clearly that the encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality and the Japanese title has been disputed before the move.

Phoenix7777, your revert seems to be based on a misinterpretation of google results. Correct me if i'm wrong. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalists to claim sovereignty and it's hardly productive to stir up a great debate between the use of "senkaku" or "diaoyu" as we can see in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan. It's especially true in an article which is poorly and patchily edited, lack of citations. More efforts are needed for the article itself, rather than the title. --Winstonlighter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've reverted the edit from 203.218.190.89 which seems to spark an unnecessary warring on name ordering. In the article, Japanese name sometimes goes first, some of the goes second and I'm inclined to keep it as a de facto status. Those nationalistic-driven warring won't end up in a dead loop. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Phoenix7777, speaking of which name is common, I would say diaoyudao is used by over 1.5 billion people. Also, just to remind you that senkaku isn't an English word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.30.222 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus to move. kotra (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands — A recent discussion about the controversial use of Japanese name over a disputed land seems to suggest that neither Senkaku and Diaoyu is predominate common name. Search results show that both names are common, in which the Japanese one yields more results in Google Book search, while the Chinese name yields more in Google News and General Google search. The title was hence moved to Pinnacle Islands following the example of Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan, which neglects who administrates and controls the place, but pick up a neutral generally known name. In this case, although the name Pinnacle Islands does not seem to be overwhelmingly popular than the rest of two, it achieves the highest degree of neutrality required by wp:name. An admin (nihonjoe) and I have moved the page to Pinnacle Islands for neutrality, but the move is disputed by a user. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Before posting the formal move request, Please review the following points.
    • Please review the past discussion regarding the article name and discuss how the situation has changed or what evidence newly found since the last discussion. We are not persons of leisure to waste a time every time a new comer came to request a move.
    • Please review "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)" first. Its " Widely accepted name" describes how to resolve the disputed name. It states the use of "Google Scholar" and "Google Books" hits not "Google news" hits. Also " Use English" describes the use of "a widely accepted English name" not a German language.
    • Please indicate the Policy or Guideline that states the title of the disputed place should not be either of the name called by the disputed countries but the least common English name found elsewhere.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi phoenix, this is the first time to start a formal move request for this article. In fact, Nihonjoe and I has moved the article to Pinnacle Islands but you reverted it and insisted to use a Japanese name based on an obviously flawed google result with a carefully polished keyword ("Diaoyutai islands"). As per your previous request, we started the formal move procedure, in which you now described as a process for "persons of leisure to waste a time every time a new comer came to request a move." I lean towards keeping good faiths on you but please spend your time (and our time) more efficiently. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Winstonlighter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually, I only fixed an incorrectly titled move. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to mediate an actual naming dispute by changing the title from the most common name to the least common name. It's like to change "Persian Gulf" to "Arabo-Persian Gulf" by compromising the naming dispute between "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions about the choice of keywords Diaoyutai Islands.
  • Scholar Search on "Diaoyu Islands":709 results[12]
or try without a bracket:
  • Scholar Search on Diaoyu Islands: 1,340.[13]
If you just want a more favorable result, try "Tiao-yu-tai islands". Anyway, the result doesn't seem to suggest a decisive conclusion about which one is more common and that's why there's a proposal for using Pinnacle Islands as a neutral term. --Winstonlighter (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used the name User:OhanaUnited used to move this article in #Page move. I will add "Diaoyu Islands" to my list if you want. 'Diaoyu Islands' without bracket is apparently inappropriate. Anyway your preference is "Pinnacle Islands" which is still the least common name. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Senkaku": 372 000
  2. "Diaoyutai": 252 000
  3. "Senkaku Islands": 47 400
  4. "Diaoyu Islands": 26 500
  5. "Diaoyutai Islands": 6 630
  6. "Tiaoyutai Islands": 2 200
Support: While I'm confused as to how the nominator concluded that the "Chinese name yields more" results, I do concede that there is a substantial divide in usage, and the ratio is not nearly great enough to warrant the selection of the "most common" name. Pinnacle Islands appears common enough, and should prove neutral and effective. Nightw 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating this discussion. However as you may know that Google web search is quite unreliable. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name recommends the use of "Google Scholar" and "Google Books" hits as I posted above. Please explain why you are determined to support the least common English name as the most preferable article title. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: following the link above, here shows the contrast results:
  • [17]"Diaoyu islands": 325 results
  • [18]"Senkaku islands": 24 results.
Or try without a bracket:
  • [19] Diaoyu islands: 561 results
  • [20] Senkaku islands: 387 results.
Enough is said. --Winstonlighter (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I don't think the Google news hits is relevant to the most common English name. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phoenix, it seems to me that you're trying to be a troll with endless tricks. You asked for this formal WP:MOVE, in which you later described as a process for "persons of leisure to waste a time". Once it's started, you asked to postpone. The latest trick is WP:CANVAS policy? I've informed users who recently edited this article, including you and Kusunose who seemed to be in favour of a Japanese name rather than a neutral one. In this contentious topic, I actually expect an endless WP:MOVE would happen if the active users who are involved in this article haven't been informed about this WP:Move. While you're toying with the debate notification and stalking my contributions, you possibly miss two more notifications:
User:Tenmei brought Talk:Eulsa Treaty to my attention yesterday and surprisingly, you're highly active in those naming issues. Frankly, nationalistic driven debate is often exhausting but brings nothing to the community. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Winstonlighter, please refrain from WP:Personal attack. Or you will be blocked from editing. Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
........Speechless. Anyway, adopt WP:IAR if you see anyone is obviously toying with police but don't forget to apply WP:AGF. Let me know when you come up with a new argument or trick. Cheers. --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neutrality in disputes is a value (not the only value); for example, WP:NCGN says In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted rather than select either the Korean or Japanese name for the feature. Similarly, Wikipedia's version of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute has been resolved by naming the city page Derry and the county page County Londonderry. I am commenting rather than !voting because one question involved is whether Senkaku is so predominant in the sources as to make the efforts at neutrality pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The description you cited is in "Multiple local names" section where the use of Google Scholar/Book hits is hard to determine which is widely used in English. Actually, in the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits are below a hundred at that time (May 2007). See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10#Google Book search. Over 10,000 hits are quite reliable to judge which is predominant, so the description is not applicable here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ajax's comment. I know no one that uses the term "Pinnacle Islands", regardless of nationality. Given that Senkaku is the most widely used term (see below) in the English sphere clearly the current title is appropriate. The "it's more neutral" argument is also invalid. Just because something is disputed does not mean that a correct/appropriate name should be ditched. More importantly, people who try to change the article name without forming consensus (especially if they edit war) should be punished according to the vandalism rules. If necessary the article can have semi-protection. More generally, I seem to remember that this has been proposed more than once before and failed. The same question shouldn't be repeatedly asked until the project "gets it right" and the people that voted on it previously aren't around. Finally, why has no notice of this proposal been put on the front page? This needs to be rectified. John Smith's (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More than 10,000 results from Google and 396 results from google book on pinnacle islands doesn't seem to agree that the word is original research. Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple_local_names states that in some cases where multiple common names occur, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view.
Considering the comments in this thread and various google results shown, I do concede the use of senkaku or diaoyu is regarded by some as a support for a particular national point of view. Probably we understand the issue well. Following the example of Liancourt Rocks, Pinnacle is the only neutral choice. --Winstonlighter (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim Pinnacle Islands was original research. Ajax said that it was bordering on original research because it is not commonly used in English these days, apart from academia (and even then it's not the primary term).
You have misinterpreted what NCGN says. The very start of the section you refer to says "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English". The point is that it is easy to see which term is widely used in English - this has been demonstrated above, showing that "Senkaku" is clearly the most common term.
Moreover, you're happy to quote one part but ignore the part that says "the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory" and it recommends a single name. I tried to edit the article to just use one name for the islands and rocks, but you reverted that. John Smith's (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Several of the above opposes hit the nail on the head. Etymology is irrelevant; "Senkaku Islands" is the common English name for these islands and should be used. The argument for using "Pinnacle Islands" seems about as strong as that for naming the article on Frankfurt "Frankfort". Ucucha 14:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would be equivalent to yielding to territorial claims over the Spratly Islands and renaming the page Xisha Islands or whatever they are called in Vietnamese which would be both incorrect and baffling. Senkaku seems to me to be the most commonly used name - no UK newspaper uses anything other than the Japanese. The equivalent Chinese Wikipedia article says that the name came from the British navy in 1844 and the Japanese translation came along in 1900. At that time I suspect no-one really cared what they were called and the dying Qing Dynasty in China would not have made a claim at that time. Now things are different but let's stick with the name that's been used for the past 100 years. Philg88 (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Google Book/Scholar hits

There are many unreliable search results (Google web, Google news) including inappropriate results (without "quote", too many spurious hits like "Diaoyutai" which include Diaoyutai State Guesthouse) are provided above. So I list the Google Book/Scholar hits as described in "WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name".

According to the "WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name", "If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted." So "Senkaku Islands" is clearly a "Widely accepted name". ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:NCGN says

  1. General guidelines says "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
  2. Widely accepted name says one of the methods is to "Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits."
  3. Multiple local names says if "English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.", then "In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view." like Liancourt Rocks.

