Talk:Senkaku Islands

Minor nit

Pinnacle Islands is an equivalent of Senkaku Rettou, but not the Chinese name, which has to do with fishing, so I would change this sentence accordingly: The name "Pinnacle Islands" is used by some as an English-language equivalent to "Senkaku" or "Diaoyu". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.98.94 (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is not quite objective in language - in Wiki it should simply list the claimes of three regions equally and that's it. The judgement call should leave to the readers instead by the author. Again both claime, control and history are simply supporting evidences but can not be deemed as the only "true" fact. No any biase here - need a group of authors from three regions to write together rather than a single country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.29.7 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Attention. This article does not link with Diaoyu Islands. Why not? It is a current event dispute with neither side agreeing and both sides presenting evidence for their sides with no clear decisions as of yet.... This article should be referenced by both Diaoyu and/or Senkaku in the headline..... Just going by Senkaku seems like clear and extreme bias. 108.247.104.253 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree until the dispute is solved, the title should refer to the island as Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands. James Wong 05:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJae (talk • contribs)

I agree also until the dispute is solved, the title should refer to the island as Diaoyu/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, with two separate page redirects with title Diaoyu Islands and another called Senkaku Islands. Gtkrab (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2013

There are several biased errors in the content of this page, which necessitates a serious reconsideration of editing this article.

• "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."

This sentence offers the incorrect impression that the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) had not put forward the disputation as to the sovereign of Diaoyu Islands before and they aimed for the oil reserves.

• Name History

The Japanese official name "Senkaku Islands" is borrowed from British Captain Edward Belcher's account of "Pinnacle Islands" in his 1845 report. The Chinese name of Diaoyu Islands reflects a long history of more than 500 years.

• Historical Switches of Control

After China (Qing Empire) failed to resist against the Japan-waged war in China's East Sea from 1894 to 1895. Treaty of MaGuan (Treaty of Shimonoseki) was signed in 1895, in which Taiwan and the surrounding islands were ceded to Japan. Diaoyu Islands were not specified in this Treaty according to the original document stored in Japan.

In the Second World War, Japan joined German and Italy and was ultimately defeated in 1945. According to Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender and Treaty of San Francisco, Japan, as a country that agreed to the unconditional surrender, should return the previously occupied territories to China. Hence, although these two official documents do not mention Diaoyu Islands, the Islands herein, together with other previously occupied territories, should be reverted to the Republic of China (ROC).

Therefore, Japan's claiming over the sovereignty of Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands either violates the universal principle of the international law that who discovers and uses first owns the territory or tries to challenge the established justice system after the Second World War.

Justinhe1 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I hope you don't mind that I made a slight formatting change to your entry, to make it easier to read. I'm now going to read and respond to each part. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, on the oil issue, the source immediately after the sentence explicitly connects the finding of oil to the Chinese claims, asserting that, in fact, there were no prior claims. If you have some good sources that say otherwise, please let us know. On the name...that's exactly what the article already says, so I'm not sure what your concern is. On the last two points, you're arguing the Chinese position well, but it does not correspond with the Japanese position. Japan claims that the Senkaku Islands were not part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and that Senkakus were independently incorporated into Japanese territory several months early (January, compared to the treaty dates of March) after Japan determined that the islands were terra nullius. Of course, our article Senkaku Islands dispute explain both perspectives, as we should, since we don't take sides on why the islands "really" belong to. I hope that answers your concerns. Of course, if you have new sources (please note, we need secondary sources, not primary sources like the treaties, since their meaning is obviously disputable), please bring them to our attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, you are biased towards Japan's position. As you have said, Wiki should take neither China's or Japan's position. Many people feel the title is leaning towards Japan's position. Why not take the its native English name? Secondly, you said "...you're arguing the Chinese position well, but it does not correspond with the Japanese position...", could you please explain why Japanese position is taking priority? The sentence *"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." should be clearly tagged with "Japan's Position" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Japanese POV from the lead

Regarding the sentence "After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands, Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the PRC and the ROC ...", the source (Boundary and Territory Briefing Vol.3 No.7, page 10) is stating "From a Japanese prospective" at the beginning, and is under the sub-section 3.1.1 The Claims of Japan.

