Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wingwrong (talk | contribs) at 08:15, 10 January 2013 (→‎The Chinese government has seized "750,000 maps of problem": 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

U.S. Senate reaffirms defense of Senkakus under Japan-U.S. pact

Please see the following for details : http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/11/196783.html This means Senkaku Island is included in the Mutual Security Commitment between United States and Japan to deter any military aggression from People's Republic of China, which is also beneficiary to Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.164.32.79 (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the fact to the United States' position section.[1] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geology and bigotry

Okay, so. Recently I added some content, which for the most part briefly documented the Chinese geological argument (which wasn't on the article, despite it containing Japanese refutations and allusions to that argument(!)); User:Oda Mari then reverted me, asking for a "talk page... consensus" before making a change. I thought this was unreasonable, since I don't think what I added was particularly controversial, and Oda Mari didn't have any specific grievances with the text. I restored my changes, adding a bit more to them, which was promptly reverted by User:Hammersbach for the same reason. Hammersbach also attacked me in the edit summary as having a "pro-Chinese POV", and followed me onto a different article where he called my well-reasoned creation of a redirect, "nothing more than a shallow attempt by a POV editor to game the system."

Where's the good faith? Part of creating a successful neutral article is documenting all relevant points of view, as documented by reliable sources. Documenting, say, China's submission of a geological argument to the United Nations, and a brief explication of that argument, does not contravene our neutrality policies. I don't think it even takes a particularly "pro-Chinese" editor to do it, although it does alarm me that with so many people hawkishly watching this page (and presumably following the relevant news), nobody cared to add what I just did to the article. There's no requirement that a "consensus" of editors has to personally agree with content for it to be added to an article. If you guys want to make some argument that my addition contravenes policy, I can answer that. But please, let's not throw around ethnic and national slurs. Shrigley (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the reason why I stopped giving a shit about "____ dispute" articles. The article development method used in places like this aren't constructive collaboration, but whoever can get the most men working on a page. Here, people don't use logical arguments, they just point to the 1RR notice at the top and say "please talk about your edit first", even though they can't actually point out anything bad about the edit. I've tried to distance myself from being part of the plague some time ago, though I still watch most of them quite closely. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrigley: I think you are right to point out that "there's no requirement that a "consensus" of editors has to personally agree with content for it to be added to an article". I think those editors should at least provide their reason and justification for reverting your changes, and why, in the case of Hammersbach, the changes you've made is POV. 98.210.64.2 (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly problems with the edits.