So, "Senkaku Islands" is a "Widely accepted name" by the method described above 2, no compromise to use the least common name is necessary. To sum up, the votes casted with a reason "neutrality" or "NPOV" are all void. ――　 Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as having something "null and void" base on WP:NCGN; policy is flexible. If all else fails, WP:IAR. If a policy prevents the optimum functionality of Wikipedia (for example, neutrality), then we also have the option of ignoring it (even though it is discouraged, it is possible). You could similarly consider the fifth WP:PILLAR as well, perhaps even WP:BURO and WP:CCC. Also, I'm not going to bother to !vote in this discussion, because I frankly could care little on the title of this article, as long as the content isn't compromised by any major decision made by users. I'd prefer that this article doesn't become an expansion of the circlejerk that we see at Liancourt Rocks, because it's just silly, and nationalism doesn't add any inches to you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benlisquare, thank you for commenting my post above. My word "void" may have been too provocative to you. I apologize if the word offended you. However I still believe the votes with a reason simply indicating the neutrality or NPOV are not productive to this discussion. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that unlike the Liancourt Rocks, nobody uses the term Pinnacle Island. No, I don't say that in absolute terms, but the numbers show that the name's use is extremely rare... so rare that few people will even recognize it. From what I recall, there's already been a vote on the nomenclature before; I'm sure if we look in the archives, we can fish it out. Are we going to have cyclical debates on the dispute every time the passions of fellow netizens are inflamed about the islands? Feel free to apply Wikipedia rules all you want, but let's not construe it to further individual bias.--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:NPOV says

WP:NPOV#Article naming says

  • "If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors."
  • "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources."

This policy explicitly rejects above "neutral title name" discussions. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change the name to "Fishing islands"

Chinese Diaoyutai and Japanese Senkaku are the same (disputed) islands near Tiawan. In fact, the major island is called "Fishing Island" by both side (Chinese:钓鱼岛；Japanese：鱼钓岛）. So, in English we should call it Fishing Islands rather than Senkaku. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiftian (talk • contribs) 06:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea! Let's just arbitrarily change all the names of the places around the world as we wish. I propose we change the islands' name to something more catchy, like Skull Islands or Candy Land. Too bad 鱼钓岛 isn't the way the Japanese people spell Senkaku (尖閣諸島); 鱼钓岛 is how they transliterate the Chinese name (Diaoyutai/钓鱼岛) into their own language. It's funny to see how far some people will go just to expunge Senkaku...--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Leiftian is referring to the Japanese name of the main island, Uotsuri Jima, literally meaning fish luring island, as oppose to the Japanese name of the island group, Senka, meaning pointy place, or pinnacle. Furthermore, 魚釣島 is in fact how the name of the largest island in the island group is written in Japanese Kanji. Before the appearance of the name Pinnacle Islands, the island group would most likely have been referred to by most local visitors whether Chinese or Japanese in some combination of the charaters "魚" meaning fish and "釣" meaning luring or catching or fish, followed by the Chinese word for an island group "群島" or the Japanese word for an island group "諸嶼". Therefore, I believe Leiftian's suggestion of "Fishing Island(s)" dose have some grounds, however as ScorchingPheonix pointed out, the islands has never been widely refereed to as "Fishing Islands" by English speakers hence it will not achieve the recognizability that a title of an article should encompass.

At this point, if I may hijack this section and present my own suggestion for a compromise to the ongoing problem. I propose a separate page with information regarding only the main island of Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai be created This would follow the Derry/Londonderry example and name of article regarding the island group "Senkaku Islands", and the article regarding the largest island in the group "Diaoyutai".

The source of the difference opinions in naming as I see it is that most Pro-Japan medias have always refereed to the island group, as oppose to the single island, when talking about the dispute in order to avoid using the characters "魚" and "釣"(the reasons why are not important to this discussion). While on the other hand, Pro-China medias have mostly focused their attention on the individual island. This resulted in a situation when referring to the island group, the name in majority of the articles or publications that can be found will be using the Pro-Japan name of Senkaku Islands, where as when referring to the main island, the term "Diayutai" will far outweigh the term "Uotsuri Jima" in any search. Therefore we can only conclude the fact this website, by choosing to only host an article about the island group and no article about the "Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai" island specificly, is in and of itself bias and violating neutrality. Therefore I suggest that a separate article be created dedicated to the "Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai" island, and existing content on the current page be split accordingly, or in cases where coverage overlaps, duplicated and perhaps enhanced. (As I am a very inexperienced member, I don't really know how to formally propose a change/addition like this, so if I could get some help from a more experienced member, that would be great.)--Spkg (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography section

I've started a new thread as the old one was getting too confusing.

I have restored the picture that got lost - no idea why. The line about the USN has been removed as I couldn't find anything about that on the internet and in any case I have no idea why it was important - the US has gone on manoeuvres in lots of places around the world! There is a citation for the albatross' nesting ground.

I have moved the text and table around a bit. I think it makes sense to say "there are x islands/rocks...." followed by the table. In that case the table does not need a title, but it is useful to distinguish which are islands and which are rocks. We could have two tables but this looks more tidy at the moment.

Finally, yes I have moved the Japanese names in front of the Chinese ones. This makes more sense as the article title uses "Senkaku", the Japanese name. It was also the format for the names of the islands until recently, apart from Minami Kojima. In the case of Minami Kojima, the text itself had the Japanese name followed by the Chinese name. It was also the name given on the picture of the island. The rocks did follow the Chinese-Japanese name format, but I think for the sake of uniformity it is fair to have them follow the naming format used by the islands. John Smith's (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of vandalism and IP anonymous edit on this article that makes nothing but changing the name ordering. When you start to do nothing but changing name ordering on the caption, table,and each sentence, and even go so far by proposing "Japanese always go first" criteria in name ordering, you surely need to reach a consensus with other editors. "It is what it looks" is practiced here for long time.
Also, when you added a column in a table (island/rock column), make sure you know that by international law, islands are granted with EEZ while rocks not. Whether an islet is island or rock could be a contentious topic but so far I didn't see the governments of Taiwan, China and Japan reach an agreement on this. As you can see, in 2 out of the last 3 islets, they're called -iwa in Japanese and -dao in Chinese. So your edits, along with your endless effort in promoting "Japanese goes first" criteria, have been removed.
Names are used because they're common, instead of favouring any nations. When pushing forward your "Japanese names go first" rule, please prove they're more common. However, Google Scholar and Book doesn't appear to support it. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Winston, why is there one rule for me and one rule for you? You didn't get consensus for giving Chinese names precedence, yet you demand I get it. Where is your evidence that the Chinese names are more common?
You've also completely misrepresented by last edit when you said "when you start to do nothing but changing name ordering". I did not do that, I added a citation, added a picture, moved text, clarified and improved text, added what I thought was a helpful description of the islets, etc. You've reverted all of those.
You've created a problem by jamming all those pictures in there. There is now a block of empty space in the bottom left corner that wasn't there before - it needs to be removed. John Smith's (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As i said many times, when i edited the article based on your last edition[21], there was no name ordering in the text description and no table. When I cleaned up[22] your edition, I've tried hard to keep the existing name ordering as long as it's there. That's why all name ordering in the Infobox, See Also , leading paragraphs has left intact. However, when there's no name ordering, no one would spend time on reviewing each revision to see if Japanese names have reserved a front seat or rear seat.
The vandalism, as we can see in recent days, aims at doing nothing but changing the name ordering, has been reverted by the admin. If you want to push forward a rule (Japanese names go first), discuss first.
By the way, the image you added is kept there but I changed the alignment(from [23]->[24]). The contentious column to state which is rock or island is unnecessary because whether those islets are rock or islands itelf is controversial and no governments have reached an agreement on this.
Lastly, I seriously advised that Aside editing the name order, you should understand more about this contentious topic. 1) know clearly which name is Japanese or Chinese 2) read international law regarding rocks and islets. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there was no table, but whether we needed one is a matter of debate. Also, whilst there were a few examples of Chinese followed by Japanese names, there was in my view a clear preference throughout the article for Japanese names followed by Chinese names.
There was no "clean up" required of my edits to the geography section. Please do not characterise it as such. You were free to make your own edits, but please do not suggest that it was somehow "necessary" or I had otherwise made bad changes.
You are failing to address the point that you keep saying I need to have consensus for having some sort of naming order, yet you undid my edits to impose your own naming order. You have still not told me why you do not need consensus and I do.
I have already shown I noted your point about islands and rocks, which is why I did not reinsert it into the table. At the time I added the detail to the table I thought it was helpful. You don't need to keep mentioning it. Similarly please stop telling me about what I need to know. I have noted your suggestion and that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems to me that the easiest way around this is to bring back the formatting/layout used before I made the original changes. You did not start making changes until I did, so I take it that you saw nothing with things as they stood previously. We can try to work out some sort of consensus to progress things from there. John Smith's (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're bordered on vandalism. Other users have spent a lot of time and efforts at improving the quality of the article since you left a mess there[25]. Efforts have been paid on cleaning up, removing all syntax errors, building a new table from scratch and verifying every single sentence you tried to remove, refining the citations. And now you tried to make fool of everyone that those efforts in cleanup should be wiped out only because you don't like the name ordering. I can't agree any proposal for vandalism. Sorry. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Winston, that is an extremely bad faith comment to make. I have not vandalised anything. As for clearing up my "mess", there was a small error when I left off a close reference tag. That was solved by someone else before you made your own changes, so why do you keep mentioning it as justification for the edits you made alter?
Even given your comment above I'd like to think you are editing in good faith. I even proposed reverting the section in question (not the whole article) to the state it was in previously. You claimed that the claims section should stay as it is unless there was "consensus" as it was stable and had been there for a long time. So why isn't it possible to do this for the geography section? You do not own own this article so we should be able to talk about this. John Smith's (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the whole discussion, you even failed to criticize the quality of the revision you're eager to cancel. I couldn't see anything more unproductive than your proposal to remove a new constructed table, take away refined citations and canceled all copy-editing only because you don't like the name ordering which didn't even exist when I tried to clean up your revision.
Thanks for reiterating that no one owns the article. I couldn't agree more. Please resort to admin for help before you revert. Feel free to start a formal procedure for gathering consensus. While it's a waste of time, I do concede that it's the only way to go. ---Winstonlighter (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, you didn't "clean up" my revision. There was nothing wrong with it that couldn't be tweaked.
I was not proposing that all copy-editing and improved citations be removed. I was trying to suggest a way to reach a consensus by using an earlier version and working from there. You seem to be rejecting this because you're trying to control the article and want to preserve the name ordering as it currently is.
What is seeking an admin's help before doing anything going to accomplish? Are you suggesting that you will revert and edit unilaterally unless you're blocked from editing? Or that if an admin comes along you will bow down to whatever he or she says? And why are you insisting I seek consensus when you admit it's pointless and you make edits all the time based on what you alone think is best? I would seek the views of outsiders, but your conversation with Simon below doesn't bode well. It suggests that you will not accept the views of anyone with a view that could be seen to support mine or you otherwise don't like. You're just talking at people, not engaging in dialogue with them.
So for the benefit of everyone, please explain why is it better to have the Chinese names followed by the Japanese names, instead of the other way around. John Smith's (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Hi John, I fully understand that you're eager to push forward a new "Japanese names first" rule. As your suggestion is beyond the current Wikipedia policies, I advised you to discuss in WP_Talk:NC. While Wikipedia naming convention states clearly that it doesn't favor any national point of view, please don't feel hesitated to discuss it ther if you have a strong reason to overturn this policy.
  2. However, I have to reiterate for the nth times that I've never suggested Chinese names must be placed before the Japanese, or in the other way around. I've proposed that editors shall dutifully respect the name ordering as long as it's there. Don't try to change existent name ordering because it will stir up an endless vandalism and unnecessary competition.
  3. Not convincing? Last week, I requested to revert all those edits that aimed at changing existing name order and placing Chinese names ahead of the Japanese ones. In such case, the admin can simply asked him to respect the existent name ordering. If you start "Japanese name first" rule, endless questions will be asked from different users in an indefinite time. I forsee that it will be even more unproductive than this communication between you and me.
  4. If you revert to an older version which is obviously worsen than the current version, simply because you don't like the name ordering in a particular section, you're abusing revert and you're bordered on vandalism.