It is clearly a Japanese POV and should be removed from the lead to maintain neutrality. STSC (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the section 2 of the same book. (Emphasis added)

2. Geographical and Historical Background of the Dispute over the Senkaku Islands[1]

The question of the disputed Senkaku Islands remained relatively dormant throughout the 1950s and 1960s, probably because these small uninhabited islands held little interest for the three claimants. The Senkaku Islands issue was not raised until the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (hereinafter 'ECAFE') of the United Nations Economic and Social Council suggested the possible existence of large hydrocarbon deposit in the waters off the Senkaku Islands. After extensive surveys in 1968 and 1969, it was reported that the shallow sea floor between Japan and Taiwan might contain substantial resources of petroleum, perhaps comparable to the Persian Gulf area.25 This ECAFE survey, made by a group of scientists from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States found that the continental shelf in the Yellow and East China Seas might be one of the richest oil reserves in the world. A spokesman for the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, which conducted the UN survey, also said that 80,000 mile2 of the Taiwan basin has late Tertiary sediment which is more than 2,000 metres thick.26 The Senkaku Islands lie in an area that holds promise of oil resources.

This development prompted vehement statements and counter-statements among the claimants. Subsequent notable developments and events relating to the status of the Senkaku Islands are represented chronologically in the following table.

And a chronological table follows after this description. This description is the author's analysis not a Japanese POV.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I also added the following sources.

• Pan, Junwu (2009). Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of China's Territorial and Boundary Disputes. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 140. ISBN 9004174281. Obviously, primarily regional interests in oil and gas resources that may lie under the seas drive the two major disputes. The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands issue did not re-surface until 1969 when the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East of the United Nations Economic and Social Council reported that the continental shelf of the East China "might contain one of the most prolific oil and gas reservoirs of the world, possibly comparing favourably with the Persian Gulf." Then both China and Japan had high expectations that there might be large hydrocarbon deposits in the waters off the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. The Law of the Sea at that time emphasized the theory of natural prolongation in determining continental shelf jurisdiction. Ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands would permit the owner to a large area of the continental shelf that may have rich sources of gas and oil. Such a dispute is obviously related to the awakening interest by the world's states in developing offshore energy resources to meet the demand of their economies.
• Takamine, Tsukasa (2012). Japan’s Development Aid to China, Volume 200: The Long-running Foreign Policy of Engagement. Routledge. p. 129. ISBN 0415352037. The islands had temporarily come under American control after the Second World War, but the sovereignty over the islands, was handed over to Japan in 1972 with the reversion of Okinawa．However, the PRC and Taiwan governments both made a territorial claim to the Senkaku Islands, soon after the United Nation Economic Commission issued in 1969 a report suggesting considerable reserve of submarine oil and gas resources around the islands.
• Drifte, Reinhard (2012). Japan's Security Relations with China Since 1989: From Balancing to Bandwagoning?. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 1134406673. The dispute surfaced with the publication of a seismic survey report under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECSFE) in 1968, which mentioned the possibility of huge oil and gas reserves in the area; this was confirmed by a Japanese report in 1969. Greg Austin mentions that Beijing started its claim to the Senkaku Islands for the first time in 1970, after Japanese government protested to the government in Taiwan about its allocation of oil concessions in the East China Sea, including the area of the Senkaku Islands.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Phoenix7777 on this matter (which is why I reverted the changes); it seems clear from the balance of the sources, many of which are not from a strictly "Japanese POV", that the first time the matter was raised internationally was after the oil and gas survey. This isn't saying that China hadn't privately made claims, or hadn't always assumed it to be theirs...but it is the first record we have of China openly, publicly laying claim to the islands. STSC, are there any similarly "neutral" sources that state that China raised the claim earlier? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Not claiming" is certainly not the same as "not disputing". I would propose the rewording of the sentence as follows:

"Apparently after it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands, the sovereignty over the islands has been actively claimed by the PRC and the ROC." STSC (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How exactly had China and Taiwan been "passively" claiming sovereignty before then? John Smith's (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm only interested in discussing the construction of neutral sentences according to the sources. Please we don't go back to the bad old days, John Smith's; and read Rule 6 of the Rules of Engagement above. STSC (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