  1. The continental shelf has nothing to do with the sovereignty over the islands. It is only related to the EEZ. The deceptive edit as if it supports the Chinese sovereignty over the islands is unacceptable. If China believes it is the reasoning of the sovereignty, the description "China has a position that an islands on the Chinese continental shelf is under the sovereignty of China contrary to the international law" should be added.
  2. Regarding the edit about "effective control", The description is deceptive. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs never said anything but an official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Chinese Navy vessels pass the area on their way to the Pacific and that Chinese nationals sometimes land on the islands. Yet he also admits that Japan exercises effective control, at least temporarily. The quote "the fact that Japan may occupy the islands now does not prejudice the possibility of Chinese control in the future" is an opinion by "many Chinese interviewees". If Chinese government said so, it proves China is a rogue nation. I temporarily link the source Shrigley provided. (Linking here removed by owner due to misuse of link sent privately only for downloading. Online link being deleted for this misuse.--macropneuma 11:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  3. Removing the direct quote of Acting Deputy Spokesperson Patrick Ventrell is not acceptable.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since you apparently have access to the Hagstrom article which I cited, you would have known that it directly connects the geology issue with the sovereignty issue. It isn't me that's being "deceptive" as to its relevance! pp.165-166: From that time on, the Chinese argument from history has been supplemented by one based on geology, emphasizing ‘natural prolongation’. The main argument [blah blah blah]. They [the Pinnacle Islands] would thus naturally belong to China (Beijing Review 39, 1996: 10). If this wasn't clear, I also put in the article On December 14, 2012, China submitted a 11-page report[...] to the United Nations, arguing [...] Diaoyu Islands, is a natural extension of China's land territory. cited to a UPI report. It's undoubtedly relevant. And if that wasn't enough, before I made a single edit to this article, it quoted Seokwoo Lee to say "Thus, for Japan, none of the alleged historical, geographical and geological arguments set forth by China/Taiwan are acceptable as valid under international law to substantiate China's territorial claim over the Senkaku Islands." Wait, what? What geological argument as to sovereignty? How could an article that quotes refutations of China's geological claims, without even explicating that claim itself, claim to be a neutral article?
  2. Your rhetoric is extremely inflammatory when you say that I'm being "deceptive" when I shorten "an official from the Ministry to Foreign Affairs" to "Ministry of Foreign Affairs", which is an easily fixable oversight. And "proves China is a rogue nation"? Come on. I always followed the wording in the source which emphasized that (p.171) "Chinese officials... are rather vigilant against the rhetoric of ‘effective control’": meaning they sometimes dispute it, sometimes acknowledge it, but always challenge the relevance of that argument based on 'effective control'. As for the interviewees, they include the subjects that I included first, MOFA officials and Yan Xuetong. See footnote 29: Interview with an MFA official central to the PRC’s Japan policy, 19 March 2001, Beijing; interviews with Professor Zhang Yunling, 2 April 2001, Beijing; Professor Li Guojiang, 3 April 2001, Beijing; and Professor Yang Bojiang, 9 April 2001, Beijing; cf. interview with a former MFA official and senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Relations, 16 March 2001, Beijing.
  3. There's no need to quote Ventrell because what he said could be summarized easily: "We’ve raised our concerns with the Chinese Government"; i.e., they lodged a diplomatic protest, and "U.S. policy and commitments... are longstanding and have not changed"; i.e. there's nothing novel.
Shrigley (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. I know some Chinese claim such argument, however I don't understand logically why the continental shelf has anything to do with the sovereignty of the islands. However I know why this argument is not in the official position of China, " Diaoyu Dao, an Inherent Territory of China", People's Daily[2] and CCTV[3]. If they link the continental shelf and territorial dispute, the logic become so ridiculous that it cannot be accepted by the international communities. The "geographical and geological arguments" in the Seokwoo Lees book is a citation from MOFAJ (emphasis added) and not about the continental shelf but the geographical proximity. None of the arguments that the Chinese government or Taiwanese authorities have presented as historical, geographic or geological grounds is valid evidence under international law to support the Chinese assertion of its territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. Under international law, for example, the discovery of an island or geographical proximity alone does not evidence the assertion of territorial sovereignty.[4] Why don't you add the geographical proximity argument in the Chinese position? This is a low level nationalist's propaganda for the ignorant Chinese people.
2. Please see the footnote 26.(emphasis added) Interview with an MFA official central to the PRC’s Japan policy... It is not "officials" but an official. The footnote 29 also says "an official". Your portion of quote says an official of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The description should be attributed to "an official" per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in order to distinguish it from the "Official MFA statement". Your edit is They also say that the fact that Japan may occupy the islands now does not prejudice the possibility of Chinese control in the future. While the source says they acknowledge that Japan practically ‘controls’ or ‘occupies’ the islands for now. However, they also stress that this state of affairs has no implications whatsoever for sovereignty over the islands. The words does not prejudice the possibility of Chinese control in the future. is your creation and original research. The expression is too provocative. I will accept if you change the words to They also say that the fact that Japan may occupy the islands now has no implication for sovereignty over the islands as the source says although the necessity of this trivial Chinese position is still questioned.
3. The quote is important because it emphasize the U.S. concern. It is quite unusual for U.S. to raise(d) our concerns with the Chinese Government directly I think these necessary/unnecessary discussion is barren. It continues forever. The description should be left as is.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the recent major edit