--Winstonlighter (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never suggested Chinese names must be placed before the Japanese - Then why did you put all of the Chinese names first in the geography section? John Smith's (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand that you're eager to push forward a new "Japanese names first" rule - I don't want a rule or policy. I want the names to have a single format throughout the article. That does not require a new naming convention. Besides, what is the point of going there? You say yourself it's useless, I guess because you'll ignore any other comments you don't like. John Smith's (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think i got your sentiments now. you believed that everyone should always follow the "japanese names go first" criteria whenever they edited the article, even if the name ordering doesn't exist.
As I said, to respect existent name ordering has been practiced in this article for a few years because it's an easier way to solve any future potential edit conflicts. If you want to push forward a "Japanese-goes-first rule", discuss in WP_Talk:NC. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is trying to push forward "Japanese-goes-first rule" whatever you mean by that. (compare with the somewhat analogous situation on the Kuril Islands, if you don't believe me). The Japanese name should go first because: 1.) Japan de-facto controls the Islands for over 100 years. 2.) most modern English language sources (books, maps etc) use the Japanese name. By doing that we are not taking sides in the Japanese-Chinese dispute as you seem to assume, but rather describe the situation as it currently exist.  Dr. Loosmark  23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Loosmark's comment above. No one wants a rule. We just want common sense to prevail and use the Japanese names first. John Smith's (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table column order

There's lots of hurf durf above which I'm not going to wade through so I'm putting my viewpoint here. If you look at the Kuril Islands article, you'll find that the islands' names are presented Russian version first, Japanese version second, presumably because the islands are controlled by Russia.

Logically, the Japanese names should be presented first in this article. They are controlled by Japan, but China claims them. Regardless of how you feel about the respective countries, it is logical to present them controlling party first, disputing country second.

I may live in Japan but I respect the veil of ignorance -- if the Liancourt Rocks article presented the Korean names first, since Korea is controlling the rocks, I wouldn't mind. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't provide any policy to favor any national point of view. In WP:NCGN, names are used because it's common, not because it's used to favor a point of view of a particular nation. If no decisive conclusion is drawn, a consensus is needed among editors especially in this contentious topic.
You seem to promote a brand-new "Japanese-first" criteria which seemingly hasn't existed in any Wikipedia policy . You surely need to get consensus on this. I reckon that it's a gray area. Please discuss at here for more official guidance. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my comments, particularly the last paragraph. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NCGN again about how to deal with a case when multiple names occur. To overturn the Wikipedia policy which doesn't favour any national point of view, you need to discuss there. However, I'm wondering when you mention liancourt rocks as an example, do you think that the use of English title, instead of Korean or Japanese names, applies to this article too? Anyway, for overturning Wikipedia policy and introducing a new policy to favour a particular national point of view, please discuss in here.--Winstonlighter (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about a "national point of view". The reality of the situation is that the islands are under Japanese administration for more than 115 years. As such, it's pretty clear that the Japanese name should come first.  Dr. Loosmark  12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Loosmark. Having the Japanese names first doesn't take sides in the territorial dispute or show a "national POV". John Smith's (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I learn history right, then Qing Dynasty already gave this islands to Japan through Treaty of Shimonoseki so that mean this islands not own by China anymore and Japan call it Senkaku for 115 years, because of that Senkaku name became common in world since Japanese move around the world even most Asia country call that (except China of course), Diaoyu name only use in China and some small area around them, it not common as Senkaku name (already through the world), then I agree with name Senkaku it not POV name at all, it just common as normal.Tnt1984 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as riveting a tale as it may be, but you're ignoring the argument where China claims that the Treaty of Shimonoseki was an unequal treaty forcefully imposed on China, and was therefore invalid. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True it forcefully because it war, if you say Treaty of Shimonoseki useless because it war that mean all treaty make by Qing Dynasty make by war is all useless that same at Xinjiang, It became one with China in Qing Dynasty war age, yes? Does that not forcefully? Whatever if Xinjiang page say it not belong to China then this page can become Diaoyu I have not objection if it come to that.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to Treaty of San Francisco, et. al. Such treaties did not remove territories occupied by Japan during World War II; they specifically called for all territory gained by Japan through conquest to be revoked. Otherwise, the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan would still be part of Japan, since they weren't wartime aquisitions of World War II; they were aquired prior. Whilst the Treaty of Shimonoseki was the treaty to which the Qing ceded the Senkaku Islands to Japan, it was that exact same treaty, the Treaty of Shimonoseki, that ceded the islands of Taiwan and Penghu to Japan, and allowed Japan influence over Korea. Additionally, your argument regarding Xinjiang is somewhat irrelevant, because one, China was a victor of World War II, and thus was not subject to such treaties, and two, no such treaties were imposed on China regarding its conquest by the Qing in the 17th Century, nor by its reconquest by the Chinese Communists in the 1950s. In other words, if you want territory, you have to win wars, and not lose them; you are simply ignoring the fact that Japan lost the war, and thus had treaties imposed on it following WW2, whilst China did not. I mean, if Japan had actually won the war, no one would even be disputing as to whether Manchukuo and Mengjiang should be part of Japan. It's no one else's fault that Japan lost the war (reality is cruel, I know), so bringing in irrelevant analogies won't really help. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan and Korea riot to their own free people and Treaty against they will but on this Islands not have single man except Japanese soldier to riot and even more China not give single soldier go to retake Islands so you can say Japan still own Islands because China abandoned it in war or don't care about them (useless in their eyes that time?), moreover Japan take it even before WWII and in that war they won fair and square. This Islands is not target by any naval battle in WWII. Yes you must win on any battle for territories and occupation it but I don't see any battle for this Islands. For the one: China can win back mainland but still lost Islands around them because their naval too weak for retake any of them event for Japan who lost the war in sea battle to 1970s (that time naval of China became stronger) but that time is too late for them to retake them because Japan and others already taken back their strength of naval. For the two Chinese Communists is new party not root with Qing so in reality their country not have any relations with Qing country they fight to where there will be their land but I don't see they have any naval battle for islands at all so how they take Islands while they can't even touch it? And don't worry about example it only use to compare anyway.Tnt1984 (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This Islands is not target by any naval battle in WWII" - my point exactly. You have just clarified what I have said. Japan gained the islands before WW2. Japan also gained Taiwan (1895) and Korea (1910) before WW2. However, because Japan lost WW2, Japan subsequently must abide by the Treaty of San Francisco, which cedes the aforementioned territories from Japanese control. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well United States (not Japan) indeed ceding of control over Senkaku Islands but to who? Japan own that before WWII because that it not in Treaty of San Francisco (I looking on it but not have any info that give it back to China) so they still have right to claim it that make big trouble right now while China don't agree with that.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this isn't a forum. Argue on your talk pages as to the status of these islands if you like. However, I will comment that the San Fransisco Treaty does not refer to the Senkaku Islands, so it's a moot point. Now, please, no more on this. John Smith's (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank I will stop it here, guess we go to far for "who right to own".Tnt1984 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"However, I will comment that the San Fransisco Treaty does not refer to the Senkaku Islands" I must beg to differ. John Smith, the topic at hand is most definitely relevant to the San Fransisco Treaty. The article itself notes that Japan made it ambiguous as to what territory it officially revoked. The Senkaku Islands were originally intended to be ceded, however following the notion that the Ryukyu Islands remain territory of Japan, the treaty was altered from its original state, so to speak. The common argument from the point of view of Japan is that the Senkaku Islands are a part of the Ryukyu Islands, however this is definitely disputable and controversial. A geographer can argue that they do not belong in the same island chain, that they aren't even in the same volcanic region, etc. I mean, look at the islands - they branch from Taiwan, and have little, if not no, geographical relevance to the Ryukyu Islands; much of the geography itself has been politicised. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an international court of law, nor are article talk pages a forum. John Smith's (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this forum material? I hope you're not trying to go the easy way out to dismiss something. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't helping improve the article, you're just debating your personal opinion with Tnt and now me. Nothing you've discussed looks like it can work its way into the article. The article is not here to decide who owns what. John Smith's (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winstonlighter's last edit

Winston has inserted some material at the start of one line, stating "As the Treaty of Shimonoseki was nullified when Japan lost the war in 1945". First, this claim is not substantiated with an explanation as to why the treaty was nullified and there is no citation to support that. At the very least we would need more information.

