Talk:Senkaku Islands

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Senkaku Islands article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.	Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Archives
Archive 1

Confusing first paragraph

The first paragraph start off by saying the uninhabited islands are claimed by the People's Republic and Republic of China. Japan's "claim" is only mentioned after this and nowhere in the first paragraph is the fact the island are currently under defacto Japanese control mentioned - this fact is only mentioned much further down in the article in a different section. Saying the islands are under Japanese administration now is NPOV and certainly does not mean an editor is taking a side in the conflict - its just simply stating a fact. I changed the first paragraph to mention the current Japanese administration of the island. I hope nobody has a problem with that. --Westee 12:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Check talk:Liancourt Rocks - Apparently, many Japanese editors are against the word "administration". Deiaemeth 06:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I used the word control which to me seem more appropriate when discussing an unihabited region. Either way the current defacto status must be discussed in the first paragraph in my opinion, just like the claims. --Westee 08:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay! Deiaemeth 08:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right! So I made the dispute on the first line. Control imply military intervention of which differs from administration which is paper pushing. Defacto in what context? The islands are in dispute!

Hd8888 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Be responsible and stay neutral. It is clear from the international treaties sign in Egypt after WWII, Japan's only territory is of its 5 main islands. These islands are not US teritories to give Japan to administer or control. Did the Japanese SDF stop the Taiwanese Frigate, or the Chinese naval convoy? I thought not. With the page neutrality already in dispute why insit on revisionism that is clearly US or Japan leaning. Vandalism is with clear intention to cause harm.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/potsdam.html

"(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. "

"We" are Allied powers NOT japan.

http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/diaohist.html

"The Cairo Declaration jointly issued by China, the United States and British during World War II stipulates the return to China by Japan of all the territory she had stolen from China during and after the Japan-Ching war, including Taiwan and Manchuria. The Potsdam Proclamation issued by the allies stipulates that Japan must carry out the clauses of the Cairo Declaration. These islands have been automatically reverted to China as its territory just as Taiwan has been automatically returned to China from the time Japan unconditionally accepted the Cairo Declaration and the Posdam Proclamation and surrendered to the allies including China...one should reject the name Senkaku Islands, which was adopted by Japanese militarism after seizing them from China"

It is clear, the title "Senkaku" is already offensive in wording. By imposing "Control" or "administrative" in the introduction clearly stipulates the ignorance of the issue and its bias leaning. The only vandals I see is one of ignorance.

Hd8888 03:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Senkaku" is what most people refer to them as. It has also been agreed on other similar pages to use such a term - eg "Dokdo". It is also true that the islands are controlled by and administered by Japan. This can be seen by the fact that neither China nor Taiwan attempt to stop Japanese people going there, whereas the Japanese coastguard removes protestors that go there from either place. John Smith's 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Senkaku" is what most people refer to them as. You have sources to back that up? I'm sure all those Chinese who are pissed at the Japanese about this certainly don't refer to them as the "Senkakus"...--Comrade Conrad 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The last incident was a Taiwanese Frigate. You think the japansese SDF did not detect the ship. What you claim as truth is in fact still developing. I don't see how control would be more neutral than just list the claims.

Hd8888 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Taiwanese frigate did not actually go to the islands, it just went around the waters in protest. As I have said before, Japan has actually initiated all the "security" activities regarding the island. Neither China nor Taiwan has put any "security" personnel onto the islands or into its immediate vicinity. Only Japan has. Japan also had the claim before China and Taiwan - they only became interested when the UN suggested there was oil there.

In any case, this only follows the method used on the Dokdo page. If you can get them to agree to a change then perhaps we can do it at the same time. Otherwise it's silly to change one and leave the other. John Smith's 19:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Dokdo page. There's nothing silly in keeping article neutral when it clear has a bias intro. If merely suggesting the existence of frozen gas deposites on the chinese continental shelf, then japan has already lost its claim. The japanese coast guard forces to few civilian protestors, only when convenient. Why would they not arrest the entire Chinese naval convoy when they were surveying the site. Control is still relative, thus not neutral. It is not for you or I to decide except keeping the article neutral. neutrality is not about popular voting either.