STSC, John Smith's is asking for sources that support your proposed rephrasing. That's perfectly acceptable per both general WP editing rules and the specific rules here. Also, just to add, we would not use the word "apparently" per WP:WEASEL. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources for what? Sources for "actively claim"? Do you have problem with the wording "actively claim"? STSC (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's bad English, so I would prefer not to use it. Adding a word that has no meaning (since one cannot claim "non-actively" is poor writing). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Actively claim" is sending ships and warplanes to the area which China has not done before. STSC (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, well, that didn't occur until the last decade, so that certainly doesn't go in that sentence. Plus, that's not what the word "claim" means; a "claim" is a verbal/written statement (in this case, a statement of ownership). To take the stereotypical example, a hypothetical European explorer/conqueror lands a ship on a less developed island 300 years ago. The ship landing is not a "claim". When the person says, "The island belongs to King XXX of YYY", that's a claim. And this is why saying "actively claiming" doesn't make sense--all claims are, by definition, active. Finally, just to remind you of what you reminded others: this article is under sanctions. That means when someone rejects a selected change, you discuss it on talk until you have consensus for change. Not start the discussion then keep changing the article.

Oh? Would you like to choose "resolutely", "vigorously", "forcibly", "robustly" or "strenuously"? STSC (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this or shall we ask for 3rd opinion?

"Since it was discovered that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands in 1968, China and Taiwan (Republic of China) have actively asserted their claims on the sovereignty of the islands following the transfer of administration unilaterally from the United States to Japan in 1971." STSC (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

STSC, your recent three edits[2][3][4] were reverted by three different editors. All of your three edits are trying to suggest there were disputes before late 1960s without any source. If you continue these tendentious edits, you will be blocked and banned from this topic. Please note that you have a history of topic ban.[5]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just been awhile, so you've forgotten, STSC, but when people object to your edits, particularly on a controversial page like this, you do not make them until such time as you show consensus on the talk page (or enough time has passed without any objection, in some cases). All of your suggestions fundamentally change the meaning in contradiction to the sources currently available. We should not be adding any adverb to qualify how they "asserted" without evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, would you like a 3rd opinion on my edit? STSC (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You can start an WP:RfC, but per the instructions on the page WP:3O can only be used for disputes between exactly 2 people. If you start an RfC, just set it up at the bottom of this page with the right template; be sure to ask the question neutrally (i.e., don't ask "Should the Japanese bias in the lead be removed..."). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not necessary just between two people, we can get a 3rd opinion on two points of view as to how the sentence is constructed neutrally, i.e., you represent the other side that rejected my edit. STSC (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't. The instructions on WP:3O say so directly: "If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." The emphasis is in the original. Any time there are more than 2 editors, you must use an Request for Comment or a noticeboard (here, for instance, since you're claiming the sentence is POV, you could use the NPOV noticeboard). If you post a request at WP:3O, they will just reject it since there are 3 editors involved. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ no.4; we can find a third party to request it. STSC (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar problem in current sentence

Huh, I didn't notice this til replying to STSC, but the sentence as currently written is grammatically incorrect. We can't use "after" with the present perfect "has been" (this is a pretty standard grammar rule, though one often made by even good writers). We either have to change "after" to "since", or "has been" to "was". Any preferences for which? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Since...have" sounds better. STSC (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait for 2 more days to hear any objections, but if there are none, I'm going to change "After" to "Since", for purely grammatical reasons. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I support the use of "after" and the clarification is needed. I suggest the sentence like this. "After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands, both the PRC and the ROC first claimed the sovereignty over them and the dispute has begun." Oda Mari (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the description should clearly state that the dispute never happened before the oil exploration so that a tendentious editor cannot alter the meaning simply by adding an adverb.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

While I prefer "since...has been claiming", I am willing to accept "after...first claimed"; if you want to add the final clause, it has to be "and the dispute began"; personally, I don't think it's necessary, but not enough to argue about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Invite more than one editor