However, even if the Treaty was "nullified", it does not explain why the Japanese, Chinese and Taiwnanese governments disagree as to whether the Senkaku Islands were implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa". "As the Treaty........." suggests that the "nullification" of the Treaty is the reason for the dispute. I see no evidence of that.

Perhaps, Winston, once you can help answer the points in the first paragraph of this comment, you can help me help improve the text by explaining what it is you want to say. With all due respect, I guess that English is not your first language and whilst you are quite able in it, your grammar is not always good enough to accurately convey the point you want the text to make. John Smith's (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan has lost the War; that's the important background for the dispute. It seems that some Japan supporters trying to hide this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STSC (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? How is anyone trying to hide the fact Japan lost WWII? And please explain how that creates the dispute as to whether the Japanese, Chinese and Taiwnanese governments disagree as to whether the Senkaku Islands were implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa". That is the point being made in the article. John Smith's (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently removing a badly phrased sentence now equals with being a Japanese supporter who tries to hide the fact that Japanese lost WWII. I don't even know what to say...  Dr. Loosmark  23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist my words, Mr Smith. Japan has lost the War; it's the major background on the issue. Me and others tried to get a more balanced content, but you and your Japan supporters are trying hard to suppress it. STSC (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith please - I am not taking sides in the territorial dispute. There is far too much lazy language in the article. If you have trouble saying something properly you can ask me or another fluent English speaker to make the point for you. I won't do that if you make personal attacks. John Smith's (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Mr Smith, please excuse my French! So where's my "personal attack" on you then, Mr Smith? Please tell. We can see you and other pro-Japanese editors having a hidden agenda on here. And why is it 'Japan lost the War' is bothering you so much? STSC (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack is repeatedly calling me a "pro-Japanese editor" and having a "hidden agenda". You are criticising me on personal grounds, not my editing. Please stop this. John Smith's (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Smith, opinion on your behaviour is not a personal attack at all. STSC (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It demonstrates a severe lack of good faith on your part, I'm afraid. But if you want to keep denying it, fine. John Smith's (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John or in any other names, your removal on the fact that Japan lost the world war II is obviously disputed. The edit is recovered. Please feel free to rephrase it instead of removing this significant important backrground. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mukden Incident

In the Post World-War II events Section there is the following: 18 September 2010: 79th anniversary of the Mukden Incident, protests held in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Shenyang. with an appropriate reference. This protest was about the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and has nothing to do with the Senkaku Islands. Can we get a consensus to remove it please? Philg88 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Phil. To be honest I would just remove it if I was you, unless someone strongly objects and gives a credible reason for not removing it. John Smith's (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the images say. Why would a protest regarding the occupation of Manchuria have banners saying "日本滚出钓鱼岛！！" (Japan GTFO of Diaoyudao Actual translation. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, no user has the right to refactor my edit)? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the reference needs to be updated to indicate what the protest was about, possibly by removing "79th anniversary..." Is a 79th anniversary significant in China for some reason? John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79? Not really. It just happened to be conveniently a few days after a boat collision incident. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, then the anniversary is fairly irrelevant. Someone can just make it clear that there was a protest in China about Japan holding the captain. John Smith's (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now completely hijacked by the pro-Japanese contributors

It is now poorly constructed with poor English, and full of pathetic attempts to support the Japanese claim. And these pro-Japanese editors aggressively suppress other fair-minded editors who try to re-balance the content. What a shame, it could have been an informative article. STSC (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Consider creating a separate article with more accurate and less-biased information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader81 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Chinese fishing boat incident in the East China Sea

The diplomatic situation that started as an incident between a Chinese fishing boat and several Japanese patrol boats on 9 September 2010, near three way disputed islands in the East China Sea named Diaoyu Islands (Chinese) or Senkaku Islands (Japanese). There are sufficient mainstream article references, three in the NY Times alone, as well as in others. High level ministerial communications between the two countries were broken off at one point, and may still be. This situation at least deserves a separate section in this article, and maybe a separate article should the situation become more prominent. — Becksguy (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a separate article should be created. STSC (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, Spratly Islands and Spratly Islands Dispute is a good example of how a situation like this can (hopefully) be managed to everyone's satisfaction. Philg88 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asking myself, this just very normal event if compare to Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands, where every day countries around capture or even shoot fishing boats of each other like dinner and make same action like this event every time, this event well know just because media made it so hot that all, if make separate article then you can make hundreds or thousands more article with same situation.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear just a normal event. If the dispute is getting worse, the PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy) may just send in the warships. A separate article would monitor the whole event closely. STSC (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the situation is no longer just a fishing boat incident, as it has escalated into a diplomatic, political, and economic dispute between the countries. I'm working off-line to write the new article, and doing my best to keep it as neutral as I can. Does "2010 China-Japan fishing boat dispute" sound good as a title for the new article. I avoided the use of the islands in the title, as that would either result in an impossibly long title, or inherently favor on side or the other (Diaoyu vs. Senkaku). Or maybe the "2010 East China Sea fishing boat dispute". Or "2010 China-Japan East China Sea dispute"? Any thoughts on a title? — Becksguy (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Becksguy - How about "Chinese fishing boat incident in East China Sea, September 2010". STSC (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works also, except stylistically I would prefer the year first: 2010 Chinese fishing boat incident in East China Sea, or as an example, 2009 Singapore Romanian diplomat incident. I've seen more articles that start with the year, although sometimes the year trails, as in United Kingdom general election, 2010. I searched for name conflicts and there are none, either way. I wish there was a memorable tag that goes with the incident, like the 2010 Suzhou workers riot (not to imply any equating of seriousness for any incident). But the most important thing is to keep any POV out of the title. No one disputes that the fishing boat is Chinese, no one seriously disputes that the waters are called the East China Sea, and no one disputes that the incident took place, and in this year, and it implies nothing about the territoriality of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, or the immediate surrounding waters. So it should be considered a neutral title, either way. I will post a link here to the article when created. — Becksguy (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title is fine. We look forward to the article then. STSC (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going for a separate article based on the incident, you might find this useful. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to create the article can it be 2010 Chinese fishing boat incident in the East China Sea please, so that the grammar is correct. Philg88 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the above site has been running slow in the past few days; I should have properly formatted the link.

The translation hosted at Japanfocus.org is based on the original article at 日中対立の再燃 (September 17, 2010, Tanaka News), with follow-ups from Sept 21 and Oct 1. There are also various additional links from within that article as well which are of relevance:

Also related to the fishing boat incident and dispute:

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely biased with false facts.

This article is very poorly written and extremely biased towards the Japanese. Wikipedia should consider rewriting or edit this article. Many of the facts are false. It completely degrades the credibility of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader81 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's just like propaganda material from the Imperial Japanese! STSC (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - nomination to be checked for neutrality

The overall undertone of this article is very much pro-Japanese. It is not consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I would appeal to all pro-Japanese editors please be fair and make this article more balanced and readable. We are not fighting a World War here! STSC (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No such ground at all. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These Pro-Japanese editors just a bunch of bully boys and hooligans! They are a disgrace! STSC (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STSC (talk · contribs), please refrain from WP:Personal attack. Or you will be blocked from editing. Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phoenix666 - Have I directed my comment to you personally? STSC (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

I would like to contend the verifiability of 2 sections and suggest them for removal.

First, PRC map

After checking the source, I have found that

A. There is no evidence suggesting it might have been a classified PRC government map from 1969.

B. The map does not refer to the Senkaku Islands as Japanese territory.

In addition, the exhibit is not itself in English. If you wish, you would have to say the Washington Times considers this to be an evidence. Yet, the neutrality and verifiability of the Washington Times is questionable to say the least.

Second, The People's Daily of PRC

Again, it does not write Senkaku Islands is a part of Japanese territory. It says Senkaku Islands, among others, make up the geographic Ryuku Islands, the same way the term means in English; hence, it lists all major island groups there, including ones outside of Japan's Ryuku Shoto. It does not refer to Japan's Okinawa Prefecture, whose area is actually called Ryuku Shoto. An analogy would be saying Papua and West Papua, 2 provinces of Indonesia, make up a part of the island of New Guinea. That does not mean, however, Papua or West Papua is a part of Papua New Guinea, a separate country. Similarly, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, none of these have truly American names, but they are still parts of the United States. Refer to this page for more information. DXDanl (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the removal of those sections which are clearly misleading. STSC (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to remove these pictures or the sections that discuss them. If the map honestly doesn't refer to the islands as Japanese territory, the text can be tweaked. However, that they are called the "Senkaku Islands" can be taken as recognition of that, given that Chinese newspapers and officials currently refer to the islands by their Chinese name. There is no reason to suspect the Washington Times of inventing this or otherwise being unduly "biased" that means we shouldn't use the image of the map.
As for the newspaper article, there is no assertion that it says they are Japanese territory. But again the use of the Japanese names is significant. John Smith's (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user:John Smith's. These PRC 1953 maps don't include the islands. [26] and [27]. OP says "The map does not refer to the Senkaku Islands as Japanese territory." Then are there any PRC maps in the 50s and 60s refer to the islands as Chinese territory? ROC maps and textbooks in the 50s and 60s say clearly the islands are Japanese territory. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you uploaded those pictures with the proper references, descriptions, etc. John Smith's (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to assume good faith in John and Oda. However, I would also like to point out that for one, whether PRC maps in 50s and 60s refer to the islands as Chinese territory has nothing to do with the outcome of this discussion. Two, if Oda were to upload any picture as a primary source, it would clearly consitute original research. John is aware of such scenario, so please be consistent with how you enforce Wikipedia policies.99.69.163.90 (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names may or may not be significant (see the new Terminology of the Alleged PRC Map section), so we can keep the pictures if you really want to and can put them to better use. The deciding factor remains, however, that the CURRENT SOURCES & CLAIMS are not acceptable for the following reasons.

