Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

Misspelling of Island Name

In the paragraph:

A World Atlas published in October 1965 by the National Defense Research Academy and the China Geological Research Institute of Taiwan records the Diaoyu Islands with Japanese names: Gyochojima (Diaoyu Islands), Taishojima (Chiwei Island), and Senkaku Gunto.[49] In the late 1970s, the government of ROC began to recall these books, but it was too late.[49]

"Gyochojima" should be "Uotsurishima". The Japanese characters are the same but the pronunciation uses the kun-yomi, not the on-yomi as currently noted. See http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%AD%9A%E9%87%A3%E5%B3%B6 Please change (currently locked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.131.169.220 (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

United States Position in Dispute

I have edited the intro to this article, which had included the false statement that the United States adopted a neutral position in this dispute. It most certainly not as anyone can confirm from a quick Net search. The U.S. recognizes Japan's sovereignty over the islands and has even stated that they fall within the scope of the U.S. Japan Security Treaty. For example: </www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/10/26/us-japan-alliance-the-big-winner-from-the-senkaku-islands-dispute/> Gunnermanz (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The US Has a security treaty with Taiwan, what if Taiwan were to invade the islands? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a relevant discussion point--all we care are what reliable sources say. And if the sources claim that the U.S. has said that they are taking sides, then that's what we have to report. Although something I'd be personally curious to find out, off-wiki. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The reliable source for the US position is the US Department of State. And State spokespeople have repeatedly said that "on the Senkaku issue... we don’t take any position on that one". One can, of course, ask how are the Chinese (in either Beijing or Taipei) going to ever take de facto control of the islands away from Japan unless Japan agrees given that an attempt to seize control by force could trigger war with the United States but that's another issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Which would seem to be in direct contradiction to "U.S. says Senkaku Islands fall within scope of Japan-U.S. security treaty

WASHINGTON, July 10, Kyodo The Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands ... fall within the scope of the 1960 Japan-U.S. security treaty which requires the country to defend Japan in the event of armed attacks, a senior State Department official said Monday. "The Senkakus would fall within the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security because the Senkaku Islands have been under the administrative control of the government of Japan since they were returned as part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972," the official told Kyodo News." HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be good to add in a bit from the US perspective on what is currently going on, seeing as how their stance is a big issue. The US defense secretary has said "It is in everybody's interest … for Japan and China to maintain good relations and to find a way to avoid further escalation," [1] on the issue. --Skaafeng (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why has my recent comment on this page been deleted without any explanation? If I suspect bias on this page I will report it to higher Wiki authorities. Please restore my comments or I will do so. --Gunnermanz (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because your comment had nothing to do with improving the article. Per WP:NOTFORUM, talk pages are not here to discuss the subject of the article. They exist only to discuss improvements to that article. If you want to debate the international policy decisions of Asian countries, please find a website that specializes in such things. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission".--Brian Dell (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM overrides that, especially on controversial subjects, and even more so on articles under ARBCOM sanctions. While I wouldn't do it here, as a highly involved editor, I do it all the time on other talk pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everyone should be very familiar with WP:NOTFORUM and be aware any editor can remove soapboxing and attempts to utilize the TP's for a forum immediately.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Images

Isn't it odd that all images in this article seems support Japanese side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.22.21.3 (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I partially. I think the first thing we should remove are the pictures of the documents--they have absolutely no value to 99% of en.wiki readers (maybe they belong in ja.wiki or cn.wiki, but not here), and the point seems to be to provide extra weight to the Japanese claims. However, on the maps, we have 2 maps in the main body--one supporting the Chinese position, and one supporting the Japanese position. That seems like a fair balance. I don't think they're strictly necessary, but having one in each part does give more visual substance to the articles, so keeping them is fine. Plus I think we should keep the main photo at the top, as a descriptive photo of one of the islands, which has no POV either way. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does not call for having half of the images in an article about a controversial topic "support" one perspective while half of them "support" the opposing view. I am restoring the imagery as "neutrality" is being confused with "balance" here. I do not agree with the apparent generalization that foreign language media has "absolutely no value" simply because it is foreign language. A violation of WP:IMAGE is cited in the edit summary yet it is not clear just what the alleged violation is.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is imagery supporting the Chinese view here. This should be uploaded to the Commons as its copyright should have expired and, I believe, included in this article.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

controlled and administered by Japan?