Since the article is locked for editing, we should invite more than one editor with more diversified background. Qwyrxian might think he is objective, however we can clearly see he has been unknowingly standing on Japanese position. Of course, this page should not be solely edited by someone who have been influenced so much by Japanese culture (he lives in Japan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at the ones who have edited the article and replied to the feedbacks: The Blade of the Northern Lights speaks Japanese, Hoary is clearly a Japanese (or culture fan), Nihonjoe is a Japanese, Phoenix7777 is a Japanese (or Fan, look the photos in his homepage), Kwamikagami is clearly a Japanese name, Qwyrxian lives in Japan. Seriously, how can this claimed to be unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually it's true however the assumption can only be maintained if the practice has been followed consistently. In this case, all Chinese positions have been ignored but Japanese positions have been tagged as "facts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.213.46 (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this article is about the islands and information about geography, names (which are in all languages), history, and its "current" administration are facts, backed by various sources and documentation (currently 203 refs with sources from the U.S., U.K., Japan, China, Taiwan and others). The article and its approved editors are striving to be unbiased as possible; if their is any particular sections that is incorrect or need expanding upon, then it should be brought to attention here for now. The most typical request is simply the name of the islands, which has been addressed countless times now (it is also the reason why the article has been locked down in the first place). As for everything else regarding the current dispute, those should be redirected to the Senkaku Islands dispute article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of "facts" that have been ignored, whatever on this page, for example, those claims were merely Japanese suggestions rather than so-called "facts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the lockdown period for discussion of the article name has already passed: "Any discussions regarding the naming of this article or moving this article to a different title are forbidden until January 1, 2013 per this notice by NuclearWarfare." If editors decide bring up the issue again, it is more than reasonable that we can move back to discussions on the issue. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That is correct, though I am not familiar what actions need to be taken regarding that discussion. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What are the facts? Facts are unbiased and free of speculation. Is the title Senkaku Islands unbiased? As you have said "if their is any particular sections that is incorrect or need expanding upon, then it should be brought to attention here for now.", that's what exactly happened. Quite a number of requests have been made previously to correct a few points. However, they are all knocked back by Editors, majority of which is Japanese background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.186.10 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I've admitted before that I'm biased on the topic...but I also hold that I am unbiased on article editing. In fact, as several of the other regular editors would agree, I've often taken stances against the "Japanese position" on this and the dispute article. Also to correct one other fact: the current name was not decided by myself or even the small list of people you compiled; rather, we held a community wide RfC, twice (at least; I'd have to search the archives to count exactly) on the name, and each time the community held in favor of the current name. However, as was pointed out above, the moratorium on discussing the naming is now over, and a new discussion can begin. If you believe the name does not follow our rules, I recommend that you start a new section, present the reasons why you believe the name is incorrect (be sure to refer to both our policies/guidelines and to clear evidence from reliable sources), and then we'll all join in. If we can't come to an agreement amongst ourselves, we'll run up the dispute resolution tree again as needed. However, if you do start this discussion (IP address), please log in to whatever your current or previous account was. You must be a returning editor to know as much about the history as you do, and given that there are a number of editors topic banned on this topic or with a relevant history of poor behavior, it's only appropriate that we know who you are. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your concern is very valid; I shall be tagging these articles to invite other fair-minded editors for their contributions. STSC (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

We made the news now what?

I jus tread what i could from the article embedded up above, my thoughts is that I had no idea that this article was getting so many hits and that it is broad in it's coverage (Great job on that =) ) I guess my question is now how do we keep the article edit dispute free while maintaining it as semi protected? Are the current restrictions in place enough? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We've only just begun. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu kencf0618 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that is the news article I was talking about =p - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article is actually under more "restrictions"--not technical, but behavioral ones. That is, the page was placed under discretionary sanctions as a result of the prior Arbcom case. That means that any uninvolved admin can sanction users for poor/contentious behavior, either on the article or on the talk page. Such sanctions can include blocks, topic bans, page bans, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2013

please change Senkaku Islands to Diaoyu Islands because Diaoyu Islands is the correct name of those islands.

Zhangyileo (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not an edit request but a move request. The situation is very disputed here, and I don't think there is any consensus to move the page. Also, Diaoyu Islands already redirects here. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 19:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Too Simple A Solution?

The Potsdam Declaration says Japan controls "such minor islands as we determine," where "we" were the US, UK and Chang Kai-Shek's China.

In 1972, one of those entities relinquished control of the islands to the Japanese. That would seem like the end of the matter, to me.

