Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 220.83.10.138 (talk) at 10:11, 21 March 2022 (→Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Senkaku Islands sanctions

Imperial Chinese edict - a forgery?

In the article it is written: "Permission for collecting herbs on three of the islands was recorded in an Imperial Chinese edict of 1893." I thought this was an important fact concerning the islands, however untill I found an analysis in a paper of Han-yi Shaw, THE DIAOYUTAI/SENKAKU ISLANDS· DISPUTE: ITS HISTORY AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE OWNERSHIP CLAIMS OF THE P.R.C., R.O.C., AND JAPAN. p.62. Excerpt: "Perhaps it may be also suggested that while the imperial edict per se is not a genuine one and was possibly used merely as a commercial advertisement for Sheng's pharmaceutical house, evidently it was "fabricated" based on the common understanding of the Chinese public that the islands were Chinese territory [...]" Therefore I suggest that questions about the authenticity of the edict schould be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.176.241.107 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

Change "In the 1470s( early Ming Dynasty), . . ." to "In the 1470s (early Ming Dynasty), . . ." 202.246.252.97 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 01:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lighthouse is much older

The lighthouse on Uotsuri was built by a nationalist group in 1978 and nationalized in 2005. See ja: 魚釣島灯台. The nationalist group built another on Kita-kojima in 1996. 220.147.88.128 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about possible problems in this article

The same type of problem that exists on the Senkaku Islands dispute page also exists here. The China Coast Guard was mentioned in the lead section of this article despite not being mentioned in the source quoted. From these examples, I infer that this page too may have other problematic areas and I recommend that the article be thoroughly reviewed and checked by multiple experts at the earliest possible date, including the edits I made. I am not an expert in the specifics of this dispute, but the fact that I have seemingly discovered several major problems after a brief glance at the articles is not a good sign. Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle Islands

These islands are in dispute, shouldn't we follow WP:NPOV by naming them the Pinnacle Islands instead? 2001:8003:9008:1301:BD1C:A878:DDEF:82DD (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are administered by the country of Japan at this time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about name, not administration. Toto11zi (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are administered by Japan, thus it goes with the name they formally call it. If they choose one day to call it Pinnacle going forward, that's what this article be titled too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Washuotaku Please give a reliable third party source to prove that this is under Japanese control, as far as I can find now source to, it seems that neither Japan nor China has a military presence on it.---WMLO (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:維基百科最忠誠的反對者 Here is an article from the BBC that states they are owned by Japan and gives details as to why China is now trying to claim the islands. And unlike the South China Sea, China has not tried to invade the islands because it would trigger a war with the United States. Right or wrong, at this time its administration is Japan; you don't need people on the ground to control the reality. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Washuotaku Thank you very much for your reply. However, I should point out that the original BBC article referred to "The islands are controlled by Japan" and not "they are owned by Japan" as you said.Forgive me for chewing on these words, but their use may affect whether or not the principle of "naming principles" can be applied.In view of the disputed sovereignty of these islands, I am of the opinion that Wikipedia, in order to maintain its neutrality, should first use what most sources refer to as "Pinnacle Islands". The relevant cases also have articles with names like Liancourt Rocks.---WMLO (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:維基百科最忠誠的反對者 I completely disagree with you. These islands are not in dispute, they are owned by the Japanese with only the Japanese visiting the islands because if China did it would be a military confrontation. I have stated my reasoning and provided facts, I will not continue this debate; please find other editors that support your opinion, have a nice day! --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Washuotaku" I completely disagree with you."; I can only express regret about this.
"These islands are not in dispute"; not realy, both (or all three) parties have presented evidence to prove that sovereignty belongs to them, and this entry also describes the dispute over sovereignty over these islands.
"they are owned by the Japanese with only the Japanese visiting the islands because if China did it would be a military confrontation "“I have stated my reasoning and provided facts”；What you describe is the opinion of a BBC newspaper and is not factual, It's like wondering which day the Chinese and Japanese fishing boats will meet around the coast and have a barbecue party on this island- but that is speculation, not fact. You can add the BBC's opinion to the article rather than asserting it.
I wish you a good day too, and you are welcome to participate in the discussion afterwards if a series of consensus points to a change of name to "Pinnacle Islands".——WMLO (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the name change. Toto11zi (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should go with the most common name in English sources, which appears to be Senkaku Islands, at least for news outlets.DaysonZhang (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support:for this name change：@User:DaysonZhang:If you search for "Senkaku Islands" in Google there are 600,000 search results.and if you search for "Pinnacle Islands" there are 12,900,000 results.Based on your reasoning, this page should be renamed to "Pinnacle Islands".---WMLO (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is always terrible reasoning, keep at current title, which is most commonly used in reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia Thank you for participating in the discussion. But with all due respect, this is also just an Eassy. And the number of Google hits mentioned in the article is only an argument as to whether its entry should be a deletion；Not to mention that the article also mentions
"The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed. As well, numerous hits that refer to X as "Y" can demonstrate that "Y" is a plausible redirect to the article on X; the redirects for discussion process, unlike articles for deletion, will often hinge on matters such as plausibility and numbers of search engine results.”

- simply put, if my search for Google ""Pinnacle Islands"" yields a higher number of results than "Senkaku Islands" this also proves that the term is used more frequently in the online world than "Senkaku Islands" i.e. in line with "Wp:UCRN ".——WMLO (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“keep at current title, which is most commonly used in reliable sources”；Not realy.and ithink ,if a media outlet refers to these islands as "Senkaku Islands" without also mentioning other names (such as "Diaoyu Islands"), it does not meet our criteria for a "reliable source". --At least he must not be neutral and objective.——WMLO (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

The words "Japanese-administered" right at the top is redundant and awkwardly placed, considering that the circumstances behind this island and its history is already mentioned within the same lead section. I also don't think such wording is used for other islands, whether its disputed or not. This addition also seems to be relatively recent, being added just a month ago. 220.83.10.138 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands&oldid=1078392326"