Talk:Senkaku Islands

The article is highly biased and has ignored a lot of historical facts

This wikipedia Senkaku page is controlled and kidnapped by right wing Japanese nationalist. Many "facts" are wrong and distorted with no proof and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.67.179 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The History section of the article is highly biased and a lot of actual historical evidence has been ignored. Clearly the creator of that section biased towards Japan. The section gives the impression that the islands belongs to Japan in the first place until oil reserve was discovered then Chinese started to claim it.

In fact, Japan took the islands when they scored a victory in 1895. Long before that, islands was part of China. I am not trying to say who the islands belong however the following article reflects a more object view on the issue. Please add a section "China-Japan Ownership dispute" with following contents.

Since 1970 the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Japan have all put forward bold sovereignty claims over the islands, which are equidistant from Taiwan and the southwestern tip of the Ryukyus. According to Chinese sources the first mention of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is in a 15th-century document now held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Early sources tended to mention only the islands’ location on the voyage to the Ryukyus from China, but by the 17th century Chinese sources clearly named the maritime boundary between the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and the Ryukyus as the Heishuigou (‘Black Water Trench’), an area of high turbulence which we now know marks the edge of the continental shelf. In 1720 Xu Baoguang, the deputy Chinese ambassador sent to confer the royal title upon the Ryukyuan king, collaborated with the local literati to compile the travelogue Zhongshan Chuanxin lu (Record of the Mission to Chusan), which demarcated the westernmost border of the Ryukyuan kingdom at Kume-jima south of the Heishuigou Trench. Deputy ambassador Zhou Huang likewise identified Heishuigou as the boundary in 1756 and later the envoy Li Dingyuan noted the practice of sacrificing a live goat or pig when convoys crossed the trench. In the late 19th century the reformer Wang Tao, who had had experience of travelling in Europe, responded to the Japanese annexation of the Ryukyus by referring to Japanese sources which listed the Ryukyus as a separate country in 1670. He argued that even though the islands were vassals of both China and the Japanese state of Satsuma, the former relationship was more formal; the conquest of an inner tributary (Ryukyus) by an outer tributary (Japan) of China was a cause for outrage.

In contrast Japan’s argument largely ignored the historical position put forward in Chinese accounts. Claiming that the uninhabited islands were not occupied by any power, or terra nullius, Japan annexed the islands in 1895 shortly after its victory in the Sino-Japanese War. Japan claimed that the islands were ‘discovered’ in 1884 by Fukuoka merchant Koga Tatsushiro, who then applied to lease the land from the Japanese state. At the time, however, the interior ministry noted that it was still unclear as to whether the islands belonged to Japan, especially as there was detailed knowledge of the islands in Chinese and Ryukyuan writings, making Koga’s claims of ‘discovery’ difficult to substantiate. Nonetheless a Cabinet decision in 1895 ruled that the islands should become part of Japan, which provided the basis for their inclusion in Japan’s territories under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 that concluded the Second World War in Asia, but at which neither China nor Taiwan were present.

From the Chinese perspective there is little substance to Japan’s claims that the islands were not ‘occupied’, given that a fine distinction exists between ‘uninhabited’ and ‘unoccupied’. Sources suggest that there are graves of Taiwanese fishermen on the island. Although US occupation authorities in Okinawa administered the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands from 1945 until 1972 and used them as a training base, the US government did not see the transfer to Japan of the right of administration over the islands as equivalent to the transfer of sovereignty, which it insisted was a matter to be resolved by the relevant parties. Realising that such an ambiguity existed, the Okinawa Legislative Assembly, still under US control at the time, passed a resolution in August 1970 which declared the islands to be part of Japan and its claims were backed up by the then foreign minister Aichi Kiichi in the National Diet. In the meantime Taiwan issued an official protest, followed before the end of the year by similar complaints voiced by official Chinese media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

None of this is appropriate for this page. You can't use this talk page to argue what is or isn't true, or whose claims are or are not correct. This page is only for suggesting changes to teh article, which must be done based on reliable sources, not your own personal opinions/research. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this not appropriate? I am not to argue what is or isn't true but I'm saying it is not objective. The source is from http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict . If you are saying this source is not reliable, what makes the original article reliable and objective?