Hd8888 21:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it has been decided that how wiki deals with both this and the Dokdo pages are important. See the discussion about renaming the page below.

This isn't about the gas fields at all. The PLAN ships went near the gas fields - the Senkakus weren't the issue. Japan is the only country to repeatedly have demonstrated any control over the islands. They've put lighthouses up, etc. China and Taiwan have done nothing, other than seen protestors kicked off. They aren't removed when convenient, they're removed when they get there - end of story. John Smith's 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's under Japan's "administration" for the time being. Wait till the balance of power shifts to PLAN favor, and we'll see who controls it next...--Comrade Conrad 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So with your logic, being your neighbor, I can camp out in your yard and claim it is mine just as long if you don't bother me? What is wrong with staying neutral in a dispute? You can say administration. But you can not say control. So now it's not about the gas field? It's about a lighthouse illegally place there without asking the owner? So JP administrates it, now they own it? Your edits are clearly expressing a bias view. Check POV. Hd8888 00:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't hide an obvious bias to Japan if you clearly state japanese control in the intro page as well as the dispute section. It clearly does not make the article neutral when the sovergnty of the territory is THE dispute of the claims. In some case the truth is relative. In this case, it seems like whom ever keep censoring out the other point of view. This clearly violates NPOV. In addition, it also display a lack of knowledge to the bias censor.

Hd8888 15:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you that wants to censor in the name of the "truth"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V

Hd8888 15:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's sad. A few pro-japanese vandals choose to degrade wiki information over political agendas. Come on, make your point, talk. If you feel that Japan's claim is the only "truth". I hope this page does stay in the JPwiki project, since the JPs really need to take more history lesson.

Hd8888 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've been blocked for 24 hours for your 3RR, I hope you will continue this discussion in a more civilised way. I have been good enough not to throw insults at you. If you care so much about wiki policy, the least you can do is follow its rules concerning how we interact with each other. John Smith's 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's funny stuff. Someone actually took it personal for me to ask then to post talks in the discussion page. I'll be back cheers!

Hd88888 18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you wouldn't mind if I called you a pro-Chinese vandal then? I guess that's in wikipedia's etiquette guidelines. Well if that's the case then you obviously haven't learnt to treat other people on this board with more respect, which will probably land you more bans. John Smith's 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You should check your own talk page before accusing others. I like your other edits, but on this page you clearly decide to take side on an on going issue. Hd8888 16:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Natural resources

I had heard that the islands have some sort of onshore or offshore oil reserves or something of the like. Does anyone know about this? With all this fuss about these islands they must have something, either resources or a strategic location or something. Any ideas from anyone? 129.12.200.49 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not oil but gas. The islands matter because nautical borders are measured from the coastline. So whoever owns the islands owns most of the waters lying south of Japan. And these waters contain a field of natural gas both countries could use very well indeed. See: "China en Japan ruziën om olie en gas" in De Standaard 14/04/2005 (Belgian Paper)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was don't move. —Endroit 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article should be entitled "Pinnacle Islands" or...

the "Liancourt Rocks" artcle should be changed to "Dokdo". This would make sense in terms of consistency and equal application of titling. See "Liancourt Rocks" and "Senkaku Islands"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liancourt_Rocks