I have a hard time hearing claims that reach back to 1895, because, more recently than that, Tibet was de facto independent. Certainly the PRC wouldn't want to that kind of argument thrown in their faces. JoshNarins (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This type of discussion is not helpful here. Our job is not to figure out the "truth", merely to report what reliable sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Change of info in "Administered By"

First time trying to give input to wiki :)
Just a little input on "Administered By"
I cannot say on the issue before, but from the new article it is reported that Chinese government vessels have been send to the islands to "show that the islands is administered by the (Chinese) government"
For some reason, the reference link is not working. so I'm simply going to post the direct link here:
http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/special/diaoyudaozhengduan/content-3/detail_2012_09/14/17618041_0.shtml
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtkrab (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC) So, by that reference the islands are at least claimed to be administered by the Chinese government also.
Which in turn, I believe, should have wiki change the field on "Administered By" on the right side of the page.
I can find more news saying so if needed. But I'm generally lazy.
Gtkrab (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing of potential Japanese POV from the lead

I propose to change:
"After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4][5][6][7][8] 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 Chinese claim the discovery and control of the islands from the 14th century."
to
"The Japanese claim that it was only after 1968 when discovered that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,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, which both the PRC and ROC government denies. The Chinese (both PRC and ROC) claim the discovery and control of the islands from the 14th century."
English is not my first language, but I feel the second way of writing it out is more neutral, as it clearly states in the beginning that it is the Japanese claim that bla bla, and it also states the denial of such claim by the Chinese at the end of the sentence.
You could also say this is a little bit biased towards the Chinese side, but I believe this reflect current event. Which the Chinese denies the claim made by the Japanese.

Gtkrab (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the references: they're not the "Japanese side". Independent, neutral observers clearly state that China never publicly raised the claim until after 1968. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. What I'm pointing out is what wiki call "Impartial tone".

I can't really provide reference to what I'm going to say, but

The way you structured that paragraph, it gives the reader a wrong expression that the Chinese is only doing it because there's is oil.

Which I would agree personally to an extend.

However, the Chinese disagree with the above, with reasons already stated in the dispute article in wiki.

So from a neutral point, I feel it is better to at least add the "The Japanese claim" at the beginning.

Gtkrab (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, the neutral, reliable sources directly connect the oil finding to the start of Chinese claims. Being neutral doesn't mean that we don't take sides, it means we "take the side" of what the preponderance of reliable sources say. For instance, even though some people don't believe in human-caused global warming, per the overwhelming consensus of international scientific bodies, our article states that it is, in fact, caused by humans. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

First, it would seem that you agree with me that your paragraph implies(give user impression) that:"the Chinese is only doing it because there's is oil", am I right? If no, then there's no need to read further.

Second, it could just be me, but I would not call any research from either side(Chinese or Japanese) called neutral. In issues involving nation states, any "evidence" can be manipulated. Remember the second Iraq war and the Americans showed "evidence" of WMD in Iraq to the UN? Also, even in the reference article, the author did not provide any evidence that the dispute claim was because of the oil. The author simply made a guess/connection(I personally would say educated and probably right). Thus his conclusions should not be treated as fact. If you agree with this point, then read further.

Third, in the dispute wiki article, it states that " the Chinese argue that the sovereignty dispute is a legacy of Japanese imperialism and China's failure to secure the territory's prompt return following Japan's military defeat in 1945 was due to the complexities of the Chinese Civil War". Now I know wiki should not be treated as "source", but when I was following the issue back in Sep/Oct, I know that I saw a news article stating the above. If you agree with me to treat this as an official statement from the Chinese government, then please read further.

So, if you agree with the above three points, then I would think it is logical that you would agree that the paragraph needs change.
Gtkrab (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Add historical events to the Islands

40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885. Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”.

The planned survey by Meiji government was then suspended by miscommunication and bad weather till the first Sino-Japan war. After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.

When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. 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.

Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan. (Source: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/) Kezhu2012 (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This source has been raised before. The problem is that it's an opinion article, which generally, though not always, cannot be used to substantiate factual claims. We would need evidence that Han-yi Shaw, the author, is a recognized expert in the field, and that his statements can be taken as well-researched, factual claims that are widely accepted by other neutral scholars. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I knew you would say that. Tell me, then sentences “After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4][5][6][7][8] 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.” were derived from articles from Seokwoo Lee, Junwu Pan, Tsukasa Takamine, Reinhard Drifte. What proofs do you have for them being "a recognized expert in the field, and that his statements can be taken as well-researched, factual claims that are widely accepted by other neutral scholars."