I suggest you present the sources for further discussions. There is one problem though. Wikipedia only accepts "neutral" and "reliable" sources which include most Western sources, even if they are somewhat biased. Chinese sources are cut off, because Chinese press is said to be controlled by the government. So basically this article will never be unbiased. But maybe you cite the sources anyway. --Habahaba1234 (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have used Chinese sources before in other articles, so, they aren't necessarily disallowed. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with you, the paragraph was part of http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict . On this issue, I have avoided to use Chinese sources to make it reliable, however, the sentence, "Wikipedia only accepts "neutral" and "reliable" sources which include most Western sources, even if they are somewhat biased. Chinese sources are cut off, because Chinese press is said to be controlled by the government.", itself is stereotype. It basically means two things : 1) Even biased Western sources can be used 2) All Chinese sources are not allowed regardless its objectivity. 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

controlled and administered by Japan?

Who is/ are in charge of editing this wikipedia Senkaku page and this whole article is wrong and biased against the Chinese people in Taiwan and China? I know they are volunteer but can wikipedia fire and replace the people responsible for this Senkaku page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.67.179 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an uninhabited island. I thought no one's in control of it right now. Why does this article say it's controlled by japan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.131.84 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is controlled by Japan because 1) Japanese patrol ships have never allowed any ships unauthorized by Japanese government to enter within 12 nautical miles of the islets; 2) No citizens from other countries have landed on the islets; and 3) there is no dispute in the sovereignty of the islets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.45.254 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, all 3 of those statements are wrong. Have you not watched the news for the past two months? In any event, though, the basic sentiment behind 173's point is correct--sources show that, as a general rule, Japan maintains physical control over the islands through the use of its navy, enforcing its claim to ownership; China currently does not do or attempt to do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny that you said "China currently does not do or attempt to do that". "Have you not watched the news for the past two months?". Thanks for pointing out "basic sentiment behind 173's point is correct". But can you even tell what it is, my dear native English speaker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.45.254 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Coast Guard protect the islands, while ships from both Taiwan and China do not, it is as simple as that. News reports of the events that unfolded correspond to the fact that Japan does and currently administer the islands, while the incursion from Chinese vessels lasted only a few hours. Now nobody is ignoring the fact that the islands are currently claimed by three nations in the area, and this is not even a unique case since the world is littered with hundreds of islands being claimed by several competing nations from all over the world, but there is no question that Japan administers them at this point in time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

173, China has not, as far as I know, ever attempted to use its navy to control the Senkaku Islands (at least, not within the past 30 years). Yes, last week they sent some ships, but they only briefly entered the EEZ, and did not attempt to conrol the islands or the waters in any way. My guess was that your underlying sentiment was that Japan is the controller of the islands because China has not actually "controlled" them in any sense, while at least Japan has controlled them in the sense of kicking out the citizens of other countries who try to come on them or near them. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither Japan nor China controls the islands. Both send ships there from time to time, usually leading to diplomatic protests from the other side. The islands are essentially neutral territory as far as any zone of control goes. Neither side can enter the territory without a protest from the other side. I think any claim of the islands being "controlled" by one side or the other is essentially injecting the perspective of that party into the article at the expense of the other side of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.117.247 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 107.6.117.247. After reading the introduction of this page, I questioned the neutrality of the article almost immediately. The "Sovereignty dispute" section clearly explains the "control" debate without bias and the info bar and the intro should be updated to be consistent with the content of "Sovereignty dispute." In its current state, I don't think the article is credible for 1. It is clearly missing citations for "are a group of uninhabited islands controlled by Japan." and 2. In the intro, it is clearly leaning towards one side of the debate which is not appropriate given recent events. Mlehner616 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation is ridiculous (no personal offense). The isles are controlled by Japan, because the US gave control to the Japanese (legitimate or not is different question). The Chinese could go there anytime with their entire navy. But that would start a war. Yet, it does not mean they can't. Control here does not mean "I have more guns and you cannot do anything about it." --Habahaba1234 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Japan's coast guard patrols the islands and arrests any non-Japanese who land on them without permission. Also, they detain any non-Japanese fishing ships caught operating in the waters without permission. So, Japan treats the islands as its territory. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of dealing in hypotheticals, Wikipedia articles are supposed to deal in reality. As an administrator (see my userpage), I'm warning you now that if you're not careful you're going to run afoul of the discretionary sanctions on this article; carefully read the header of this talkpage before proceeding further. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 22:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