Request for move to Pinnacle Islands.--Sir Edgar 09:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Support per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Visviva 11:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Hong Qi Gong 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Senkaku Islands is the term used in referece works such as Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta. --Kusunose 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kusunose: Are you saying that Senkaku is a neutral name under W:NPOV? Thanks! Tortfeasor 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Following the naming of reference works is in accordance with WP:NPOV. --Kusunose 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Should Dokdo be reverted to Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku MUST be moved to Pinnacle Islands for consistency. If not, Senkaku may remain entitled so. --Sir Edgar 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - As the CIA Factbook shows, these islands are called Senkaku Islands by the United States, which is also the Japanese name.[1] Between 1945 and 1972, the United States has clearly controlled the Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands as part of Okinawa. In 1972, the United States transferred the jurisdiction over to Japan. [2] There are conflicting claims to these islands by the ROC (Taiwan) and the PRC (Mainland China), and there still remains a possibility that these islands will be peacefully handed over to either of the two. However, this is unlikely because the United States and Japan do not have diplomatic relations with the ROC. And there exists an iron curtain between the PRC and United States/Japan. So I believe that the United States and Japan dictate the naming of the islands in this case.--Endroit 07:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - It would be hard to deal with the Republic of China(Taiwan)'s territorial claim under this convention. ROC has territorial disputes with China (whose entire territory), Mongolia (whose entire territory), Russia, Myanmar, Afghanistan, India, Vietnam, and most of Southeast Asia nations. Should we name all above "disputed areas" with "more neutral English names"?--Captain0 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose With contested territories such as these where the naming is itself contentious any name has an element of POV. What is important, then, is what name is most commonly used and as someone who is currently studying East Asian international relations I can testify that Senkaku is by some margin the more common name used in the modern literature, as (to a lesser extent) is Dokdo (if anyone wishes I can provide a selection of sources as examples). I don't believe I've ever seen the islands referred to as the Pinnacle Islands, typically they are labeled as Senkaku, Senkaku/Diaoyutai or some similar variation. I also don't believe it's a particularly good idea to needlessly confuse matters simply because another article has chosen to do so. Daduzi 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Liancourt Rocks is another problem. We must not relate it. How had United States written these islands in U.S. government age(1945-1971)? We must follow it. Reference : All Wikipedias other than Chinese including Korean are writing it as Senkaku.Objectman 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Don't you see the logic under the dokdo-senkaku-pinnacle-liancourt? If you don't want to relate it, then please say why. Then we can talk about it. If you just say NO, then what can I say?

Why should we follow the written documents in 1945-1971? I don't understand. please explain.

And Koreans are not part of Chinese. Those are two different countries. Janviermichelle 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: We need to apply the same standards to all sides in the dispute, i.e., China, Japan, and the Republic of China(Taiwan), and if we do, some ridiculous results can be foreseen, as I pointed above. For example, the official names of Beijing and Ulaanbaatar adopted by the ROC government are different than those used by China and Mongolia, but shall we use some rarely-used English names to replace the real official ones just for NPOV? And, being a Taiwanese, I don't have enough knowledge on the Dokdo islands dispute, and I guess most of the Korean editors don't have enough knowledge on the Senkaku islands dispute either. Different disputes have different natures, it's better to resolve their naming issues case-by-case.Captain0 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks is another problem. Between neutrality and avoiding a name of a related country, both are unrelated.This Wikipedia is English edition. For example, should it be written to English edition Wikipedia as "Daehan-minkook" instead of "Republic of Korea"? Japanese do not protest against the "Kuril islands" because it is a general name in English. But, "Dokdo" is not common.Objectman 16:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this wikipedia is english edition. that's why we use germany for deutschland and japan for nippon etc. but do you have english name for small cities towns and islands? are you gonnna find some weired names like pinnalce and liancourt rocks from historical sources for every towns in every country? that's not possible. find a weird english name (or making up if it doesn't exist) or just use the name what the locals use? Janviermichelle 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not said that it should give the name of the English style. I have said that it should attach a general name in English.Objectman 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In your theory, Kuril Islands dispute will be referred to as not being a neutral title. Bur, Japanese don't oppose it because "Kuril" is general English name.Objectman 06:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I think that the special consistency should not be suggested as a reason for the chage of the title, because it may violate consistency based on other point of view.Reito-maguro 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The other article is at Dokdo, so this stays where it is. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose.It does not know why it links with the dispute over Takeshima islands.Support is impossible unless it can be convinced to it. --Celldea 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - There are no dominion struggle between Japan and the Chinese Communist Party. As you know, Senkaku islands are well known to world that they are Japanese island. Comparing with Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) is nonsense. -- Himawarichan 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

double standard. Janviermichelle 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose --nachi 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following opinions (not votes as this article is not officially up for move yet) did not follow the request for Support or Oppose comments and thus are not relevant to the discussion.

