Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

RfC on two images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the two non-map images currently used in the "Japanese position" section be included in the article? (File:1953renminribao.gif and File:Letter of thanks from ROC consul to Ishigakijima in 1920.jpg) This refers to the image that is a copy of a Chinese Consul in 1920, and the other that is a copy of an article from the Chinese newspaper Renmin Ribao? Do these images meet the guidelines for images as described in WP:IMAGE? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I opened a Rfc at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Rfc on Foreign language images.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You go ahead and run that RfC...but that is not what I am asking here. I am asking specifically about these two images on this page in this context. Please do not remove the RfC tags—I will consider you doing so to be deliberate disruption. I am not trying to change Wikipedia policy. I am trying to enforce the pre-existing guidelines on this page, because I feel that those two specific images violate it in this specific context. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I replied at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Rfc on Foreign language images.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The duplicate RfC that you created has been closed and discussion has been redirected here. Please do not do this again as forum shopping such as this will be considered a violation of the sanctions at the top of the page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nihonjoe. You misunderstand the situation. We were discussing which Rfc should be openeed. During the discussion, Qwyrxian unilaterally opened the Rfc without consensus. Please see above discussion. Qwyrxian is asking "Do these images meet the guidelines for images as described in WP:IMAGE" in this Rfc. Why shouldn't such a Rfc be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your argument that "Qwyrxian unilaterally opened [this] Rfc without consensus" is irrelevant as anyone can open an RfC at any time without getting prior consensus to do so. Perhaps this RfC should be moved there instead of here, but opening another RfC there and telling Qwyrxian he needs to close this one is forum shopping and ultimately confusin as people won't know where they need to post their opinions on the issue. As this RfC is specifically about how the image policy should be applied here in this article in this instance, this is just as valid a location for the discussion as anywhere else. That's the whole point of the RfC system: it lists them in a centralized location so people can easily find them regardless of where the discussion is being held. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I opened a Rfc at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Rfc on Foreign language images and removed a Rfc tag of this Rfc immediately in order to avoid duplicated Rfcs.[1] However, Qwryxian reverted the edit and made these Rfcs duplicated.[2]

This Rfc is asking the interpretation of WP:IMAGE as Qwyrxian said above. His argument is whether the images violate WP:IMAGE "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." The best place to discuss this Rfc should be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Rfc on Foreign language images.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix, you misunderstand how RfC's work. By your logic, the RfC we held last year on the name of these articles should have been held at WT:Article titles. Or every RfC on using sources would be held at WT:RS. An RfC on the talk page for a guideline would be an RfC seeking a change to that guideline, or maybe trying to look for clarification on how the policy applies across the site. But I'm not asking that, nor do I think we should be asking that. I'm asking about 2 images on this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Then who are you going to request for a comment? This Rfc is categorized as "History and geography" and "Politics, government, and law". You have not even notified to WP:IMAGE.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hes asking about two images and there value here - Wikipedia:Image use policy has no bearing on the value of images at individual articles - hes not asking to change any policy - hes asking for assistance from those familiar with history, geography, politics, government, and law - those people that deal with content in articles - not policy.22:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Remove - I see no value in the images here for our readers of English Wikipedia. They do not convey any tangible information for our reader's. Moxy (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• There's no rule against displaying non-English documents; you can see examples of two (one in Japanese and another in both Arabic and English) at High school diploma. But I don't think these are really adding information. Why not leave them out, but add a link to commons:Category:Senkaku Islands for anyone who wants to see other images? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Remove as there is no functional difference between these images and a mass of Japanese text in the article body itself. To User:WhatamIdoing's point, the images of the diplomas are interesting because they demonstrate the form of various diplomas rather than focusing on the content. That can't be said for these images. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment @WhatamIdoing: I do absolutely agree with adding a link to the commons category; in fact, I don't think there's anything contentious about that at all, and even if the RfC ended with the pics being kept, I don't think a link hurts. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Remove I don't feel that they are vital enough to the article. A link to Wikicommons would be a cleaner, better option. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

China's Straight Baseline Claim

There's no mention of China's more recent straight baseline claim.