It's an unoccupied island with decent claim from both china taiwan and japan. Why does the article say it's controlled by Japan. It is in conflict of it's own information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.131.84 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The same question was posted to Talk:Senkaku Islands#controlled and administered by Japan? with an editor on that page providing an response. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Declassified U.S. document from June 7, 1971

This Japan Times article reports on "declassified U.S. documents" and later in the article "According to the U.S. document, dated June 7, 1971, China started claiming sovereignty over the Senkakus in December 1970 and Taiwan in February 1971."

The December 1970 China claim seems supported by this NY Times article from December 06, 1970. I have not looked for the full text of this article. Note that NYT article is already being used as a source for the WP article and so if someone adds material based on it they can ref-name to the existing ref.

I suspect it would be useful to track down whatever the "declassified U.S. documents" are as they can be used as reliable, and contemporaneous, sources for dating actions taken by the various countries. At present the WP article has conflicting data on the dates. It's anywhere from 1970, 1971, December 1971, "mid 1970s", etc. We could use the Japan Times article as a source but it may not be considered a reliable source by some editors.

Unfortunately, the NY Times archive search is down at the moment. This Google News search for Nov 1, 1970–Apr 1, 1971 has five hits:

• Dec 6, 1970 NY Times - China asserts sovereignty.
• Jan 8, 1971 Christian Science Monitor - China sends warnings to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea about the islands. I had not realized South Korea was also involved.
• Jan 30, 1971 reports oil is the main issue.
• Feb 22, 1971 NY Times abstract does not show why this article was included the search results.
• Mar 24, 1971 Michigan Daily has casual mention of Senkaku.

This search result and not find anything that supported the February 1971 date for Taiwan but then I was only looking at the abstracts and not the full articles.

An an attempt to find the declassified report using Google for 'Senkaku "December 1970" "February 1971"' finds some interesting stuff but I did not see the report off hand. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Historical development

Recently Sspalfilter extensively added Chinese protests against Japanese nationalization of the islands. It describes the events day by day with detailed places. As Wikipedeia is not a newspaper, It should be re-write succinctly or temporaly removed until the outcome of this events become clear. Also, Historical development in 2011 / 2012 should be reviewed and removed non-significant events. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed an article 2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations was created. Then the protests in this article should be a summary of the events and the details should be moved to the article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're correct on both counts. For the second (2011/2012), I'd say anyone could start to make those edits, so long as they do it neutrally. For the most recent stuff, it might be easiest to wait a few days, see where things stand (in the real world), and start to trim from there. Yes, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE mean that anyone could start cutting it right now, but I wonder if perhaps we might have less edit warring if we wait for a slight perspective. Along with that, however, I'd that people would refrain from adding any more information. However, I'm certainly not going to revert if you (Phoenix7777) or someone else wants to start cutting now. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): I would instead say we should delete the other article. Let me get working on that first before we start moving stuff there. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Arguments from PRC and ROC

I want to request an edit of this part:

The two governments of China first made their claims during the mid-1970s after a 1968 study by experts discovered that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the Senkaku Islands.

The sentence is correct, but it is also a little bit misleading. The PRC and ROC didn´t begin to claim the islands, because of the oil reserves, but because both governments thought that the US would give these islands to the PRC or ROC till 1971. They began to claim it at the end of 1971, when Japan made it public that Japan and the US regard the Senkaku Islands as Japan´s territory (Okinawa Reversion Treaty).

I would prefer to change it into this:

After the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in December 1971 with the Okinawa Reversion Treaty Japan's sovereignty claims over the islands has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan).