Shrigley, you added "China refutes the claim that the islands were terra nullius, by reference to continuous contact with the Diaoyu Islands since at least 1372..." in the "Beginnings" sub-section. I don't think the placement is appropriate as there was no protest from China at that time. I think it should be added to the "Chinese (PRC) and Taiwanese (ROC) positions" sub-section with the date when China said it. Oda Mari (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that China refuted the terra nullius argument at the time, or else I would have used the past tense: "China refuted the claim", instead of the present tense, which clearly indicates a present response to a present argument. And while I agree, having a better understanding of the article structure, since we're separating "Japanese position" and "Chinese position" that it should be in Chinese, it is definitely presented in my source as a response to terra nullius rather than an independent argument: It is disputed whether at that point the islands were terra nullius, as argued by Japan, or an integral part of Chinese territory. Given the contemporary modes of acquisition, many analysts argue that there is indeed substance to China’s historical claim. The history of Chinese contact with the islands can be traced back to at least 1372 (Blanchard 2000: 101; Suganuma 2000: 42–4). [Fisherman shelters, coastal defense, Cixi sold, Ryukyu investiture Chinese navigation aid]... Circumstances like these are taken to refute the idea that the Pinnacle Islands were ‘no man’s land’ in the late nineteenth century (Cheng 1974: 253–60; Chiu 1996/97: 19–20; Matsui 1997: 11; Suganuma 2000: Ch. 2). By the way, as proof that I am dedicated to building a neutral article, and didn't merely quote selectively, I also included the Japanese response to that argument (does that make me "pro-Japanese"? Head asplode!) Some Japanese authors reject such arguments since, even if they were taken seriously, they make up ‘far less than the standard required by international law at that time’ (Matsui 1997: 13; cf. Cheng 1974: 260–1). Shrigley (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the Chinese POV be in the Beginnings section? Only a fact should be in the section. The description Japan incorporated the islands under the administration of Okinawa, stating that it had conducted surveys since 1884 and that the islands were terra nullius is a fact regardless of whether the terra nullius is a fact or not. The addition is clearly a POV argument, so it should go into the Chinese positions section. The Beginnings section is not for the argument of both side, Any refutation should go into the respective POV sections.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On this point I have to agree with Shirgley. Just like it is a "fact" that Japan claimed explicitly in 1884 that the islands were terra nullius, it is also a "fact" that China claims that the islands were not. In any event, anything that we can do to get rid of the big "Japan's argument"/"China's argument" organization is a good step, as that is not how we're supposed to organize dispute articles anyway. Both sides claim a set of facts about whether or not the islands were under any nation's control in 1884; it doesn't matter that China didn't raise those claims at that point (especially given that China wasn't exactly in a position to be making such arguments at that time anyway). Both sets of facts should be listed in an "early history" section. In fact, now that I look at it, the "Beginnings" section is itself a POV label, because it marks the start of the dispute as the moment of Japanese annexaction. In fact, the "beginnings" of the dispute are the 1970s (when China first raised the claim); the historical events that led up to there being a dispute, however, start at different times for the two different POVs. At a minimum, I believe this aspect of Shirgley's edit should be reincorporated; a full reorganization would be better. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Qwyrxian that the problem is the section/subsection titles. I suggest The section title "Territorial dispute" should be moved to "Background history" and it should cover the events up until the dispute began in 1970s. Then create a new section "Beginnings of the dispute" or something like that and the next sections would be countries position/arguments. I think it would be more understandable and neutral to cover the events in chronological order. Oda Mari (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If people don't mind waiting, I can probably do a major re-org around the second half of January. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object Qwyrxian's proposal if you get rid of the big "Japan's argument"/"China's argument" organization. The problem is already raised before. I generally don't care what argument is added to each POV section. (except for Shrigley's addition this time) However any refutation to either party's position is quite sensitive as I said at #Counter argument. If you intended to make a big reorganization of this article, Please discuss before changing this article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Phoenix7777, this isn't actually a case for debate, because WP:NPOV explicitly says, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents." The current article violates this portion of NPOV, and the only real reason it hasn't been fixed is the difficulty of the problem and the long-term editing problems. But we really should divide this up much more like Sea of Japan naming dispute, where arguments are categorized by type, not by position. Furthermore, the "historical development" section is, to put it mildly, crap. On the one hand, it gives undue importance to minor events (especially recent ones, because people always rush to put in info about whatever's in the news today). On the other hand, organizing by time frame fails to adequately show the dispute in proper context.
Having said that, I would do the re-org in a sandbox first, not work on the article directly, in part because it's going to take a lot of edits and be a mess for a while (so I don't want to disrupt the article over a long period of time), and in part because I am sensitive to the long term problems on this article and the strong feelings people have. I'll do the work in my sandbox first then bring it here for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the WP:NPOV#Article structure is inadequate. Pro and con lists is better than thread mode. The thread mode is exactly what I raised a concern about. Wikipedia is not a place to judge the international dispute by integrating the conflicting claims inappropriate way. There are many books adopting "Chinese/Japanese claims" structure.

  • Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of China's Territorial and Boundary Disputes [5]
5.2.1 Conflicting Claims over the Ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands
5.2.1.1 Chinese Claims
5.2.1.2 Japanese Claims
  • Territorial Disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands [6]
3.1 The Respective Claims to Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands
3.1.1 The Claims of japan to the Senkaku Islands
3.1.2 The Claims of China/Taiwan to the Senkaku Islands
  • The Territorial Dispute over the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An Update [7]
    • China’s Position
    • Japan’s Position

The Sea of Japan naming dispute is far less contentious than this dispute because the Korean claims are quite simple and naïve. So the structure is not useful. Current section structure "Chinese/Japanese position" is perfectly neutral.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo

Why the status quo changed? Apparently both sides (Chinese and Japanese governments) agreed to maintain the status quo (Japan has the actual control of the disputed islands, but no party would actually claim or occupy the islands.) It worked then in 1972, why the change in 2012? Apparently the "next generation" is not wiser, as hoped by Deng Xiao Ping, Chinese former leader. Why don't your articles have more details on this status quo change in 2012 that is potentially leading to a major conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhoufg 99 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because what you say is not supported by reliable sources. Japan has claimed control over the islands since 1895, and this has never changed. Now, if you have some sort of info from reliable sources that you want to discuss, feel free to raise them. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airspace incursion