When asking this question ask yourself when Japan "lost" control or administrative authority historically if Japan does not currently administer. If Japan has NEVER administered how did private Japanese citizen(s) come into an ownership position? Where are the Chinese allegations that Japan has "stolen" the territory coming from in Japan is not currently in possession (rightly or wrongly)?--Brian Dell (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see some reference to Japan arresting trespassers and evicting non-japanese fishers, as claimed by user 173.76.45.254 to back up the "japan always controlled the island", otherwise the article should be changed to reflect that no country (or some other country if there are references) controls the island. 50.99.131.84 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC) preferably post WWII 50.99.131.84 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is an article from the NY Times, from 2004, when China protested Japan for arresting Chinese Nationals that landed and trespassed on the island. [1]. If you do a simple search on news sites from any news organization in the world, you will find similar stories that show Japan administering the islands and you will not find one showing either China or Taiwan doing the same. Again, there is no dispute, outside China, who actually administers the islands. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I want to request an edit of this part:

After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4] Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan) following the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in 1971.

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:

They are located roughly due east of Mainland China, northeast of Taiwan, west of Okinawa Island, and north of the southwestern end of the Ryukyu Islands. In 1968 it was discovered that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands.

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).

Thank you very much. Mr.Helfer (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable change to me; unless there are objections when I log in tomorrow, I'll put it in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The proposed change is an unsourced original research. Both China never expected the return of the islands. On the contrary, there are several evidences that both China regarded the islands as Japanese territory.　(See Japan's position section of this article.) There was no objection from both China about the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, the US trusteeship of the islands and the reversion of the islands to Japan. The above timeline is incorrect.

• 1966 CCOP of ECAFE began a survey of mineral resources in East China Sea.
• Mar. 1969 Newsweek reported the possibility of one trillion dollar worth oil reserve in East China Sea.
• Nov. 21, 1969 Joint Communique regarding the return of Okinawa was released.
• Dec. 29, 1970 PRC's first objection to US company's oil survey operation which had been conducted for the past several months.
• Feb. 23, 1971 Taiwan's first claim over the islands objecting the exploration of the continental shelf.
• Jun. 17, 1971 Okinawa reversion treaty was signed.
• Dec. 30, 1971 PPC's official claim over the islands.

Source pp.9-12

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

At first I was going to say that both the present and the suggested change are wrong...I was worried that the current version is WP:SYNTHESIS. But if you look at the quote in the reference (which appears to be from a neutral third party, though I'm less certain on this point), that author himself explicitly makes the "oil is found, which is what then started China into making claims" argument. However, if Mr. Helfer has references that support his proposed version, then presumably we could include both (although the complexity may be such that the point needs to move out of the lead and into the body). But without new sources, and the clarity of the current source, I think the current version is most accurate. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the quote is a part of claims of Japan. There are reliable sources which say the discovery of oil reserve triggered the sovereignty claim of both China.[2][3]

You can search further by the key word Senkaku Islands ECAFE 1968.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I held off; figured if someone knew more they'd bring it up. Anyways, I'm interested to hear from Mr.Helfer what, if any, sources he might have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view it looks like a claim-game of both sides. I came to this article after reading a BBC summary (http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict). In the summary it was stated :

"But Beijing says Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek did not raise the issue, even when the Diaoyu islands were named in the later Okinawa reversion deal, because he depended on the US for support."