Regardless whether the wordings from that articles are neutral, the included images from Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library should be facts and therefore should be included in this article.

Kezhu2012 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

More proofs, this is from a Japanese researcher, named Unryu Suganuma of University of Hawaii. On page 106, titled Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations, “..., In fact, the Japanese could have annexed the Diaoyu Islands if they were sure or confident that these islands were terra nullius when the governor of Okinawa asked to build this landmark in the Diaoyu Islands in 1885. The Japanese government repeatedly rejected petitions from the governor of Okinawa in both 1890 and 1893. There fore, the Japanese government clearly knew that the Diaoyu Islands were not terra nullius because they possessed Chinese names.

Suddenly, however, after Japan won the Sino-Japaneses War in 1895, the Japanese cabinet decided to annex the Diaoyu Islands and build this landmark. Evidently, the Japanese had some kind of conspiratorial "game" in mind when the governor of Okinawa requested on the building of the landmark in the Diaoyu Islands in 1885. ... In fact, Japan's encroachment on Diaoyu Islands was simply an extension of the expansionist policy of the Meiji government, which had successfuly annexed the Liuqiu Kingdom in 1879, and a long premediated act based on Sino-Japanese War. ... Third, the Imperial Edict No. 13 does not support the sovereignty claims over the Diaoyu Islands"...

Everything I quoted above is not trying to argue the sovereighty of the Islands as of Today. However, these sources clearly demonstrates, before 1895, the Japan cabinet has acknowledged: 1). The islands have a chinese name Diaoyu, 2) Claiming sovereignty at that time will provoke the Chinese emperor as China consider it owns the islands as of 1895. 3) The islands were quickly annexed and claimed by Japan after China was defeated in the first Sino-Japan war. Kezhu2012 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

More proof, the islands were not included in the Map of Great Japan in 1876.

And More, In in Japan's own 1783 historical document Sankoku Tsuran Zusetsu published by prominent Japanese military scholar Hayashi Shihei clearly stating the area a part of China .

Again, More and MORE, published by Joyman Lee, History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011. 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.

Therefore, I request to add following sentences to the article.

Evidently, as contrast to Japan's claim that the islands were terra nullius, various historical Japanese sources suggested the islands were within China's boundaries before 1885. The planned survey on the islands were delayed as the Japanese cabinet do not want to provoke the Chinese Emperor. Quickly after the Chinese defeat in Sino-Japan war, Japan annexed the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Kezhu2012 (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, starting at the beginning, the difference between the Shaw source and the other sources you ask about is that the Shaw article is explicitly in the "opinion" section of the newspaper. As a general rule, opinion sections of newspapers are not vetted for factual quality, and thus don't meet WP:RS. Most of the rest of what you're doing is conducting original research. That is, you're looking at primary sources like maps, parliamentary commentary, etc., and drawing conclusions from it. Wikipedia, however, does not allow such research. The one source I spot in what you said that might be helpful is the Jyoman Lee, which you say appeared in History Today. Could you provide a full reference for that? If it focuses on the ownership dispute, the content will probably be more appropriate at Senkaku Islands dispute, but we can figure that out after we have a chance to examine it in more detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2013(UTC)

First thing first, the Joyman Lee article is at http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict.

Secondly, why the book published by Unryu Suganuma of the University of Hawaii, titled "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations", cannot be used as an external reference?