I had to make a slight change to the airspace incursion section. Saying as a fact that Chinese planes entered Japan's airspace is to presume that the islands belong to Japan (which we all know I agree with, but which is not a neutral position to take). China, of course, says that the planes just flew through Chinese airspace, since China claims the islands. While the directly linked reference says "Japan's airspace", the other references in the paragraph, as well as quite a number that I read during the actual events, make it clear that this is the first time that Chinese military planes flew through what Japan claims is its airspace. Just a small NPOV thing, but I couldn't quite explain in an edit summary so I had to put it here. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your edit. It's a fact that islands are under Japanese administration and belong to Japan at present. So are the territorial waters and the airspace. What China says are only claims so far. Just saying repeatedly and loudly it's our islands does not mean it's a dispute. That is what china has been doing since 1970s. It's not acceptable under the International law. It's neutral/natural to consider the islands/waters/airspace belong to Japan. Qwyrxian, I understand that you are trying to be neutral and fair, but you are being over-sensitive about it. Oda Mari (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oda Mari. Chinese claims don't invalidate or undermine Japan's position that its airspace was violated. North Korea refuses to accept South Korea is an independent nation and claims control over the entire Korean peninsula - does that mean Wikipedia should qualify any intrusions of "South Korean" airspace? John Smith's (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By your argument, this article should just say, "However, Japan currently 'controls' the islands, so they belong to Japan." I'm sorry, but the fct that either of you would even consider that to be the neutral position makes me sad, and really makes me doubt any commitment to NPOV. Oda Mari, your claim is even more extreme: you're actually saying that this (or Senkaku Islands) should state that the islands belong to/are owned by/are the territory of Japan. Can you not see how obviously POV that is? Despite the fact that all 3 of us agree that the planes did violate Japans' airspace? And the South Korean claim is different, because, as far as I know, almost every other country in the world recognizes that there are two separate countries on the Korean peninsula, and that the South Korean government legally and legitimately controls the southern portion. As far as I know, though, the only country that has legally recognized Japan's claims to the Senkaku Islands is the United States; no one else really cares (though it wouldn't surprise me to hear that either staunch Chinese allies or Japanese hostiles recognize Chinese claims). Seriously, I'm not kidding here when I say that it makes me sad that you would think that saying it's Japanese airspace is neutral. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "what Japan considers its airspace" is in appropriate because the air space is actually controlled by Japan. Also China recognized the fact although China claims the sovereignty of the islands. The wording "Japanese-controlled airspace" which is used in the source is more appropriate. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will explain more logically. Qwyrxian is confusing the ownership of the islands with the administration of the islands. While the ownership of the islands may be disputed by both countries, the administration of the islands is disputed by neither countries. Japan administered the islands and China condemned the administration by Japan. An airspace is automatically controlled by a country who administers an islands. Therefore the airspace is disputed by neither countries.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean by China acknowledging Japanese administration? As far as I know, the PRC side hasn't released any statement acknowledging Japanese administration, just as how Japan officially does not believe that a dispute actually exists (as worded many times by the foreign secretary). News channels such as CCTV use phrases such as "illegal occupation" (非法佔領), and not "administration" to refer to Japanese de facto control over the islands. If you're referring to the supposed 1950s "official government map" which is said to have acknowledged the islands as part of Okinawa Prefecture, the value of the map in question as evidence is up for debate. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the word "administer", I am willing to change it to "control".

"Occupy":

And more "persuasive" Chinese refutation to recent Japanese argument is this semi-official article signed by a scholar not by the Chinese government. Interestingly the article is published in Chinese and Japanese] but not in English. If you would like to add the counter argument, please feel free to add it to Chinese position section.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, it's NPOV to say that the airspace is disputed by both parties, however Japan has effective control over that airspace; it is not NPOV to simply call it Japanese airspace, and assume that there is no effective dispute. Not only the actual physical islands are disputed, but so are surrounding waters and the airspace above. China would deny that the airspace is Japanese; Japan however has effective control over the airspace. Hence, it would be factual to say that the disputed airspace is under Japanese control. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an illegal occupation, please provide RS. The Treaty of San Francisco and this agreement say the Senkaku islands belong to Japan. They are valid under the International law. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it's an illegal occupation. Read what I have written a bit more carefully. I am in pursuit of NPOV on this article, and believe that assuming that the PRC government acknowledges full Japanese administration is problematic. The PRC's position is that Japan's position is illegitimate; whether or not that is true or false is debatable. In other words -- don't ask me to provide a RS; you should make a phone call to Hu Jintao and ask him, Oda Mari. Throwing the Treaty of San Francisco at me isn't going to help with anything, since I'm not making any particular claims on the sovereignty over the islands themselves. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I reviewed sources; of the first dozen or so that I looked at, the majority (probably about 60%) use the "Japanese airspace"; some qualify it with "alleged" or other similar words. I still think this is just clearly biased, and am willing to explore the issue further if anyone else wants to, (say, for example, at WP:NPOVN), I'm not going to pursue it myself. I don't feel like trying to do numbers on sources just to count which term is more common. I have self-reverted. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese government has seized "750,000 maps of problem"

中国政府が「問題のある地図」７５万点押収

After the WWII, the Chinese government has published many maps that the Senkaku Islands as Japanese territory. However, the Japanese government has never published a map that mean "Senkaku Islands is not the Japanese territory".Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 08:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute&oldid=532333694"