I. A source should be reliable.

... Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ...
... Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. ...

II. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

III. A source should preferably be in English or have reliable English translation.

... When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. ...

The CURRENT SOURCES are Asahi.com and the Washington Times. Both fail as "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Neither has "Translations published by reliable sources" or, in fact, any translation at all. The CURRENT CLAIMS are not acceptable, because they do not have any source that "directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and [...] appropriate to the claims made". Because the claim that the Chinese (whether the Mainland regime or the government in Taiwan) recognize the contested region to be Japanese constitutes an exceptional claim, it would require "exceptional sources" in any case.DXDanl (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't they reliable or third party? I also don't see it as an exceptional claim, because it refers to the regimes prior to their 1971 declarations. If they suggested they were saying one thing and thinking another, that would be different. But it's far from exceptional that prior to 1970 they didn't actually dispute Japanese control. John Smith's (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's very clear to everyone that Japan did not control the islands from 1945 to 1970, during which both documents allegedly originate.
Asahi is not third-party; it is modern and Japanese. Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? We don't know. As for the Washington Times, it could be considered third-party, but you can look up the article on it yourself regarding reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In addition, neither provides reliable translation. They do not directly nor appropriately support the claims made. If a source or claim does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, then it should not be included, because the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.DXDanl (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't leave big gaps between comments.
Apologies, I meant ownership/sovereignty. The islands were controlled by the US as part of their occupation of Okinawa. They weren't sovereign US territory. But in any case, whether or not the US was in charge was irrelevant. The suggestion is that these documents support Japan's claim to the islands because (allegedly) neither China nor Taiwan had a problem with regarding them as being Japanese.
The Asahi Shimbun is an independent Japanese newspaper. It is not the mouthpiece of the Japanese government (or political party), unlike say the People's Daily in China. So it shouldn't be automatically suspect. As for being "modern", what does that mean? Books are often modern, yet I don't see people ripping references using them out of any articles on that basis. But to be clear, can you identify (again if you already have) the Asahi article you're talking about?
In regards to the Washington Times, you can't use a wikipedia article as evidence - sorry.
If there are any concerns about translations, text can be modified. Concerns over reliability can easily be addressed by saying "the X reported that......." John Smith's (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If a source does not meet guidelines, then its claim should not be included. What you're suggesting is to leave something alone even though the source does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Doing so clearly contradicts the established burden of proof. Without evidence suggesting that a source (especially from one of the parties directly involved) ACTUALLY is third-party AND have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy AND have reliable translation, its claim should not be included.
By "modern" I meant contemporary. Any source from contemporary Japan, Taiwan, or the PRC is suspect, because governmental or not, they're all living and have a direct economic interest in the outcome of the dispute. The link to the Wikipedia article on the Washington Times was provided so that people can go see for themselves all the references regarding the paper's inaccuracy (Alternatively, I could list them all out; the effect would be the same.). Some claim that China or Taiwan "had no problem" with regarding the islands Japanese, yet their documents fail to even show that China or Taiwan actually regarded the islands Japanese in the first place; whether either party had any problems with Japan is therefore irrelevant.DXDanl (talk)
You keep talking about "the burden of evidence", but this is no court and you are no judge - I mean that with all due respect.
This is Wikipedia. If you don't know where "the burden of evidence" comes from, then you shouldn't be editing.DXDanl (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having this map because the picture profile makes it clear where it has come from. If there is an issue with the caption, fair enough. But that is not grounds for it to be removed from the article.
There is NOTHING RIGHT with having this map either. It shows NOTHING in English. That is sufficient grounds for it to be removed. Read this again. No one has any obligation to keep any questionable materials or repair them so that they could comply with Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to keep the picture, you can move it, along with its source the Washington Times and anything else you might want, to an article that is clearly regarding the dispute over the islands. Since this article is on the islands themselves, its contents should support facts about these islands. Anything disputable should not be here.DXDanl (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your assertion that a source must be third party and have a fact-checking reputation, in that case why are you not demanding that the "Japanese" map from the 18th century be removed too? The sourcing is from a Japanese institution and therefore "suspect" in your own words. John Smith's (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I might ask them to be removed too once I get to everything here.DXDanl (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, please stop introducing massive gaps between the comments. Also please don't reply within my comment because it makes it harder for me to reply to you. I know what the burden of evidence is. I am pointing out that as you are no "judge" it is not for you to decide whether that burden is met or not. Of course there is everything right with having this map. It's a useful indication of how the Chinese story about the islands is arguably inconsistent. That it is not in English does not matter, as it can have a caption and a description on the image's page. I see nothing on the verifiability page that says images with only non-English writing cannot be used on the project. If you're still not satisifed you can always raise the issue on the noticeboard to get some outside views. You could also raise the issue of the 18th century Japanese map, as it would seem silly to potentially have one decision about one map and another for the other. John Smith's (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having 2 empty lines between each point of argument amounts to anything massive. Replying to every single points of argument all in one block of text, per your suggestion, would actually make it harder for everyone to keep track of what is going on.
Keep in mind that we're not talking about the arguments for or against the various claims. We're talking about the islands themselves. The caption assumes a "classified PRC map from 1969 that refers to the 'Senkaku islands' as Japanese territory." Does the map suggest it is classified? No. Does it say it is from the PRC? No. Does it say it's from 1969? No. Does it say "Senkaku Islands"? No. Does it say anything about Japanese territory? No. What difference does the map make regarding the islands? No difference at all.DXDanl (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, you keep saying this or that shouldn't be removed. I don't care as long as it's not included. As I have said before, however, no one is obligated to do the move or rephrasing instead of a removal.DXDanl (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding this so-called "classified PRC map", I don't think the person adding the image has met the WP:BURDEN of proving what they claim that image to be. All the image shows is a map, titled 尖阁群岛, and a few of the islands. Just by looking at the image, we do not know that the map is governmental; we do not know the year it was published, and we do not know the actual source of the image, as they are not shown on the image. We also do not have a copy of the full map. Assuming that it is so because it is claimed so according to a Washington Times article does not meet WP:V. Now, if the full map was given, then we wouldn't have such a problem; but by only providing this small portion, we cannot confirm that it was made by the PRC government (anyone could have published it), or that it was made in 1969, and relying entirely on one article seems a bit dangerous to me, as any journalist can claim an image to be something. We cannot assume that one newspaper source is correct. Additionally, given that it is claimed that the map is "classified", then it does not belong to { {PD-China}}; Wikipedia is not Wikileaks, and classified documents are not public domain. If (and since authenticity cannot be firmly established) the map is not what the article claims it to be, then given that the date is unknown, it can be argued that either the portion is copyright of the Washington Times, or that the entire map is copyright of the original creator. Either way, the image would be a copyvio. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the map may be classified does not stop it from being in the public domain. As far as I can see it complies with the PD-China tag (administrative). John Smith's (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is still not verifiable, you haven't addressed that. You are unable to prove that the image is what it is claimed to be. As an analogy, I could go down to a nightclub or my university, strip a drunken woman nude (and I swear they are everywhere on Tuesday nights), take a photo of everything excluding the face, and claim her to be Angelina Jolie. But without the face, how can I verify that this naked girl is Angelina Jolie? Similarly, without specific details, how can we verify the authenticity and source of this map? If the image was a high-res scan of the full map, then we might be able to check for its authenticity. It might list a publisher and date down the bottom, or if not, would leave other clues regarding its origin. But only a tiny portion of the map? That's just like leaving out the most important part of a scandalous celebrity photo - the face. Without the face, the photograph has little value (I mean, how many people know the exact nipple shape of Angelina Jolie so that they can recognise her right on the spot?) The image of the map portion, by no means, is verifiable in the same manner. Publishing a map isn't difficult if you have the correct machinery and techniques, and the PRC government isn't the only entity that can do these things. And don't give me this "Washington Times is an independent paper" rubbish - newspapers aren't immune from factual errors, and there was an incident some time ago where an article cited a claim from Wikipedia itself. Anyone with a GPA above 3.0 can transfer to a course offering a degree in Journalism. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have in my discussion with DXDan. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. And please don't remove the image until this discussion has been finished and it's clear what consensus on the talk page is. I say that because Oda Mari also objected to fit being removed. John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're reversion edit summary doesn't quite cut it; there's no consensus for it to remain in the article, let alone be removed. I could argue in the exact opposite manner, since consensus works both ways. Also, you can't just claim something that it is something as you have done, that's not how WP:V works. I repeat, the image you have provided fails to meet verifiability standards; it would be synonomous with finding a telegram that says "HEIL HITLER" on it, cropping the sides that provide sender/reciever details, and claiming that this was a telegram from Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt. You have not proven its content. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can draw a map like that with my CorelDRAW software. STSC (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the removal of the image from this article which is clearly not verifiable. STSC (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to remove the image.  Dr. Loosmark  10:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such guideline to require the verifiability of the Primary source referenced by the Secondary source as long as the Secondary source meets the requirement of WP:RS. If it were the requirement of the edit, we would virtually unable to cite the Secondary source. Such an insistence is equivalent to insist the PRC map was forged by the Secondary source. Please provide an evidence for such an insistence. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. If it is proved to be a hoax, I will willingly agree with the removal. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Policy states that "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." The reliability of the primary source is being challenged here; as discussed above, it's up to you to prove that the map wasn't the one I drew with my CorelDRAW and was reliably published. STSC (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you admitted the reason of the removal is the PRC map was forged by Washington Times by CorelDRAW. Unless you prove your insistance, I will never permit the removal of the map. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try! I have been asking you to prove the map (the primary source) has been reliably published. You're avoiding my question, aren't you? STSC (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind John Smith, Loosmark and Phoenix7777: "Gaming the system is an improper use of policy and is forbidden." WP:GAME. STSC (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have been told a number of times already to stop with your bad faith accusations.  Dr. Loosmark  12:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Loosmark, I've just found out (from reliable primary sources) that you were blocked for 1 week for personal attack recently? Huh? STSC (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24 hours - 1 week was deemed too long. Please address the issues - don't make it personal. John Smith's (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want another edit war like the one between Benlisquare and John. I'm prepared to compromise if it indicates "Washington Times claims that it is a classified map from PRC". I think DXDanl has already done that on the image. The main text should also reflect this. STSC (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why in the inclusion of images is so controversial, but I do note that calls to remove imagery is consistent with Chinese government policy. Wikipedia's text, for example, is not blocked on the mainland but images are, such that mainland users wouldn't see the images anyway without using evasion tools. Youtube and Facebook, of course, are blocked completely. --Bdell555 (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that it there not for mainland see anyway, it there for entire world see it. That why everyone fight with each other just to put/remove it in/from there.Tnt1984 (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we're okay with the map already ... ?DXDanl (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bdell555, I hope you're not accusing me (or anyone) of being a communist dog funded by the party here. What are you implying? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology Used in the Alleged PRC Map