Conditional Support: If we were not to maintain double standards on matters some editors deem controversial, should Dokdo remain as it is, it should remain as Senkaku Islands. If Dokdo were to be removed back to Liancourt Rocks, it should be moved to Pinnacle Islands. Deiaemeth 18:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support: SAME as what Deiaemeth just said. Janviermichelle 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Conditional support/Conditional oppose. My logic is exactly the same as those of Deiaemeth on Dokdo-Senkaku-Pinnacle-Liancourt. Mr Tan 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for the article to be moved to Pinnacle Islands and Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks. English names must prevail over local names in all cases. Masterhatch 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I must add that while i agree with renaming this article Pinnacle Islands and the other article remaining at Liancourt Rocks, in no way do i feel that the two articles should be tied in together. If this voting is to mean anything, the voting must be separate for the two articles. The only way that the two articles should be tied in together is if it was a vote for all of wikipedia and it was stated something like "all articles in wikipedia are to use neutral english names and not local names or spellings even if the actual English name is less common than the local name in popular media." since this is not encompasing all of wikipedia, then we must separate these articles in the voting. Masterhatch 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What I think you overlook is that Senkaku (or Senkaku/Diaoyutai) is the English name for the islands, at least in the vast majority of scholarly work, journalism and political commentary. Parcel Islands is very seldom used. English names don't have to be made up of English words. Daduzi 23:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Senkaku Islands and Liancourt Rocks is different problem.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

I agree with the decision that Senkaku Islands should not be moved at this time. Perhaps my call for a poll was premature. As long as Dokdo stays where it is, then there is consistent application of NPOV. However, should Dokdo be moved back to Liancourt Rocks, I think this issue must be brought up again.--Sir Edgar 01:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Deiaemeth 08:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Japanese Opinion

Japan is made to war against China. And, South Korea obtains an advantage. The strategy of Edger is very excellent. Edger is ideal and great Korean. --70.159.21.50 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Korean, but thanks!!! I've been called everything from "pro-Chinese" to "anti-Malaysian". I'll just add you to the list of Japanese who thinks anyone critical of Japan's foreign policy must be "a dirty Korean"!--Sir Edgar 01:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do really think Koreans are neutral??? Both China and Korea have dominion problem between Japan. We can easily guess that Koreans would help Chinese for anti-Japanese sentiment. Korea is not neutral, and Korea have no relation with this problem between Japan and China. -- Himawarichan 01:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI- The above user Himawarichan has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. Probably for incessant vandalism. I don't know. This is despite my friendly warning against vandalism.--Sir Edgar 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm British, so I hope my view can be accepted as neutral (though I lived in China for a time, I honestly have no bias towards China, Taiwan or Japan in this matter). I would stress again what I said earlier: the most important issue is what name is most commonly used. I think everyone discussing this issue needs to read Wikipedia:Naming conflict carefully. In particular the following section is very relevant:

---

Article names Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.

The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).