Further it looks like that the US were aware that the situation of the islands wasn´t clear. (http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict):

"Although US occupation authorities in Okinawa administered the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands from 1945 until 1972 and used them as a training base, the US government did not see the transfer to Japan of the right of administration over the islands as equivalent to the transfer of sovereignty, which it insisted was a matter to be resolved by the relevant parties. Realising that such an ambiguity existed, the Okinawa Legislative Assembly, still under US control at the time, passed a resolution in August 1970 which declared the islands to be part of Japan and its claims were backed up by the then foreign minister Aichi Kiichi in the National Diet. In the meantime Taiwan issued an official protest, followed before the end of the year by similar complaints voiced by official Chinese media."

Too be honest I am not able to conduct, which side is right at the moment and therefore would ask for some support regarding this matter. Mr.Helfer (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your source written by a Chinese student[4] impressed me how it distorted the fact for promoting Chinese position.

1. The description "the US government did not see the transfer to Japan of the right of administration over the islands as equivalent to the transfer of sovereignty, which it insisted was a matter to be resolved by the relevant parties." is completely false because the US government never wonder to which country Senkaku Islands should be returned.
2. The resolution was declared in the midst of an oil war in the area. "the continental shelf exploitation license given by Taiwan to the U.S. Pacific Gulf Corporation in July,1970, which include the Senkaku islets within the concession area and conflicted with the area applied for by the Japanese Oil Corporation"[5] In protest against the Taiwan's exploration, Okinawa Legislative Assembly passed a resolution called "Resolution on the territorial defense of Senkaku Islands" not "Realising that such an ambiguity existed".
3. Aichi Kiichi answered "The Japanese sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands is not a shadow of doubt. This is not a matter to discuss or negotiate with other country". It is the same answer that current Prime Minister and Foreign Minister expressed. There is no implication behind the answer like "Realising that such an ambiguity existed".

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

He is a Graduate history student, who studied at Yale and was funded by the Japan Foundation. Should I critizize the use of a South-Korean autor, too? Nationalities really shouldn´t matter in this case. I am not even sure, whether Lee is British with Chinese descendants or a Chinese after all.

1. The current standpoint of the US is that China, Taiwan and Japan should resolve their problems peacefully. Even now the US-American government don´t say, who is the owner of the islands. And like your own timetable says: The US knew that Taiwan wanted the islands.

1. That´s a good part. We should try to work it into this or the Senkaku Island´s dispute article.

1. Of course the Japanese government say this. The ambiguity was about the fact that the Taiwanese officials claimed the opposite. Mr.Helfer (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Helfer, you wrote 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. What made both governments thought that the US would give these islands to the PRC or ROC till 1971? I'd like to know what are the grounds of the idea with reliable sources. Oda Mari (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than this. Till the oil discovery the PRC, ROC and Japan weren´t really aware about their potential claims on these islands. After the discovery the three countries began to make questions regarding its sovereignity. If the islands were part of the Middle Kingdom before, the islands would have been automatically transferred to China (PRC or ROC) by the US.

Read part "3.4.10. Domestic confusions about the islands ownership" and "3.5. The Year 1969 – The Oil Discovery (http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf):

and

"Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war."

(http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/#more-11688) Mr.Helfer (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to argue furthermore? Your proposed text was already proved to be wrong. The dispute began before "the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in December [sic] 1971 with the Okinawa Reversion Treaty" as described in the above timeline. All the disputes in 1970 are related to the oil exploration in the area as described in my source[6] and yours[7]. The fact is that the oil discovery triggered the dispute and the reversion of the islands to Japan fueled the dispute.