Kezhu2012 (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please reply. You are very fast at justifying Japanese POV as "neutral" but now you have ignored my question. Why the book published by Unryu Suganuma of the University of Hawaii, titled "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations", cannot be used as an external reference? You have claimed your view is neutral and I believe you truly are, at leasat from yourself point of view. However, your personal biased view has been subtly influencing yourself and you can hardly notice that. Also, as you have said, the author of the resources must be "a recognized expert in the field, and that his statements can be taken as well-researched, factual claims that are widely accepted by other neutral scholars." So far, you have failed to answer me what evidence you have for those authors ( Seokwoo Lee, Junwu Pan, Tsukasa Takamine, Reinhard Drifte) being "a recognized expert in the field, and that his statements can be taken as well-researched, factual claims that are widely accepted by other neutral scholars." (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Joyman Lee article looks like a reliable source with useful information. The Suganuma book is definitely a reliable source. Neither of them belong in this article however. Several years ago, a consensus decision was made (by people on "both" sides of the debate, as well as neutral editors) to split the article into two: this article discusses the islands themselves, such as their physical properties, locations, etc., and includes only a very very short summary of the ownership dispute. The other article, Senkaku Islands dispute contains a very extensive discussion of both sides claims, historical events and documents, the US position, and the more recent clashes between the two/three countries. In fact, the Suganuma book is cited in that article 6 times. If there are facts from the Lee article you want to propose adding to that article, Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute is the place to do so. Note, though, that we've got at least 3 active disagreements going on there now, which means changes are likely to take time. Finally, you're misunderstanding my "expert" issue. The rule requiring expertise refers specifically to the use of opinion articles from magazines/newspapers. In general, for opinion articles in newspapers, editors do not exercise editorial control. Thus, we must rely strictly on the trustworthiness of the author, and thus why we seek evidence that they are recognized experts before using them. However, for books published by university presses, articles in scholarly journals, and even normal newspaper articles, the editors have a responsibility and practice of fact checking and oversight. Thus, in those cases, we also consider the trustworthiness of the publisher. So, for example, Suganuma's book is clearly a reliable source, because the researcher is essentially famous for specifically this work 'and it's published by a University press. However, we have no such evidence from the editorial work. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, in this case, the claims that Chinese only claim the islands after the oil discovered should also go into the dispute article. You would argue this is a fact rather than POV. However, there will be people - like me, or like STSC -, would argue it is definitely a Japanese POV. The fact that we are arguing is already establishing the basis that people do not completely agree it is a fact, therefore, it is a disputeKezhu2012 (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting misconception. In fact, it's a misconception shared by another editor to this page, one who caused a bit of disruption before, and who refused to participate in good faith efforts to get community consensus on various issues. In the extraordinarily unlikely chance you are not this returning user, I'll explain it to you: just because Wikipedia editors dispute something does not mean the issue is disputed in the real world. By that argument, we'd have to make every single page on Wikipedia "disputed" or "potentially NPOV" every time one editor raised a complaint. But that's not how this works. The question is, is the matter disputed in reliable sources. And this point you've just raised, well, it's not. But, anyway, please take that matter to the other talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is directly related to this page. The 1969 statement is exactly the same statement as 1895. They should both stay or both go. Is the 1895 statement disputed in the reliable sources? again, it's not. Kezhu2012 (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, add the 1895 statement as following. Pre-1985, Japan delayed an initial attempt to annex the islands till China was defeated in the first Sino-Japan war. Kezhu2012 (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, what is your source for that claim? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