Proper nouns The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

---

It needs to be stressed that nowhere is the naming of other articles mentioned. Whether the Dokdo article remains at Dokdo or is moved to Liancourt Rocks is something for the editors of that article to decide, based on the criteria above. This naming of this article should remain a separate issue, again based on the criteria above. Those who wish to move it need to show that Pinnacle Islands is the most common name of the islands, nothing else matters. --Daduzi 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What matters to me is the consistent application of Wikipedia rules.--Sir Edgar 01:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but I'd stress again that the rule is that "the most common use of a name takes precedence." If Senkaku is the most common name of these islands, and Liancourt Rocks the most common name of the others, then naming this article Senkaku and the other Liancourt Rocks is a consistent application of Wikipedia rules. --Daduzi 08:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think "Liancourt Rocks" is the most common name? It's not. It's "Dokdo". Google search reveals 653,000 hits for Dokdo vs. 64,300 hits for Liancourt Rocks.--Sir Edgar 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the most common name, I merely said if it was the most common name... The simple fact is that all that matters is what the most common name in English is, and if the editors of the other article choose to change the name to "Liancourt Rocks", even though that isn't the most common name, it doesn't mean this article should also go against Wikipedia guidlines. --Daduzi ^talk 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In the case of "Senkaku Islands" and "Dokdo", both are the names given by the administering countries and also the most common names. So, we're in agreement then.--Sir Edgar 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Common as in what context? You have 1 billion+ chinese known these islands as their historical names. You have 127 million Japanese 80% of which don't care about politics. And another 300 million Americans that can't even name the capital of their home state. Administration is just that between US and Japan. Even Europeans wouldn't call it Senkaku. Hd8888 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Common in English usage. Again, read Wikipedia:Naming conflict, the details are spelled out quite clearly there. These aren't rules I just made up, they're well established Wikipedia guidelines. And you're wrong as regards Europeans, I'm European and I've read the islands named as Senkaku in many, many European newspaper and journal articles. --Daduzi ^talk 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, if Chinese people say the sky is green, then the Japanese must agree, simply because there are more of them. Ridiculous.--Sir Edgar 06:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And clearly these are either Japanese or Chinese terms. Surprise! I'm European too. I won't debate you on wording, but I would contest on accuracy and neutrality. Most media outlets are filled with filled with mistakes. And btw, the sky is green and the Japanese do agree that is green, cause they took it! Hd8888 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They're originally Japanese or Chinese terms, but they're also used in English (just like Beijing or Tokyo). Are we supposed to rename the Hawaii article "Sandwich Islands", since "Hawaii" isn't an English word? As to the media making mistakes, I'll stress again that it's not important what the legally correct or morally correct name is, only what name is most commonly used (this is quite clear from Wikipedia:Naming conflict), so whether it's mistaken or not is irrelevant: if it's the most common name, that's what the article should be called. Besides, it's not just the media, academic books and journals also overwhelmingly use Senkaku (alongside Diaoyutai), and almost never use Pinnacle Islands. --Daduzi ^talk 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." I am not debating over the title of the article, rather the neutrality and the description. I have not attempted to redirect the pages, but only to neutralize the introduction as administration is inevitably a different word from control. Even the US government will not assert that. Again, anyone can tell that the Wiki naming convention and the POV policy is in conflict. Google search or not. Hd8888 21:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're not debating the title of the article, then what are you debating with me? --Daduzi ^talk 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, if this page is to remain with the current title, and part of the wikiJP project, I hope you all try and stay as neutral as possible. Since JP is already a very ethnocentric society, it just hurt JP society more if even public wiki articles becomes a political point.

Hd8888 00:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Taiwan Province" - PRC POV

This is POV garbage and should be changed as it does not reflect reality.

"The islands are currently administrated by Japan as a part of Ishigaki City, Okinawa prefecture. In China, it is a part of Taiwan province (Daxi Village (大溪里), Toucheng Township, Yilan County, Taiwan Province)."

Suggestion:

"The islands are currently _administered_ by Japan as a part of Ishigaki City, Okinawa prefecture."

"Administrated" isn't the same as "administered" - the correct term is most certainly "administered". Furthermore, as neither the PRC or ROC have control of the islands, it isn't really part of any PRC or ROC administrative region and hence any suggestion of this should be dropped. This appears to be a lame attempt to introduce pro-PRC POV and doesn't serve any useful purpose.