P.S. Please don't cite an article written by a typical pro-China scholar Han-yi Shaw along with an article written by a Chinese student in this discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit that the conflict began earlier. Sorry for that, Phoenix7777, I was confused by a chronology format of another article. However I still propose a change, because the current one implies that the PRC and ROC are only concerned about the oil, while this conflict is more about national and historical pride. Can we change it into this?

After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4] the sovereignty over them has been disputed by Japan, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan).

(The administration transfer is already mentioned with "The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972, when the islands reverted to Japanese control under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty between the United States and Japan.[5]")

P.S.: Han-yi Shaw seems to be a good enough source for a New York Times journalist. Why do you think we shouldn´t use him? And how do you know that Joyman Lee is a Chinese? He is cited by Reuters and was published by historytoday. Of course we can work without them and use other sources. I am just curious. After all we use Japanese and Western authors, too. Mr.Helfer (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Han-yi Shaw seems to be a good enough source for WP.That NYT journalist, Nicholas D. Kristof, is known as pro-China one. Possibly because his wife is Chinese. He wrote "So which country has a better claim to the islands? My feeling is that it’s China, although the answer isn’t clearcut." in his blog in 2010. [8] He also wrote "In reality, of course, there is zero chance that the U.S. will honor its treaty obligation over a few barren rocks. " He was totally wrong. I don't think he is a good journalist. See also this. Consulate-General of Japan in New York protested against the content of his Sept.10 blog and the refutation was appeared on NYT. Oda Mari (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas D. Kristof has the Pulitzer price. Does the journalist have to bear the Nobelprize before we can regard him as good? Why is he a "known" pro-Chinese journalist? You are clearly biased in this case, Oda Mari. However it doesn´t matter whether we use Han-yi Shaw or not. The other source is reasonable enough for the proposed change. 89.204.139.177 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion. He and NYT were criticized in a book entitled "Japan Made in USA/Laughed at Japanese: Strange Japanese Described by The New York Times" (1998). See [9] and [10] (translation). Pulitzer prize winners are not necessarily neutral. Oda Mari (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If we follow your logic, nobody is necessarily neutral. Even you have to admit that this is a real minority view regarding the neutrality of the NYT and Kristof. Problably we can even find some books about the "real objectives" of 9/11.89.204.138.209 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2012

name = Diaoyu Islands 24.37.66.154 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per previous discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Once protection is lifted, I would like to add this source to the "History" section to provide more information on the Kurihara family who owned the islands since the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the article

This article could be improved and expanded.

1. The "Early History" section does not really explain what is the earliest documentation from the point of view of Japan. It seems to only list the views of China and Europe.

2. ""On 11 September 2012, the Japanese government nationalized its control over Minamikojima, Kitakojima, and Uotsuri islands"."

The spelling is inconsistent with the previous standard which uses hyphenation.

3. I would have liked to line up the "One islet of the group – Uotsuri" photo with the paragraph that starts with "In 1870s and 1880s, the English name Pinnacle Islands" but the article is protected so I cannot do it.

ICE77 (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

The name of the islands is wrong! It must be Diaoyu Islands as it was so called since many centuries ago. The content was written by some people who want to make it appear as if the islands are really owned by the Japanese, then China is just "claiming" it.

Therefore I sincerely request to edit the content for the sake of rectifying the wrong info.

Thank you!

Henry Wong Ph.D Hong Kong hwong0309@yahoo.com.hk

112.200.176.220 (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If you read the notices at the top of this page, you will note that this article is currently under sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Under these sanctions, attempts to rename or discuss renaming this article are prohibited until 2013. Users who violate the terms of these sanctions are liable to be blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal Request on September 20, 2012

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is very biased and misleading. A lot of statements are not based on historic evidence. As an attorney, I suggest the removal of this article to avoid further conflicts, disputes and liabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.36.13 (talk • contribs) Please note that making legal threats will result in you being blocked per WP:NLT. Furthermore, you didn't actually say what's wrong with the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC) This article should be temporarily removed before it becomes more neutral. If you read the article rating, the low scores is a strong suggestion of its low quality. Furthermore, I think Qwyrxian should not admin this page as his position is clearly biased towards Japan if you read all his comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Please don't take kind advice as legal threat. Doing so only shows the administrator of the page is biased.