For the curious, the map uses both Chinese and Japanese terminology.

尖阁群岛 is Chinese; the Japanese would be 尖閣諸島 or 尖閣列島. 群岛 is a term in Chinese, not in Japanese at all. You may check this using WWWJDIC. Similarly, 諸島 and 列島 are defined in Japanese, but used in Chinese usually only to refer to Japanese territory or terminology.

黄尾屿 and 赤尾屿 are Chinese terms only; in Japanese, they are respectively 久場島 and 大正島. It's very clear in the Japanese version of this article.

鱼钓岛 is usually a Japanese term; the Chinese term is 钓鱼岛. Interchanging them, however, would not be grammatically or historically incorrect as the first two cases would be.

Both sides use the term 北小岛.DXDanl (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to "China Claim"

Please add these. Feel free to edit to fit into existing pages.


Counter to Japan's claim

1. When Japan claimed to have incorporated the islands On 14 January 1895, the First Sino-Japanese War was almost over. Japan had crushed the Qing Navy in Weihaiwei, and marched into Korea and Lushunkou (near Dalian, Liaoning) by November 1984. While there were small skirmished after November. Japan were just expanding the spoil while negotiating for the formal treaty of Shimonogeki. The fact that the Treat was signed in April does not change the fact that the Diaoyu islands were taken during the war, after Japan's major victories 3 months ago.

2. Letter of thank you from ROC in 1921. ROC recognized Taiwan as part of Japan as a result of the Shimonogeki. Of course it recognized Diaoyu as part of the islands ceded and hence belonged to Japan during those years.

Japan's own map in 1985

1. In (三国通覧図説 / 林子平 図並説) the book called "General Illustrations of Three Countries by Shihei Hayashi in 1785 and its accompanied maps, the Diaoyu Islands were colored in red, same as those of China, while Ryukyu (Okinawa) was colored in Yellow. This confirms the Japanese view then that these islands belonged to China, not Ryukyu.

2. In the same book, the islands of Ogasawara (Iwo Jima) were labelled un-owned, while Diaoyu was labelled Chinese. This contradicts the Japanese claims that Diaoyus were un-owned in 1885. Since Japan had the concept of "un-inhabited" and "un-owned" back in 1785 but labelled the Diaoyus as something else.

source: 1. http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/look-out-for-the-diaoyu-islands/ 2. http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2010/09/17831785-ryukyu-map-by-japanese.html 3. http://record.museum.kyushu-u.ac.jp/sangokutu/page.html?style=a&part=2&no=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research, and I'm not sure what points you're trying to make anyway. John Smith's (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really original. All discussed in the linked pages. The existing wiki pages listed some points but are incomplete. I think what wiki does is to try to get as many points for each side as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The points you made are crystal clear and very valid. The pro-Japanese bullies would throw at you with anything including kitchen sink just to suppress your finding. STSC (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's, his points are, as follows: (not introducing my own opinion, just clarifying what I think he is trying to say)

  1. the islands were taken before the signing of the treaty
  2. the argument within the article about the "letter of argument" isn't quite solid, because the ROC recognised Taiwan as part of Japan, and the islands belonged to Taiwan.
  3. the 1785 map had the islands in the same colour as China
  4. the Japanese argument of terra nullius is not solid becuase another map shows Iwo Jima as terra nullius, yet shows the Senkakus as belonging to China. He argues that since the concept of terra nullius was around then, the map shows that the Senkakus were not terra nullius.

I'll stay out of this one for now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(1. the islands were taken as the spoil of the war.)

We cannot use blogs as source. Oda Mari (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not suggested that blog to be used as a source. The blog links were provided just as an indirect link to various other sources. The blog referred to the book written by a Japanese Cartographer in 1785, and published research by a professor of Kyoto University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.120 (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which Japanese cartographer? You mean Hayashi Shihei, someone who lived at the opposite end of Japan from China? John Smith's (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"John", if you don't read Japanese, you can use google translate or just keep silent on this issue. Otherwise, go search the academic websites in Japan you will know Hayashi's book. BTW, where is the "opposite end of Japan from China"? Which end of Japan is the non-opposite end? Hokkaido? or Kyushu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to censor me, please. Hayashi was a member of the Date Clan, not exactly near China. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need a reliable source for PLA J-10 intercept JSDF planes

I have searched about PLA J-10 intercept JSDF planes in both Chinese, English and Japanese, but could not find any reliable source. The article I have found appears to be fabricated by Chinese nationalists... Could anyone supply a reliable source (preferably both in Chinese and English, at least from Chinese official source)? Otherwise please delete this part since it could not be verified. 76.10.141.117 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything for this, except copies of the Wikipedia entry and posts on forums - possibly also using this. I have added a citation request tag to formally call editors' attention to this. John Smith's (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is very dubious. I could find nothing. As far as I googled, F-2 fighters were never stationed at Naha. It was F-4 and replaced with F-15 on March 13, 2009. [28] I suggest to remove the information. It's not too late to restore it when the RS is found. Oda Mari (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the information. Please find a RS before restoring it. Oda Mari (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese names for the islands

The article currently uses forms like "Uotsuri Jima" etc, but that's not the Japanese name, which is Uotsurijima (or Uotsuri-jima, if you insist). The Japanese word for island is shima, and it only becomes jima when attached directly to another word. Any objections to changing this? Jpatokal (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Regarding Content Split/Removal

It's been posted on WikiProject China's noticeboard, WikiProject Japan's discussion page, and WikiProject Taiwan's noticeboard. If interested, please take time to read it, since it's not exactly the same as the discussion in the tiVerifiability section; all 3 posts are the same, however.DXDanl (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved posts from the noticeboards (not exactly active) to their respective WikiProject Talk Pages--China and Taiwan.DXDanl (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also please repost your proposal below with a new heading, or below my post so that it's clearer to people here what you're proposing. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is.

Hi everyone. I would like to discuss the Senkaku Islands article, specifically (a) all sections i, ii, and iii that give the actual arguments used in its dispute, (b) the one section on the history of the dispute, (c) and the one section that is not about the islands themselves.
(a) Moving all of the disputable contents to a separate article would help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not.
(b) Although the current list of historical events is more on the factual side, it is centered on the dispute over the islands. As such, it would disproportionately distract from the islands themselves and may be better combined in a separate article with the sections mentioned in (a).
(c) The information in this section might be related to the islands outside of Wikipedia, but as far as how articles are organized, it has nothing to do with the topic--in fact, it does not even mention the islands.
Lastly, although I would love to move around or rephrase any content so that it could be agreeable to Wikipedia guidelines, I don't think it would be the best practice if questionable edits were practically to become a burden for other editors. In which case, I would think that removal--following discussion on the relevant Talk Page and Noticeboard--should be justified despite loosing the questionable contents.DXDanl (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Comment I agree to what you proposed in the noticboards. This article just looks so silly. STSC (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (a) I think that's a bit extreme, as an awful lot of stuff may be disputed, not just what's currently highlighted. Also just because something is disputed does not mean it should be moved elsewhere.

(b) I agree that the timeline isn't very helpful. It should be re-worked to have just a few key dates, or moved elsewhere as you suggest.