The oil discovery is already mentioned in part: Alternative approaches

Mr.Helfer (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The same request was posted to Talk:Senkaku Islands#Edit request. Please discuss there. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Communique - the heart of the dispute in international law

The explanation of the argument based on the Potsdam Declaration makes no sense without including also a reference to the Cairo Communique of 1943 (the relevant part of which was to be implemented in the Potsdam Declaration). The critical words in the Cairo Communique are, quoting verbatim: "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China". So in international law, the real dispute is whether the islands were accurately described after 1895 as "territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese". That is the relevance of Japan's terra nullius argument. If the islands were terra nullius in 1895 then they cannot have been "stolen from the Chinese", and furthermore they could not have been "restored" to China at end of WWII. On the other hand, if the islands were not terra nullius in 1895 then they would be covered by the Cairo Communique whether or not they were formally part of "Formosa", noting the use of the words "such as" in the Cairo Communique meaning that Manchuria, Formosa and The Pescadores was not an exhaustive list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.39.82 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is "no date", "no signature(of the 3 leaders)", and "no ratification". The Cairo Declaration is merely a "Joint statement". Originally, the Cairo Declaration is a statement for the WWI. Has nothing to do with the Sino-Japanese War. Above all, Potsdam Declaration is unrelated. First of all, the Potsdam Declaration is also a declaration and to guarantee the "basic human rights" and "freedom of thought & speech" of the Japanese people. When the riot, Chinese harm to innocent Japanese, the China have broken the Potsdam Declaration themselves. Look who's talking!?Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 03:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Protests in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston?

Can somebody please remove the erroneous information indicating that there were anti-Japan protests in Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago? The only one that can be confirmed were the several thousand in San Francisco. But nothing for the other cities. Especially Los Angeles. If there was a protest in Los Angeles, it somehow escaped the notice of every major news agency in this city. I actually live in Los Angeles and have heard nothing about any anti-Japan protests outside of China Daily. Especially dubious given the CD's status as a PRC propaganda organ and its very vague description of this alleged protest. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the article myself, since it always becomes messy, but here's a Taiwanese newspaper article on a protest in New York:

• CNA, 18 September 2012, ROC, PRC flags fly together at anti-Japan protest in NY, The China Post

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about removing the mentions of Los Angeles at the very least? Seems like a lot of pro PRC people have taken control of this page... CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph style

Does anyone else find it odd that the section on historical development is entirely in point form. Shouldn't it be converted into paragraph style?VR _talk 02:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede

In wikipedia articles the lead is supposed to summarize the article. According to the guidelines the lead of this article should be 3-4 paragraphs, even though right now its more like 1.5.

I have added a short sentence on the current protests since many people will come to the article in search of that. Hopefully others can help me in developing the lead further.VR _talk 02:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to make a short summary of the main arguments on both sides. There should be a bit of higher level analysis added, to the effect of seeing the dispute as driven by domestic considerations in China (and perhaps to some extent in Japan), for example. It may be difficult to say something here that wouldn't be contentious, however.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Effects in industry the recent developments in the dispute have created

It might be a good idea to make include something about how companies such as Canon [2] and Panasonic [3] are closing down operations in a number of their Chinese factories due to the growing amount of rioting. If anyone can find any issues for Chinese based companies, that would be wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaafeng (talk • contribs) 03:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Some interesting news in Japan

Found this article. Thought that it may be of interest.

I also found this about anti-Japan protests in Taiwan. Ominae (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. They are not important, but trivial. Oda Mari (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I thought that they'd be good reference for some response to the protests in China. Except for the Taiwan bit. Ominae (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Map

Is there a reason this page does not have a standard, Wikipedia-style map outlining China, Japan, and the islands in dispute? Is there fear that the map will show some kind of bias regarding proper ownership of the islands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.14.5 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Counter argument on 1958 PRC map

thumb| A national boundaryⒷ drawn between Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands excluding the Senkaku IslandsⒶ from the Taiwanese territory in World Atlas published in China in 1958

User:Bdell555 added a counter argument by PRC saying "add Chinese challenge to significance of 1958 map". I don't object the edit itself, however the argument itself made me feel strange. The original text says ".. important information from the map’s colophon: “certain national boundaries are based on maps compiled prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War(1937-1945)." However prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War, there is no national boundary between Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands because they were both within the Imperial Japan. So there is no obligation for PRC to draw the national boundary between the Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War. Further, PRC named the allegedly stolen islands in Japanese name "Senkaku Guntō" (Senkaku Islands) and "Uotsuri-Jima" instead of the Chinese name "Diaoyudao", although there is no obligation to use the Japanese name. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, is your point something like this:

Japan: This is how you saw the world in 1958. You didn't have a problem with not having these islands back then.