Edit request on 20 September 2012

Isn't "Japanese workers at a bonito fisheries processing plant on Uotsuri-jima sometime around 1910" grammatically wrong? Shouldn't it be "Japanese workers at a bonito fishery processing plant on Uotsuri-jima sometime around 1910"? Andrarias (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Andrarias (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but have changed it as you suggest — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

China announces standardised geographical names

Two organisations of the PRC, the State Oceanic Administration and Ministry of Civil Affairs, has recently announced standardised names for geographic entities within the island group. These names are official for PRC-published maps as of 21 September 2012. Refer to this report by Xinhua News Agency. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you are requesting or simply making a statement here? The article lists Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, and English names of the islands. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The recent announcement officially standardises names, and also includes names of points on top of islands and straits between islands, not only islands and reefs. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Did the name change from what we use in the article? We shouldn't provide names for all of those smaller points, but if there was some other change, we should follow suit. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2012

Inconsistencies with regard to how Japanese names are to be rendered in English has led to an error in the paragraph entitled «Japanese and US control». As pointed out there, Koga Tatsushirō (古賀 辰四郎) constructed a bonito processing plant on the islands with 200 workers. However, the names of Koga's descendents who in the 1970s sold four of the islets to the Kurihara family was not, as stated there, «Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō», but rather Koga Zenji and Koga Hanako or, in the European order with given name first and surname last, Zenji and Hanako Koga. «Tatsushirō» was Koga Tatsushirō's given name, not his surname. I see two alternatives here :

1) Follow the traditional Japanese order, with surname first. In this case, «Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō» should be changed to «Koga Zenji and Koga Hanako».

2) Follow the standard European order (my apologies to Hungarians !), in which case «Koga Tatsushirō (古賀 辰四郎)» should be changed to «Tatsushirō Koga (古賀 辰四郎)» and «Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō» to «Zenji and Hanako Koga», the order used in the Japan Times article used as a source («The Kuriharas bought the four islets from family friends Zenji and Hanako Koga, whose family had been managing them since the Meiji Era.»).

Mhenriday (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the name order, it's nothing wrong. Koga Tatsushirō was born in 1856. See ja:古賀辰四郎. Our Manual of Style says "For a historical figure—a person born before the Meiji period (before 1868)—always use the traditional Japanese order of family name + given name in Latin script". According to this page, Zenji died in 1978 at the age of 84. He was a modern figure. Sorry, but I have no idea when Hanako was born. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Names of historical figures. To correct "Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō" to "Zenji and Hanako Koga" would be done by an admin soon. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this practice - i e, use of the traditional Japanese (East Asian) order for persons born prior to the Meiji era, but of European order for persons born subsequently - can easily lead to confusion, as in the above case, where the article authors misconstrued the surnames of Koga Zenji and his sister Hanako. In any event, it is, of course, necessary to correct the error ; I note that this has not yet been done.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenriday (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the name order should remain the way the MOS says, but that the other part should be changed. I am an admin, but highly involved here, so I'll wait and see if someone else does it; if not, I can do it in a few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says "In the 1970s, Koga Tatsushirō's descendents Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō... ". If the name order is confusing, how about a change like this? "In the 1970s, Mr and Mrs Koga, Tatsushirō's son Zenji and his wife Hanako...". Hanako is not Zenji's sister, but his wife. Oda Mari (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disabled request as it seems discussion is not yet complete — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion may not be «complete», but one thing is certain : the surname of the two persons concerned here, no matter whether the relation obtaining between them was that of siblings or man and wife, as Oda Mari indicates, is not «Tatsushirō». This error should be corrected as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenriday (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an uninvolved admin who took an unannounced break for a couple of weeks and returned to find a request for help on his/my talk page. I'm sorry I couldn't be of help, but I infer that the problem (if it was a problem) has been fixed. If more disinterested help is needed, please ask. (Incidentally, I do have opinions about name order, and these don't fully agree with MoS-J. But I routinely edit in opposition to my own preferences.) NB this article is not on my watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Now fixed. (A couple of hours ago, I inferred that it had already been fixed from the notice above saying that it had been fixed.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