Zerot 05:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just change "In China, it is a part of..." to "According to both the PRC and ROC, it is part of..." and be sure to link to Taiwan Province--Jiang 07:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ROC vs. Taiwan

The entity that is disputing the control of the islands is the ROC, not Taiwan. The two are different. The ROC is a government, Taiwan is just an island. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're driving a personal position over Chinese nationalism - as somehow I doubt you believe Taiwan should be able to have formal independence - too far. Relatively few people know what the ROC is. However many more have heard of Taiwan. Taiwan is also the most commonly term used in media these days - not the Republic of China. Besides while you talk about the "entity" of the ROC, do you even recognise it as a legitimate entity? Because the ROC is not a properly recognised government in international circles.

Taiwan is only put in brackets with ROC for informative purposes. I don't think any reasonable person can object to it. Of course if someone replaced "Republic of China" with Taiwan I would agree. But it is not, so what is your problem? John Smith's 15:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have stated my reason for the edit. I'm not sure why you are questioning my personal political opinions or implying I have some ulterior motives for the edit. Check the China article, the ambiguous disclaimer at the top says "Republic of China (Taiwan)", but you'll notice that I haven't tried to edit that.

But to answer your question anyway - of course I think the ROC government is "legitimate". It has de fact sovereignty in Taiwan despite the fact that it is not officially recognised internationally. If I fall under your assumptions of my nationalistic intent, I would be trying to edit out the mention of the ROC government entirely or insist on adding that the ROC government is a rogue or illegitimate regime. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire point is that this is not the China article. It's an easy reference - why is it forbidden for adding a helpful identifying reference like "Taiwan"? John Smith's 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference is incorrect. Just like China or mainland China does not just redirect to People's Republic of China, Taiwan does not just redirect to Republic of China. The sentence does not say "People's Republic of China (PRC/China)", so why should it say "Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan)"? You may not believe you are making a political statement, but in essense, you are.

But to be honest about it, I don't feel too strongly about this edit. So unless other people agree with me, I'll relent and let you have it the way you want it. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but people KNOW what China is, as in regards the PRC. If you have Republic of China in as well they'll get confused - but not if there's "Taiwan" next to ROC as well.

Daduzi reverted your edits as well, so that indicates the thinks it's ok. John Smith's 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do people know of what China is, then? That it does not include Taiwan? That would be POV. Referring China only to the PRC, and not Taiwan, is POV. The same with referring to Taiwan only to the ROC. On the other hand, not mentioning China or Taiwan in reference to what the PRC and the ROC governments claim (which is the context here), would be NPOV. Like I said, you may not think you are making a political statement, but you really are. Saying Republic of China (ROC) without mention of Taiwan, is neutral. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, how can there be TWO Chinas? That is what the first thing that someone will think when they see this page. A reference to Taiwan clears that up immediately.

Oh, ho-ho. So now I'm being political? Well I think you trying to claim mentioning Taiwan as a simple reference is political shows your own inner bias. If you really don't care then you'll drop the issue. If you continue being obstinant then actually you're contradicting your own words through your actions. John Smith's 16:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. And I know I'm awesome, but no need to call me Jesus. I can't live up to the label. I already said I'll let you have your edit so I don't know how I'm being obstinant. I'm just stating my opinion here that the neutral thing to do is to not include Taiwan as an entity that's claiming these islands. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Though the situation seems (thankfully) to have been resolved, I just want to make it clear that my reason for favouring the "Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan)" format is because Taiwan is a commonly used synonym for the ROC, and parentheses are typically used for alternate names. Thus "United Kingdom (UK/Britain)" would, in my opinion, be an acceptable formulation since Britain is often used when referring to the United Kingdom, even though the UK is larger than just Great Britain. I think sometimes it's possible to be too concerned with the correct formulation of things on Wikipedia; what Wikipedia (like any good encyclopaedia) should do is reflect common usage rather than try to determine it. --Daduzi ^talk 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just change it to Peoples Republic of China (PRC/China) and Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) and the situation is resolved, however I feel that most pro-CCPers would find the former reference rather distasteful, but they can't have it both ways. The current sentence reflects common sense and realistic reporting of the situation _as it is currently_ and pro-CCPers have no cause for complaint. Zerot 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Article title needs to be changed to something more neutral