China: No, because some of the territorial designations on that map were just ported in from pre-1945 maps

Japan: But you drew a line between Taiwan and the Ryukyus. That's not a porting in of an old map. That's a 1958 decision.

If this is your point I actually find it a fairly good one and would concede it to you. If part of the line between China and Japan is necessarily 1958, then surely it all is. "Certain national boundaries" may be "old", but it is dubious to contend that one of them is both partly old and partly new. If you put your mind to redraw part of it in order to reflect the post-1945 world, surely you would redraw the whole line if you thought there was also a change between Japan and China in the Senkaku area and not just the Taiwan area. I added this because that Taiwanese scholar made the argument, but given that this same scholar generally admits that China conceded the islands between 1945 and 1971, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of point fighting for this particular hill anyway when one's conceded the larger battle (although not conceding the war).--Brian Dell (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A good article from NYT on China's claims

Check them out if anyone here have free time. Link here --LLTimes (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Qing dynasty's sovereign obligations and rights were not passed on to any subsequent Chinese states. Counter example is the current state of Russia which inherited all the diplomatic and treaty obligations and rights (but not territory) of Soviet Union. Hence any claim based on Chinese dynastic history is moot under international law. One could debate the validity of Japan's claim over these islands. However, it is certain that neither Taiwan or Mainland China have territorial right over the islands. Neither countries inherited sovereign right (and oblitagion) from Qing dynasty. Their current territorial right of mainland china and Taiwan is based on established occupation of "land belonging to no one", which is the result of the disappearence of Qing Dynasty. And since these two countries never controlled Senkaku islands, they have no claim. America, which actually controlled and administered the island before Japan probably have better claim than them. Vapour (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vapour, that's your own personal original research, and has no business here. However, the NYT "article" doesn't either--Kristof is an opinion editor, an analyst if you will, and not a reliable source for political claims. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are any China claims in the article lacking a citation, then the NYTimes piece might be useful simply as a baseline source. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, it's not a New York Times piece--it's a New York opinion piece. If fact, it's not even by Kristof--its the opinion of a "researcher" working at a think tank in Taiwan. Nothing in it is reliable for factual claims. Even something by Kristof himself would be of borderline value, and then only for the most obvious, undeniable facts, things that we can probably source elsewhere. Now that I see that it's not even Kristof writing, I'll have to remove the stuff talked about in the section above. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I disagree. That column is a great source for China's side in the debate. I think the source should be used for that purpose, and Vapour and LLTimes appear to agree with me. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a chance. It's an opinion piece. By a think tank writer. That's NEVER a reliable source. You can't declare an opinion piece to be RS by consensus. Do you really need me to take this to WP:RSN? That piece has literally no more validity than, say, a personal blog. Actually, it has less, because we know the author is writing from a think tank. You're a smart editor, you do great work on Wikipedia. I honestly don't understand how you can even consider defending this. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to take it to WP:RSN. They will likely say that the column is a reliable source for Kristof's opinion. So, if the source is used and you want to attribute it to Mr. Kristoff, that's fine. What's important is that the content in the article which elucidates China's side on the issue be verifiable, which means it needs to be linked to a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper column. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is two separate questions. While the current administrators is certainly Japan and it is wrong for China or Taiwan to take any unilateral action, military or not, to take it back by force. Whether the islands belong to in the future is another question. The latter question should best be settled peacefully through the ICJ. Do not confuse the two questions, Cla68 and Vapour, please.