on the islands

Kogo Tatsushiro only constructed one bonito processing plant on the islands. It was constructed "on one of the islands". Not "on the islands". The correct sentence would be "Kogo Tatsuhiro constructs a bonito processing plant on one of the island in 1923 (or whenever)". Eregli bob (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 22 September 2012

the geography section has some significant errors in listed distances to the islands as well as who controls islands nearby. the distance data purports to link to documentation, (footnote 32) but instead links to the wikipedia page of the organization that is supposed to have put out the numbers, the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Resolution.

When i investigated the figures, they seem to be wrong in various ways.

When i measured the distance from the closest island in the cluster via google maps, it showed the closest distance as only 141km distance to the closet japanese island i could find, Hatoma Island (JP), which is located just north of the coast of Inamote Island. The figure currently indicated in the article for distance to Ishigashi Island says it is 170km, but this is clearly incorrect- a measurement of that shows it as 146km to the closest point. In fact, there seems to be no evidence or documentation listed to support the 170km figure.

in addition, the island of Pengjia seems to be controlled by Taiwan, rather than PRC, as is currently erroneously indicated in the article. There is an article from last decade in the Taiwan Times discussing the Taiwanese lighthouse keeper, and one recent one from sept 5th 2012 in the Taiwan times indicating that President Ma of taiwan it about to visit his constituents on Pengjia islet. the above article also confirms that the listed distance of 140km to Pengjia island is correct, though it should probably be listed as territory of Taiwan, not PRC, since Taiwan seem to control it.

i have not checked the distance info for Keelung(PRC) or Okinawa(JP)

i understand that the above documentation might not be enough to produce accountable numbers, but hopefully i have made the case that the current info is wrong and at the least the first two should be removed until they can be corrected.

Ascallion (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Some points.

This article is more notable for what it omits than what it includes. The history is shorn of a large number of significant details, the outlines of which you can get in a short article (somewhat polemical but written by a Tufts University historian/professor of Japanese Studies Gary Leupp Inside the Anti-Japanese Protests in China, in Counterpunch, 27 September 2012. That he chooses Counterpunch for his venue is neither here nor there.

• There is no mention that Hayashi Shihei 林子平’s Illustrated Survey of the Three Countries, (三国通覧図説. Sangoku tsûran zusetsu, 1785)designated the islands as Chinese territory, using Chinese names.ref Gavan McCormack, Satoko Oka Norimatsu,Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States, Rowman & Littlefield, Jul 16, 2012 p.262

• In 1971, the Okinawa Reversion Treaty passed the U.S. Senate, returning the islands to Japanese control in 1972.21
• (a) a dated newspaper report should not stand where readily accessible specialist book sources give the same info.
• (b) This is not NPOV and should read:'In 1971, the Okinawa Reversion Treaty passed the U.S. Senate, returning the islands to Japanese administrative control in 1972, without prejudice to the claims of third parties.' ref. State department comuniqué dated Oct 21 1971 in Yōichi Funabashi, Alliance Adrift, Council of Foreign Relations 1999, p.405

• 'Also in 1972, the Taiwanese and Chinese governments officially began to declare ownership of the islands.[22]'
  • The source reads: Since the 1970s, after studies indicated there may be possible lucrative gas reserves around them, the islets have also been claimed by China, which calls the territory Diaoyu, and by Taiwan, where the islets are known as Tiaoyutai
• The claims didn't begin also to be claimed in the 1970s by China/Taiwan, which simplifies long historical claims and usage, the facts, and breaks NPOV.