The current singular title "Senkaku Islands" seems to flat out accept Japan's claim that it belongs to them when in fact it is heavily disputed with China. I suggest adding "Diaoyutai Islands" in brackets right after the "Senkaku Islands" to more neutrally reflect current Japanese control over the islands as well as its heavily disputed status.--Lssah 88 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Try telling that to all the japanophiles circling this page like sharks circling a rocky outcrop in the Pacific Ocean... --Sumple (Talk) 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahhah, couldn't agree more. But that will probably also mean we'd have to convince the Koreans to move Dokdo back to Liancourt Rocks.  :-p --- Hong Qi Gong 05:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There's basically no precedent on Wikipedia for giving an article two names, with one in parenthesis. As a general principle, we almost always try to find one name—the most common name—and stick to that, while explaining other names in the article text. Now, I know next to nothing about the Diaoyutais or the Liancourt Rocks, but, if Senkaku and Dokdo is how they are more commonly known in English, then that's where the articles should be located. It has nothing to do with accepting Japan's claim to sovereignty over the islands.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it though? I've never even heard of the name Senkaku Islands until recently. --Sumple (Talk) 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea. I was surprised to find that it hasn't been discussed more thoroughly (ad nauseam) in the past, but there was a move request which gives the impression of a vague consensus that Senkaku is more common.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that "Senkaku" was decided because Japan has effective control over the islands, and not because of common usage? --- Hong Qi Gong 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but, if so, that's not a very good reason.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references, "Senkaku Islands" is the most common name in English.

• Google test: about 77,100 English pages for "Senkaku Islands"[3], 11,400 English pages for "Diaoyutai Islands"[4] and about 216 English pages for "Pinnacle Islands"[5].
• International organisations: The United Nations Cartographic Section lists "Senkaku Island" as "JP Territory" in List of Territories (pdf).
• Major English-language media outlets: At BBC News, seaching Senkaku Islands returns 47 articles while Diaoyutai Islands returns 2. At CNN News, Senkaku Islands returns '193 (estimated)' while Diaoyutai Islands returns '33 (estimated)'.
• Reference works: Columbia Encyclopedia[6] and Encarta[7] uses Senkaku Islands.

--Kusunose 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid these results are unclear. There are an additional 55,000 English google hits for "Diaoyu Islands" and there are 147 hits on BBC news for diaoyu OR diaoyutai vs. 132 for senkaku.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krause is correct. The current results on all major search engines produces number in favor of Daioyutai in some instance and not in others. At the very least, the numbers are close. If search results in the only reason to keep this page's bias title, it should be reviewed.

---

You will not refer to other users as 'japanophiles' - this is unprofessional and unacceptable. I do not think you would take kindly to being referred to as a 'communist' or any other derogatory reference reflecting your political alignment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.202.87.178 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 August 2006.

Dear anonymous, I don't think "Japanophile" is derogatory reference. It just means "someone who likes Japan."—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a term often used negatively, though, a bit like "fanboy". So the term has to be used carefully.

Anyway, I'm not sure how the article could be titled otherwise. It is the term most commonly used in English from what I've seen. John Smith's 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No offence, John Smith's, (and not accusing you of being a fanboy), but what you have seen could be biased by your affinity with Japanese culture rather than Chinese. --Sumple (Talk) 00:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more fuel to the fire, "Proceeding from the Japanese people stand of opposition to militarism, one should reject the name Senkaku Islands, which was adopted by Japanese Militarism after seizing them from China. Use the only correct name in history, namely, the Tiaoyu (Diaoyutai) Island" ----------- Japanese historian Kiyoshi Inoue.