The On the Ground is an opinion page of Nicholas D. Kristof. Acoording to the WP:NEWSBLOG an article written in the page is reliable as long as the article was written by Kristof himself. However The page accommodates articles submitted by readers.[4] The article in question was written by a Research Fellow of Taiwanese university. And other articles were written by a sophomore at Yale University[5] and a mentor to many in the South Sudanese government[6]. These articles submitted by readers are unreliable per WP:NEWSBLOG. The description[7] Qwyrxian removed was already refuted by me in the section above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, I think you're confused, and Phoenix7777 is getting to that point here. The one that I removed was not by Kristof. It is the one at the top of this section, and it was written by Han-Yi Shaw, who is described as "a Research Fellow at the Research Center for International Legal Studies, National Chengchi University, in Taipei, Taiwan". While I do object to Kristof in general, I wouldn't outright remove it without RSN or consensus. I removed this one due to the clearly partisan nature of the source. As far as I can tell, guest bloggers are allowed to publish opinion pieces (and note that the section of the NYT is clearly labelled opinion), and it's one of those that I removed. I left in the article by Kristof himself, which, though it's an opinion piece, is only being used to verify the Taiwanese spelling in the lead sentence. If we were to include things of more questionable "accuracy", we'd, at a minimum, have to say something like "According to Nicholas Kristof...". Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confused. It's not a self-published article. It was published in the opinion pages of the NY Times. I still believe it can be used as a source for the Chinese positions elucidated in this article. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Xinhua news article

As a follow-on to the conversation above, here is a good article which elucidates China's position on this dispute from Xinhua News Agency. The full text of the PRC's "white paper" is here. Cla68 (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the white paper would be a good source for China's official positions--more accurate then reading them second-hand, filtered through academics. That is, not for provided a "correct" "historical" analysis (I wouldn't allow the Japan's MOFA that position either), but a good, concise description of what the government of China believes is correct. I don't have time to read it over at the moment, and I'm sure some of it is already included in the article, but it definitely seems like a good source for this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

In the interests of neutrality, it would be desirable to retain an impartial name for this article. Neither 'Senkaku Islands dispute' nor 'Diaoyu Islands dispute' are satisfactory in this context; a satisfactory name should be found. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Per an arbitration case ruling, we've been told that we aren't permitted to discuss any name changes until 2013. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please read the notices at the top of this page. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

More Information about Senkaku Island. Talk:Senkaku_Islands#More_Information_about_Senkaku_Island — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adri Valdez (talk • contribs) 09:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Japan to question inconsistency in China's claim over Senkakus

Anti-American struggle by the people in the Ryukyu Islands(琉球群島人民による反米闘争) People's Daily(人民日報)March 18, 1953

Japan plans to question China's inconsistency in its claims over a group of Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea as a way to drum up international support for its stance amid the heated territorial row, Foreign Ministry officials said Thursday.

Japan will aim to disprove Beijing's claim that it has long fought to protect its sovereignty over the islands by stressing that China did not lodge any protest against Japan concerning the sovereignty over the islands until the early 1970s, they said.

The government plan comes after Tokyo's recent shift in its public relations policy to actively promote its position on the territorial row, reflecting China's growing assertiveness over its claim.

Prior to the policy shift, Japan has been reluctant to publicize the dispute, given its position that the Senkakus are an integral part of the country and therefore no dispute exists.

It is "the Chinese side's greatest contradiction" that it did not object to Japan's sovereignty over the islands until the 1970s, a government source said. KYODO NEWS(共同通信) Oct. 4, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingwrong (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem worth including--it's just saying "Japan's going to start talking and stuff". Or, alternatively, "Japan has a new plan to try to gain support for its claims." I don't know that that's anything other than, basically, a government press release. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I want to write "China did not lodge any protest against Japan concerning the sovereignty over the islands from 1895 until the early 1970s".Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 00:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can do so using that source, given that it is Japan's position that China did not do so, not something from independent sources (see the discussion above, for instance, that claims that China always assumed that the islands were being "returned"). Please note, I'm not objecting to the underlying point, but to the source you're recommending we use. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone will understand if everyone read the details. However, I think to be understand more intuitive at placing in the LIST. "FROM" is the important word.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 02:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)