(c) It is the duty of a Wikipedia editor, as far as I can see, to improve material if it's clear what the person is trying to say or what the mistake is. I don't think we can just pull something because it's a bit wrong. However, we don't have to hunt for citations, though sometimes it's easy to grab a few. John Smith's (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John Smith — No text is to be deleted, only moved; and a summary of the dispute will remain part of this article along with a section headnote hyperlink. Compare Liancourt Rocks dispute, Spratly Islands dispute, etc. --Tenmei (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The (a), (b), and (c) only apply to their respective sections specified in my post's introduction. I'm not sure whether you're using the lettering the same way as how I've been using it. Regarding disputable contents, in this case, they are clearly regarding the islands' sovereignty only. We could make a new section that's actually about the history of the islands themselves, without referring to any dispute over their sovereignty.DXDanl (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse — I support and join DXDanl's point-of-view expressed in the comment above. Compare, e.g., Liancourt Rocks#Role in Japan–Korea relations, Spratly Islands#History, Bonin Islands#History, etc. --Tenmei (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not everyone is interested in politics or nationalistic issues. The full details of the territorial dispute should be moved away from the main article. STSC (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse — I support and join STSC's point-of-view expressed in the comment above. --Tenmei (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system is an improper use of Policy and is forbidden

WP:GAME - Encyclopedic content must be neutral and verifiable. Any editor who manipulates the process to avoid NPOV and verification is gaming the system. Gaming the system is blockable by any administrator as stated in the Policy. STSC (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and this post is relevant how? Is there a specific concern you have here with someone gaming the system? Your comment is somewhat confusing as it merely states policy without explaining why you are stating it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified 3 editors who have been gaming the system with many issues on here. They may think they're clever but Wikipedia has the special policy to deal with them. STSC (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well thanks for letting us know. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Msvt, 1 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Below part should be corrected as here is page for Senkaku island, not others. Whatever you call it, you need to create another page in each language separately. The Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島 Senkaku Shotō, variants: Senkaku-guntō[1] and Senkaku-rettō[2]?), controlled and administered by Japan since 1895, but also claimed by both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China as part of Taiwan Province. The United States controlled the islands as part of its occupation of Okinawa from 1945 to 1972. Msvt (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? BTW, is the template box necessary?DXDanl (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Stickee

add reference

this article from Durham University

http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk/resources/docs/senkaku.html San9663 (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Video in Japanese

This video shows up as source 3 times but is entirely in Japanese. It's a YouTube video. The channel originates from a Japan pride group, their motto 草莽崛起. I can't think of any way to defend this source.

ref name=sakura20100924>5:00 【直言極言】情報戦・尖閣が日本領である証拠[桜H22/9/24 SakuraSoTV 2010-09-24</ref

The editor(s) contribution(s) can stay for now because the second source used is ... less questionable.

ref>http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/senkaku/testimonial1920.jpg</ref

DXDanl (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [this] Ryūkyū Shimpō June 15, 2005. The letter is on exhibit at Yaeyama museum.--Bukubku (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can make changes to include your new source, but I'll remove the SakuraSo source for you.DXDanl (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Mattsoubala, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} To edit the Senkaku Islands. 釣魚島 is rightly owned by China, not from Japanese. Posting this article will lead confusion and anger from Chinese audiences which takes a quarter of population of the whole wide world.

http://big5.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/gzdt/2009-02/27/content_1245749.htm This website illustrated that 釣魚島 is in China's hands, not the Japanese. Mattsoubala (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you didn't follow the directions. Please resubmit your request. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRC and ROC perspectives

So far I've done some tagging. I would like to split the PRC and ROC perspectives section into governmental and non-governmental, similar to the sections for Japan, but there is a lot of other problems that must be resolved before possibly splitting into 2 sections.

(a) A lot of material that can be combined into the Beginnings section.
(b) More references are needed and dead links fixed.
(c) Can we remove the following paragraphs, unless they're used by a source in a way that is actually related to this article?
However, more importantly, none of the Allies recognized any transfer of the territorial sovereignty of either Taiwan or any nearby islands to the ROC at any time during the 1940s or 1950s. In a 1959 court case in the United States, the US State Dept. was specifically quoted as maintaining that: " . . . the sovereignty of Formosa has not been transferred to China . . . " and that "Formosa is not a part of China as a country, at least not as yet, and not until and unless appropriate treaties are hereafter entered into. Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China."[43]
However, the United States, as principal victor over Japan, has consistently maintained that there was no "return" of island territories to China after the close of hostilities in World War II, either due to the Japanese surrender ceremonies, or according to the specifications of the post-war treaties. The Starr Memorandum of the US State Dept., issued in Oct. 1971, is often quoted as an authoritative reference on this subject.[47]

DXDanl (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks like a rather problematic statement, especially as it asserts it as fact rather than someone's view. The court case is being spun backwards to somehow support the whole point, which is wrong.
On a separate note, I'm also a bit concerned by the bit on the "Tokyo court case". There's no citation for the fact there was a court case, and although the entry obscures it a bit, the matter boils down to "30 years ago, some guy said that....." I think that's too fringe to be included, though it might come under something other than WP:fringe theories. John Smith's (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

the recent edits actually leaves more for cleanup rather than cleaning up the mess and it also stirred up a new wave of competition for new ordering.

John Smith, you owe an explanation why you change the existing and stable name ordering while you obviously know that you haven't reached a consensus on your "Japanese-name-go-first" rule. Please gain the consensus first before trying to do it again.

Also, by removing the stable sub-heading and replacing them with the very long one like this[29], it significantly worsens the article.

I'm particularly concerned about the behavior of some editors who have registered an account long time ago but only becomes very active in this article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment You reverted 2 hours of work just because you don't like the section names. You reverted back all the passages with missing citations, dead links, incorrectly placed references, banners, and claim it was better the way it was before. Sorry, I do not believe you.

The original, shorter section names were very vague, referring to "Japan's perspective" and "PRC and ROC perspectives". I used names more relevant to the contents, such as "Japanese government's argument", "Non-governmental arguments from Japan's perspective", and "Governmental and non-governmental arguments from PRC and ROC". If you don't like the length, change only the headings.

I would love to dig up your history too; unfortunately, it's only 2-month old.DXDanl (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits here introduced the term "perspective." I wonder why those trivial changes were not perceived as a good step in a constructive direction?

I equate "vague" with "neutral" or non-controversial. I construed the word "perspective" as non-judgmental, non-argumentative, and non-assertive. When I tweaked the indents and section headings, I had hoped to smooth the way for consensus to develop.

I wonder if someone might suggest how I might more effectively encourage consensus-building? --Tenmei (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the use of Japan's perspective and PRC & ROC's perspectives headings, just nice and easy. STSC (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that when the heading says "perspective", it's not clear what is actually being presented--are these going to be the arguments used, or the historical animosity among the parties involved, or their political & economic motives?DXDanl (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winston, I note that you keep demanding that people gain consensus, but you're not using the talk page. Ergo I assume that you're not the consensus we formed to have it in the current fashion. If you're unhappy, you can try to reach consensus having it in a different fashion. John Smith's (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winston, there was no edit-warring. Everyone was happy, it's you causing the conflict. I challenge you to leave the current format as it is and see who, if anyone, starts edit-warring because of it. As things stand you're causing the edit-conflict. John Smith's (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Intervention?

I've read a few Chinese sources that suggested the U.S. military would hold a war-game with the Japanese military to practice the scenario of "retaking" the Diaoyutai Islands from an "illegal Chinese invasion". It was also alleged that USS George Washington (CVN-73) would participate. However, I have been unable to locate a reliable English source. If this piece of information is true, I believe it is notable because it is a sign of American intervention. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that by itself, the event is too removed from this article on Senkaku Islands. It's probably a sign of American prevention/deterrence, like it did regarding Taiwan a long time ago (1950s?) and North/South Korea just recently. But I don't want anyone's, including my own, interpretations, opinions, and original research to start popping up here. Even if a news report or blog article were to claim relation between the U.S. exercise and the Senkaku Islands dispute, the event of the exercise itself is still too unrelated, unless it were actually to turn out to be significant.DXDanl (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New section

I created a new section "Historical background" in order to clarify the issue. As far as I know, both PRC and ROC didn't assert their sovereignty over the islands officially and internationally till 1971 and there was no dispute. It is clear to me the dispute began in 1971. Oda Mari (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled back the changes because Winston is once again edit-warring over having everything as he wants it. However, perhaps we could discuss this idea further - it's interesting, and might be a good way of presenting information historically. What do others think? John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about this because by chronography, Chinese names and records will go ahead of the Japanese ones. Considering the recent futitle efforts on breaking the stable name order and implicitly pushing Wikipedia to endorse the Japanese national point of view, would you contest the time sequence in the new history section? By the way, the changes on name ordering have been reverted by adminstrators, me and many others in the past whole year. You're just another latest one to push forward your "Pro-Japan" naming ordering. SIGH --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for consensus on Name ordering

In recent days there's a lot of edits that attempts to do nothing but only change the stable name ordering in this article, by placing the paragraph on the etymology about Senkaku above the Chinese Diaoyu name, changing the name ordering in a new table in Geography section , and putting Japanese arguments above the Chinese ones.

Those Pro-Japan or Pro-China futile efforts are not new. The name ordering in infobox (currently Japanese names go first) has also experienced a lot of changes in recent months. All those edits have been reverted to the long-time stable name ordering to avoid stirring up endless waves of edit wars.

While Wikipedia guidelines states that it doesn't favour any national points of views over these disputed issues, is there any guideline on solving the name ordering in these disputed issues? --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's called "common sense", which would suggest that as the islands are controlled by Japan, their names and claims go first. Really, Winston, it's you that's manufacturing this dispute. No one else has been edit-warring over it recently. John Smith's (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly sure if Japan actually controls the island even though its navy patrols the surrounding water. Since the island is uninhabited and the Chinese military also patrols there further weakens the notion of "Japanese control". Personally, I am inclined for the island's article to be named "Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands" until the dispute has been resolved. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you stopped stirring up this contentious move some time ago, and have stirred up again since 1 Oct. that's what you mean "recently"? Anyway, "common sense" is a popular weasel word in breaking the guidelines. Then why do we need a guideline? --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make bad faith allegations. I did not change the ordering of the claims on 1 October, that was someone else. It was you who started changing things around when you came back to the article.
Who says that we need guidelines? As I said earlier, there was no problem until you decided there was one. John Smith's (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you mean the user who has been inactive for two years and becomes extremely active in this week on this article? Before you said there is "no problem" (within the first 1-2 days), you better triple check the revision history of this article. This article has experienced countless pro-japan or pro-china changes on name ordering. It may have no problems in one or two days, but they were all reverted. Your edits were of no exceptions.
Seriously, why do you feel obliged to change the name ordering by compromising the Wikipedia guidelines and putting this article under the risk of edit warring. How would it improve the article significantly? It seems that you're trying to push Wikipedia to endorse the Japanese sovereignty, am i wrong? --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia does mention that alphabetical order should be used in a controversial article. So, the C (Chinese) is before the J (Japanese)? STSC (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I can't find out the guideline on this but in wp:name, it mentions that a name is used when it's common and states clearly that Wikipedia shall not support any national point of views. My research on the notabilty of names for smaller islands shows that none of them are popular than others.
However, in the recent two months, some edits not only tried to change the name ordering of a few islands, but placed every Japanese claim above the Chinese. Some changes seemed to cause a confusion ( Name Section) , others seem touchy and don't improve the article but unofficially launch an edit warring that will give a lot of workloads to administrators and other editors in the future. --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name should be Pinnacle Islands per Winstonlighter analogously to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks in my opinion. -Selket Talk 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent suggestion to do that, but no consensus was reached. The matter is closed at least for the moment. John Smith's (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

I glanced through this page and I realize that there is a subtle pro-Japanese tone resulted from how the article and arguments are presented. Here are a few things to consider:

1. Some of the figures have a very strong pro-Japanese overtone. When I cross-checked some of the captions with the Chinese page using a translator, there appears to be some discrepancies. The Japanese page has no figure, so I can't do the same comparison for their PoV.