In all seriousness, if "Japanophile" want to keep vandalize this article. I say let them try. After all, no international law is drawn up on wiki articles yet. Ignorance can not be edited, deleted, or interpreted in good context. Ignorance is just plain dumb. I'm glad this issue is active among the general public. As long as it is not butchered, pillaged, raped, beheaded, denied, then ignored, we will be fine. Hd8888 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I strongly agree, as a neutral international observer, that the article name should be changed to it's English name, or as it is known to the national community prior to the ownership disputes over the last hundred or so years, to retain neutrality. I noted above that there had been a vote on this matter, however on further inspecting each voting users userpage and edits, I found that almost all of those opposed had either edited with interest in, or originated in some way from one of the two countries arguing over the territories and thus causing a cultural astroturfing for lack of a better word.

It'd be like saying, "We should change the article about 'suicide bombers' to 'homocide bombers' because that's what it is!" without getting the Islamic community coming through and broadsiding the motion. We need to retain a neutrality if we are to go to another vote and we need a means to be able to do it.

Please, before posting to this sub-thread below this line, only contribute if you wish to put forwards a means by which we can have a TRULY LEGITIMATE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW vote without encouraging the astroturf from both pro-China and pro-Japan voters. Keep all "ZOMG HAHA U SPENK MONKEY OBAH HENTAI" shit elsewhere.

I don't get it.

This dispute .. it's terra nullius. Thus first person to pitch a flag and settle there owns it. You can't maintain lands outside coastal and economic regional waters and that island falls outside all of the contenders who claim it as theirs. Any international law experts or LOS experts here who can put in their two cents? 211.30.71.59 15:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can be not to get it though Okinawa to Senkaku is much closer compared to UK to Falkland Islands and Hainan to Spratly Islands. Jjok 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

You know the story. Don't edit war. Resolve your disputes some other way. enochlau (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The page protection is highly dubious since obviously you have strong opinion in this issue. I need to ask you why you reverted to the other guy's version before protecting it? If you're an admin and you're involved in an edit war, using your sysop power to justify your POV is a definite no-no.-- 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the editing of this article. All I want to see is the ending of edit warring on this article, among others. The revert was because it seemed to be the version with the highest consensus. Now get on with thrashing out a final peace deal with the others. enochlau (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta, I would like to ask you to create Taiwan-China relations article before add the link to this article. Otherwise, it will just confuse people.--Jjok 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure I will do that as long as the admins don't delete it. And as for the comment above, I simply don't get why you would need to revert it to one of the version and then protecting it. Obviously, you just involved yourself in this edit war to push a controverisial POV. And then Using your special sysop access to shut your opposition down, these are all direct contrast to the optimal admin conduct.--Certified.Gangsta 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your opinion that enochlau is supporting pov and I do not know how administrator should behave in this case very well. However, I feel the revert itself is reasonable to avoid users to guess what is Taiwan-China relations. It is quicker for you to further discuss here

I notice that there is Cross-Strait relations (Taiwan-china relations) so suggest the opening as follows. (Please do not forget to expand Taiwan-china relations article.(^-^))

To anyone who added "China-Taiwan relations": --- from jw919 You should at least make clear two basic things before your addition: 1. It is not correct to write China-Taiwan. You can write "mainland China and Taiwan" - then nobody would debate on this. 2. Both mailand China and Taiwan agree that Diaoyutai Islands (Senkaku Islands) belong to Yilan, Taiwan. Furthermore, mainland China claim Taiwan, as a whole (of course including Diaoyutai Islands), is part of PRC - but this is another topic, not related with Diaoyutai Islands. So, please stop adding sentences like "major issue between mainland China and Taiwan". In the issue of Diaoyutai(Senkaku) Islands, they have the agreement that the islands belong to Taiwan.

Suggestion for unprotection

• the last paragraph of the opening: "Their status has emerged as a major issue in Sino-Japanese relations and Cross-Strait relations."
• add [[Category:Cross-Strait interactions]]

--Jjok 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented your suggestions, and unprotected the article. However, it will quickly go back on protection if the edit war flares up again. enochlau (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Maybe no more the same kind of edit war since User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH has been blocked. ==Jjok 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)