Has it's inclusion been discussed on these pages? --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

POV section

I've removed this section as I feel it contains too strongly an interpretative POV. The originals do not include the word "objected" nor being "warned by China".

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1884. In that year, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs objected to the annexation of those islands by stating that those islands were "near to the Qing's (China's) border", "had Chinese names", and Japanese activity "in the offshore's coast of Qing Dynasty had already raised the attention of Chinese newspapers and were warned by China". Following this advice, the Japanese interior minister, Yamagata Aritomo, turned down the request for incorporating those islands into Japanese territory. The Chinese governments see it as evidence to disprove the Japanese claim that those islands were terra nullius when they decided to incorporate them in 1895. The Japanese government kept postponing the issue and it was only in 1895, when ...

I also consider that the original authors may misunderstand the mean of the term terra nullius or are perhaps confusing it was res nullius? The original correspondence also states that surveys proved no particular trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty which is omitted.

I found the original quote on the MOFA website [3] which records it as:

[Reference 1: A letter dated October 21, 1885, sent by Foreign Minister Inoue to Interior Minister Yamagata]

Concerning the aforementioned islands (note: Senkaku Islands), they are in proximity to the national border with the Qing Dynasty, their circumferences appear smaller than those of the Daito Islands after our on-site survey and in particular, their names are being attached by the Qing Dynasty. There are rumors recently circulated by Qing newspapers and others, including one that say our government is going to occupy the islands in the vicinity of Taiwan that belong to the Qing Dynasty, which are arousing their suspicions towards our country and frequently alerting the Qing government for caution. If we took measures such as publicly erecting national markers, it would result in making the Qing Dynasty suspicious. Therefore, we should have the islands surveyed and details ? such as the configuration of harbors and the prospect of land development and local production ? reported and stop there. We should deal with the erection of national markers, land development and other undertakings some other day."

[Reference: A letter dated October 9, 1885, by Interior Minister Yamagata to Foreign Minister Inoue]

"... Draft report to the Grand Council of State Concerning investigation into the uninhabited Kumeakashima and two other islands dotted between Okinawa Prefecture and Fuzhou of the Qing Dynasty, the prefectural governor submitted a report as per the document attached (note: a report submitted by the governor of Okinawa to Interior Minister Yamagata on September 22, 1885, Appendix 2). The aforementioned islands appear to be identical with the islands reported in the Records of Messages from Chong-shan, but they were mentioned as a mere direction in the course of voyage and showed no particular trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty while the islands' names were different between them and us. They belong to the uninhabited islands near Miyako, Yaeyama and others under the control of Okinawa and, therefore, there should be no problem with the prefecture surveying them and erecting national markers on them."..

Perhaps there are better more academic sources discussing it meaning than the ones which were being used? --Iyo-farm (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

China Marine Surveillance

There's content on this issue at China Marine Surveillance#Deployments around Senkaku Islands. I've linked both articles, but as an uninvolved editor, would like the content to be considered in the context of this topic and so list here for a heads-up. Widefox; talk 11:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Widefox is not an involved editor at all. Every place the term Diaoyu Islands appears he inserted the "secondary source request" and himself substitute "Diaoyu" with "Senkaku" himself.68.236.192.91 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Change of Article Title

The title should (or I will say MUST) be changed to either Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute to avoid siding

I see your point, but we typically use only one name for a territorial dispute, and that name is the name of the article of the territory in dispute. In this case, the name of the relevant article is Senkaku Islands. Another example is Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (where the "other name" of those islands is Islas Malvinas). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

David Chan Yuk-cheung

I've linked a few more articles, and included the 1996 incident involving David Chan Yuk-cheung. This needs a source. I invite others to participate in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Chan_Yuk-cheung. Widefox; talk 16:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)