Chinese version: In 1919 a group of Fujian fishermen on the Diaoyu Islands stranded by the Japanese Koga good times to rescue the following year, the Northern Government in Nagasaki, Consul General Feng Mian to Koga issue of appreciation, which in that "the Empire of Japan Okinawa Yaeyama-gun, the Senkaku Islands," and other words, the present Japan This is recognized as Diaoyutai in China owned by Okinawa's position. However, at that time the Taiwan, Penghu, Okinawa, Diaoyutai are already in the hands of the Japanese, the Chinese did not intervene in any administrative division of the Japanese empire.

English version: Ryuku Shimpo claims that a letter from the Republic of China (中華民國) consul to Nagasaki on May 20, 1921, referred to "Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, the Empire of Japan".[42][43][not in citation given] The letter is on exhibition at Yaeyama museum.[42]

Also, I find it strange that the figure showing the Chinese newspaper Reimen Ribao is on there because it does not seem to be a strong piece of evidence. Texts from a newspaper, state-owned or not, is not of the same authoritive caliber as a government document. For example, if BBC is to claim that the Folkland islands belong to Argentina, should one even take that seriously?

2. The PRC and ROC argument section is very disorganized and does not effectively layout the Chinese PoV of the issue while the Japanese section is much more organized. At the same time, a number of the Chinese claims have been disputed throughout the article but I find a distinct lack of counter-arguments to Japanese claims, which I believe should exist (otherwise, this wouldn't be a dispute). Also, the "Non-governmental arguments" section is basically "Non-governmental Japanese arguments" given the volume of pro-Japanese arguments there. While some might argue that the Chinese can present no other valid argument in this issue, I am rather skeptical about that.

Suggestion: This page needs to have a big clean-up and writing style has to be made uniform to minimize the bias caused by writing style and argument presentation. I'd also a more balanced representation of arguments from both sides. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, no offence, but I note your account was created on 10 September - not very long after the recent dispute over the islands started. I therefore have to question whether you're a neutral party in this, especially as you're complaining about "pro-Japanese tone".
I have no idea why you're raising the Chinese and Japanese pages - they have no relation to the English page.
The BBC is not State controlled, whereas the Remin Bao is. So again I have no idea why you're making the comparison. John Smith's (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Smith, if you think I am a sock, then you can check my list of activities. My activity in wikipedia started with the editing of a science page and later on, commentaries regarding a particular disputed profile. These events took place long before the recent re-ignition of the Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute. As for your argument about Reimen Ribao, I've already addressed it. The fact it is a state-run newspaper implies its contents are controlled by the state but that does not mean it officially speaks for the government. It will only undermine the Japanese argument if it tries to equate a state-run newspaper article with a government document. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet, though I do wonder you know about them despite only having been here for less than a month. In any event, your account was created on 10 September 2010, 3 days after the Chinese trawler captain was arrested, so how can you say that you started editing "long before" the reignition of the dispute?
You haven't addressed the point about the Remin Bao, because no one is saying it was the Chinese government's position. Yet given the censorship that existed in China, and the fact that it was an official party mouthpiece, the article is significant as it wouldn't have been published if Chinese officials had disagreed with it. John Smith's (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the issue reignited when the PRC decided to harden their stance. Before that, it was just yet another of those minor skirmishes between the Chinese and Japanese.
There's actually little information regarding how much control the state exerts over its state media. At the time of the article's writing, the communist government was only four years old and likely would not have mastered the art of censorship. Granted that they do filter out pro-West and anti-communist opinions, we don't actually know to what extent they control the contents of their newspaper at such a time.
And of course, even if you are right, I'd be interested to see how other articles from the same newspaper in the same decade perceive the dispute islands. Otherwise, this is just another example of selective bias.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that for a political entity to have a certain name, it does not necessarily have to possess a geographic entity of the same name. Even if the article opined that the islands were part of the Okinawa island chain, it did not in fact say the Japanese territory named Okinawa owned it. If that's also the PRC government's view point at that time, then that's even less reason to believe they perceived those islands to be part of Japan at that time. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit-warring started only a few days after the captain was captured, so with all due respect it's not unreasonable to question when your account was registered. But I'm not going to press the issue further.
The People's Daily is and has always been the CCP's mouthpiece. It has also always been under the Party's control. Therefore what it publishes is in this case significant in that it disagrees with China's current argument that it never recognised Japanese sovereignty and in some ways supports Japan's claim to the islands.
If you have some more examples of People's Daily articles from that period, you're free to link to them so that we can discuss them.
China currently recognises Japanese control of the Okinawan Islands. Indeed, did it ever dispute it since the founding of the PRC? Therefore if the Senkakus are regarded to be part of the Okinawan chain that also undermines China's position. John Smith's (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That article does not contradict with the Chinese contradict the Chinese current argument that it never recognized Japanese sovereignty because those islands did not belong to Japan at the time of its publication. It also did not need to dispute the sovereignty of these islands if it expected the U.S. to return the disputed island to its regime at 1971, which was when PRC and ROC started their first protests. And of course, the geographic classification of the Okinawa island chains could've changed within the time period between 1953 - 1971 as a result of research and new findings. However, this doesn't interfere with the issue because the question of Japanese sovereignty did not exist until 1971.
I don't have the resources to dig up the historical archives of the newspaper. But for that article to even be consider as an argument, one needs to show that it is a prevailing opinion from the same source at around the same time period. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the Okinawan islands did belong to Japan - they were being administered by the US at the time. And if China was recognising that the Senkakus were part of the Okinawan chain, it's a bit rich for it to packpeddle when Japan regained control of the latter.
There is no assertion that it was the prevailing opinion at the time. An image serves as a snapshot and/or example, nothing more. If people can't find other People's Daily articles from that period, well it's unfortunate, but we will work with what we have. John Smith's (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no assertion that it was the prevailing opinion at the time, then the right way of doing this is to note that in either the figure caption or in a related paragraph. As for your claim about the Okinawan islands, I will direct you to the link of a couple of wikipages -> History_of_the_Ryukyu_Islands#Post-war_occupation and Occupation_of_Japan. If you disagree with their contents, feel free to start an edit war in those pages.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

What is the appropriate name ordering of the islands in the article body? Oda Mari (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check Here to avoid duplication. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diaoyutai/Tiaoyutai

Regarding the most recent edits, Tiaoyutai = Diaoyutai. There is no name difference, both mean the same = 釣魚台. Taiwan's media has no uniform spelling rules for romanizations, as there is no law that defines it. Some may use Wade-Giles, whilst others use Tongyong or Hanyu Pinyin. Officially, the ROC government uses Hanyu Pinyin. I don't think "Tiaoyutai" should be included, as it is merely a spelling variation; why not include "Romeyo and Juliyet", "Romyo and Juliet" and "Romeo and Jooliet" as alternate names for Romeo and Juliet? In Shakespeare's time, there were no fixed spelling rules either, which is why we have doth, does, dith, glitter, glister, glistens, A Midsummer Night's Dream, A Midſommer Nights Dreame (As it hath beene sundry times publickely acted, just so you know), etc. The WP:COMMONNAME of Diaoyutai applies here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that I ask is that when the ROC-gov uses a term over and over again in their own English language pages that we have one tiny mention of that term in wikistan. How many dozen refs will it take to satisfy you as to Taiwan's use of this spelling when they generate English language material? Hcobb (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could have it in the lede as "also known as the Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyutai/Tiaoyutai Islands" if you feel that it's really necessary, or in the "Names" section; but you can't write it as if it is an entirely different name to Diaoyutai, when it is just a variation in spelling. It's not refs I'm worried about, it's just that there is no difference at all between Diaoyutai and Tiaoyutai as they both render the same characters, and it seems a bit extra to include it since Hanyu Pinyin is supposed to be the official romanization in Taiwan anyway. Recently we've renamed a large number of battle articles and Taiwan location articles following the switch from Tongyong to Hanyu Pinyin; non-standard romanizations aren't supposed to be used systematically. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benlisquare's suggestion makes things easier. As far as I know, the new Taiwan romanization system (launched in 2009?) for the names of disputed islands is also Diaoyutai rather than Tiaoyutai. Need an expert. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo court case

I've removed the bit on the supposed court case given that it is uncited (that China and Taiwan refer to it in part as justification for their positions) and in any event it states that this is all based on one person's claim from about 40 years ago. I raised my concerns about the claim a few days ago. It doesn't seem sensible to include a vague assertion like that. If it was the case that it had been made by a member of the Politburo or something, that might be a notable claim even if it wasn't backed up by anything. But an unnamed leader of a fishermen's association isn't notable. John Smith's (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands&oldid=388972248"