It should be clarified that the Senkaku dispute was longstanding since it hinged around Chinese claims to the Okinawa group. After the Reversion Treaty in 1971, the Taiwanese ROC and mainland PRC position was identical. in 1971 (June 11)(not as we and the source say 1972) the ROC government said it would never renounce Chinese sovereignty over the Senkaku islands. This was identical to the PRC claim.The crux with the US was similar. The US had in the postwar period recognized the Senkaku group as part of Okinawa, but the Nixon administration refrained from taking a position on these islands at the time of the Reversion Treaty. Admitting Japanese rights over this contentious issue would have compromised Nixon’s overtures to China, a key point in his foreign policy. Kimie Hara,Cold War Frontiers in the Asia Pacific:Divided Territories in the San Francisco System, Taylor & Francis, 2006 chapter 7 pp.156ff. pp.179-180Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese central government formally annexed the islands on 14 January 1895.

Why this was done in 1895? but not before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.201.211 (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Between 1895 and 1971, why China didn't protest against Japan in even once?Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 09:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

China's White Paper

This recent news article caught my eye. Perhaps there's some information worthy of inclusion? Ample facts presented in China's white paper on Diaoyu Islands: U.S. scholars. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it's more of the People's Republic of China's official position regarding the island as oppose to describing the islands, it might be better suited for the Senkaku Islands dispute page. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the CCP Propaganda from entering this page

While we respect the rights of all individuals and governments to voice their views, without credible information, they have no right to try to modify an article to their liking. The propaganda China is posting here- which we are fortunate to be able to differentiate from truth- has no place in the article itself. Do not be surprised if a multitude of unnamed individuals show up here and start insisting the article is not titled "Senakaku". I have seen Chinese censors attempt to disrupt attempts to post truthful information in the Tiannamen Square article. While they have no formal control over Wikipedia, they have every right and capability to innocently modify information; do not let them do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.134.97 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

US Confirms Senkakus as Japan Territory before Inking Okinawa Reversion Pact

Anyway, I put the machine translation.

US Confirms Senkakus as Japan Territory before Inking Okinawa Reversion Pact

Just before the Okinawa Reversion Agreement signed in June 1971, it has been confirmed that presidential adviser Henry Kissinger (in charge of national security) is Japan's "residual sovereignty" is considered part of the Okinawa range Senkaku Islands and U.S. President Nixon at the time it was, I found out two days before. I had to save the audio materials Nixon Presidential Library in California recorded the exchange at this time.

"Residual sovereignty (sovereignty latent)" refers to the sovereignty having potential areas under foreign administration. The Obama administration has taken the position of "not involved in the sovereignty issue" in the Senkaku problem is now, during the day contest.

According to the audio material, afternoon, June 07 the same year, for about 20 minutes, from the aide Kissinger and President Nixon Republic of China (Taiwan) at the time of the signature of the agreement the reversion of Okinawa to forthcoming after 10 days in the Oval Office of the White House I have investigated the status of the Senkaku Islands had been opposed to the return to Japan.

In this, when Japan withdrew from Taiwan in 45 years, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of the year. 51 which is left with "Okinawa Senkaku Islands, the aide Kissinger residual sovereignty of Japan in Okinawa was observed by us. I insisted on these islands is a big decision "was made ​​at that time.

Over the opposition of the Republic of China, on the Senkaku Islands "special negotiation has not been done at all until the peace treaty in 1971. (From China) will let go already, is automatically included in Okinawa. This is today (pointed out, "the history) up. President Nixon, in accordance with the "You can not mess up" the Okinawa reversion negotiations, we have supported the opinion of the aide said. (2012/10/03-15: 47)

Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 08:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)