page 106 of "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations"　Kezhu2012 (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Suganuma is represented on the Senkaku Islands dispute page. It says that the Japanese government delayed take over of the islands, but does not attribute the cause of that as being "waiting until the Sino-Japanese conflict" finished. In order to be willing to add that, I'll want to see at least one whole paragraph from the text in question where that comes from. If you don't have access to the book, I can ask for it at the resource exchange. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And actually, no matter what it says, it doesn't belong in this page. We need to keep the dispute stuff here to a bare minimum. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Then what makes you to determine the 1969 claim is not disputable? Just because it is listed in so-called reliable source (same as the 1895 statement) doesnt mean it is not disputable in the real world. What makes your personal point of view being neutral?　60.225.213.46 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And also, what I typed above was exactly what his paragraph was like. He DID suggest the reason. talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.213.46 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to see exactly what the source says. The history of this article, as you know, is fraught with editors either misunderstanding or misrepresenting sources. Furthermore, this specific source is already used quite a number of times on the other page, and yet no one ever added anything similar to what you're suggesting here, which is surprising if accurate. As for the 1969 claim, it's because it's because there are five separate, neutral, reliable sources that all make the same claim...and thus far, no neutral source claiming the opposite. As for me, I have admitted that I am not neutral on the subject matter, but I believe that my editing is impeccably neutral. Heck, you can go over to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute right now and see me disagreeing with editors who are allegedly on both sides of the dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As many people already mentioned above, for political reasons and US interventions, China was not in a position to "Actively" claim the sovereignty. It's like your neighbor said the corridor is owned by him, as your neighbor's friend is a threatening aside, also because your neighbor is not doing anything to the disputed corridor other than "saying", you might just shrug off and say, well, let's wait and see. This does not mean at any point you have given up the ownership. Whereas the statement is suggesting, your were like, OK, the corridor is yours, OH wait, there is treasure, now I want it. How could a neutral POV subtly gives this impression to people? Obviously, this needs to be moved to the disputed page under Japanese POV. 60.225.213.46 (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't suggesting anything: it's very explicitly linking the finding of petroleum products to the initial claims by China. And your analogies don't mean anything--what matters is the very large number of reliable sources linking the two events, and the lack of sources saying anything to the contrary. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, these so called fact is cherry picked from the articles. Answer this, why the opposite statement in the same paragraph of the article is not included? That sentence reads "the pre-1895 historical records for China is very strong". 60.225.213.46 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And, you still havent explained why other facts in the "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations" book is regarded as different nature than your 1969 claim. 60.225.213.46 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The logic goes like this, Source A is reliable, A claims Statement1, Statement1 must be reliable fact. A claims Statement2, Statement2 must be reliable. If Statement2 is not reliable, then Source A is not reliable, thus Statement1 is not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, my apologies if I'm not being clear. I'm stating that I don't believe that the book says what you claim it says. What you say is inconsistent with how the book is represented in the other article. I do not believe that you've suddenly understood the book where no one ever has before. Of course, it is possible—others may well have misinterpreted the book, or overlooked the value of that phrase. But it is possible. So, the easy solution is to provide a copy of the page that the information you wish to cite is on. At the bare minimum, a quotation, like you see in the references now. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have repeated many times, the passage is manually typed by me, word by word. I'm going to do again here “..., In fact, the Japanese could have annexed the Diaoyu Islands if they were sure or confident that these islands were terra nullius when the governor of Okinawa asked to build this landmark in the Diaoyu Islands in 1885. The Japanese government repeatedly rejected petitions from the governor of Okinawa in both 1890 and 1893. There fore, the Japanese government clearly knew that the Diaoyu Islands were not terra nullius because they possessed Chinese names. Suddenly, however, after Japan won the Sino-Japaneses War in 1895, the Japanese cabinet decided to annex the Diaoyu Islands and build this landmark. Evidently, the Japanese had some kind of conspiratorial "game" in mind when the governor of Okinawa requested on the building of the landmark in the Diaoyu Islands in 1885. ... In fact, Japan's encroachment on Diaoyu Islands was simply an extension of the expansionist policy of the Meiji government, which had successfuly annexed the Liuqiu Kingdom in 1879, and a long premediated act based on Sino-Japanese War. ... Third, the Imperial Edict No. 13 does not support the sovereignty claims over the Diaoyu Islands"... 60.225.213.46 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct Japanese name of Senkaku Islands and proposal of new map

I can't to edit this article now. Then I'd like to point out correct Japanese name of Senkaku Islands on this talk page.

1. Uotsuri-shima, 2. Taishō-tō and 3. Kuba-shima are correct name. The others (4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) are correct. Source is:

Cabinet Secretariat of Japan (2011). "排他的経済水域等の基礎となる 低潮線を有する離島に関する調査報告書" (PDF) (in Japanese). p. 9-10. Retrieved 2013-02-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The title means "Survey Report on the isolated island with a low-tide line underlying the exclusive economic zone, etc.".

No.53 魚釣島(うおつりしま) --> Uotsuri-shima, No.54 久場島(くばしま) --> Kuba-shima and No.55 大正島(たいしょうとう) --> Taishō-tō

And I also propose "File:Senkaku Diaoyu Tiaoyu Islands.png" instead of "File:Senkaku-Diaoyu-Tiaoyu-Islan.jpg".

Thank you.--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I corrected island names. Oda Mari (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) --ジャコウネズミ (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Error in lede

If you click through the link to Taiwan, the lede is saying that the PRC recognises the Senkakus as belonging to the ROC. 216.8.154.254 (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Which link are you referring to? I'm not seeing it in #3 (the one right after the first mention of Taiwan). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Both governments agree..." Then click on "Taiwan". 216.8.154.254 (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How can we stop Diaoyu Island redirect into this article

Note User:‎Ytht1984 created this as an empty section. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Since Diaoyu Islands is another name for these group of islands, it should redirect here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)