Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 2

message: I had heard that the islands have some sort of onshore or offshore oil reserves or something of the like.
Does anyone know about this?
With all this fuss about these islands they must have something, either resources or a strategic location or something.
Any ideas from anyone?
129.12.200.49 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Endroit 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural resources 

message: ::Japan is made to war against China. And, South Korea obtains an advantage. The strategy of Edger is very excellent. Edger is ideal and great Korean. --70.159.21.50 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not Korean, but thanks!!! I've been called everything from "pro-Chinese" to "anti-Malaysian". I'll just add you to the list of Japanese who thinks anyone critical of Japan's foreign policy must be "a dirty Korean"!--Sir Edgar 01:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Me too, but I'd stress again that the rule is that "the most common use of a name takes precedence." If Senkaku is the most common name of these islands, and Liancourt Rocks the most common name of the others, then naming this article Senkaku and the other Liancourt Rocks is a consistent application of Wikipedia rules. --Daduzi 08:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think "Liancourt Rocks" is the most common name? It's not. It's "Dokdo". Google search reveals 653,000 hits for Dokdo vs. 64,300 hits for Liancourt Rocks.--Sir Edgar 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was the most common name, I merely said if it was the most common name... The simple fact is that all that matters is what the most common name in English is, and if the editors of the other article choose to change the name to "Liancourt Rocks", even though that isn't the most common name, it doesn't mean this article should also go against Wikipedia guidlines. --Daduzi talk 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: This is POV garbage and should be changed as it does not reflect reality.
"The islands are currently administrated by Japan as a part of Ishigaki City, Okinawa prefecture. In China, it is a part of Taiwan province (Daxi Village (大溪里), Toucheng Township, Yilan County, Taiwan Province)."
Suggestion:
"The islands are currently _administered_ by Japan as a part of Ishigaki City, Okinawa prefecture."
"Administrated" isn't the same as "administered" - the correct term is most certainly "administered".  Furthermore, as neither the PRC or ROC have control of the islands, it isn't really part of any PRC or ROC administrative region and hence any suggestion of this should be dropped.  This appears to be a lame attempt to introduce pro-PRC POV and doesn't serve any useful purpose.
Zerot 05:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just change "In China, it is a part of..." to "According to both the PRC and ROC, it is part of..." and be sure to link to Taiwan Province--Jiang 07:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Taiwan Province" - PRC POV 

message: This dispute .. it's terra nullius.  Thus first person to pitch a flag and settle there owns it.  You can't maintain lands outside coastal and economic regional waters and that island falls outside all of the contenders who claim it as theirs.  Any international law experts or LOS experts here who can put in their two cents? 211.30.71.59 15:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be not to get it though Okinawa to Senkaku is much closer compared to UK to Falkland Islands and Hainan to Spratly Islands. Jjok 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get it. 

message: We have had Uotsuri Jima, Uotsuri-jima, Uotsuri jima, Diaoyu Dao, Taisho Jima, Taisho-jima, Taisho jima, and Chiwei Yu of which I redirected to this article since they were just copies of chinese claims of this article and did not contain any island specific information. Now, I found that we have more: (Chris 73, am I listing all?) 
*Uotsuri Jima (main), Uotsuri jima, Uotsuri-jima, Uotsuri, Uotsurijima, Uotsuri-Jima, Uotsuri-jima
*Diaoyu Dao (main), Diaoyu dao
*Kuba Jima (main), Kuba jima, Kuba-jima, Kuba-Jima
*Huangwei Yu (main), Huangwei yu
*Taisho Jima (main), Taisho jima, Taishojima, Taisho-Jima, Taisho-jima
*Chiwei Yu (main), Chiwei yu
*Kita Kojima (main), Kitakojima, Kita kojima, Kita-Kojima, Kita-kojima
*Beixiao Dao (main), Beixiao dao
*Minami Kojima (main), Minamikojima, Minami-Kojima, Minami kojima, Minami-kojima
*Nanxiao Dao (main), Nanxiao dao
:(It looks like filing a patent...)
Most of the pages has been consists of area and height with some cut/copy and paste edits from this article or can be transferred in this article, such as the nature of Uotsuri Jima and Chiwei Yu is possible the most east island of PRC/ROC. I think the corrective information is more useful for the users rather than scattering it in each article. In addition, 南小島 and 北小島 are ambiguous names for both China and Japan thus it is a bit misleading to connect them to here.
My biggest concern is, of course, unnecessary and unavoidable edit war and consistency of these pages. Current situation just seems like a minefield. Therefore, my suggestion is re-merge/redirect all the above pages to this article and lock them if possible. Jjok 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your view, and I am myself not absolutely certain if the islands should be listed in the main article only or if there should be an article for each island. For a few islands I added additional infos i found (about species living there, hopefully that is non-controversial). As i added some more info on two of the islands, I think these article could stay, as for the others, I hope that eventually there will be more information added. For now, I would be happy to get some input from other editors if there should be separate articles or not. In case the island info stays with the Senkanu article, maybe we should move away from a bulleted list to a number of sub-headings to make the reading easier. In any case, I definitely don't want to quarrel over it, the islands are not really important to me. However, I definitely oppose Yeahsoo creating a POV fork, (which i hope is OK with you).  -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As the Islands are under the control of Japan, they should be listed under their Japanese name (similar to Senkaku being at Senkanu and not at Diaoyutai Island). Creating a POV-Fork to present only one side of the article is not allowed. Also, it is not which article is created first but which is the better version on a Neutral and English encyclopedia. Please do not change it just to improve your countries claims on the islands. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jjok. Redirect them all to Senkaku. This is ONE issue, not 10 and it all concerns Senkaku Islands. If the community decides that the article should be named Diaoyutai, then those articles should lead to that article. Why create 20 edit wars if we can just settle on one, where a coherent debate can take place? Mackan 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I am convinced, i added all the info into the main article. I structured it as subchapters, hope this is OK. Feel free to change it if necessary. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles of infdividual islands and rocks 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Endroit 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Disputed islands claimed by Japan}} 

message: OK, HongQiGong, me saying "stalking" was a bit over the top. I made a good faith edit to this page, and I really didn't know that you were editing this page on a regular basis. My bad. Anyway, I don't see why we should add counterarguments to the "Japanese" position, we already have a section on the "Chinese" position.--Niohe 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just to maintain balance.  I don't see anything wrong with presenting counter-arguments on each "side" of the argument.  A counter-argument is provided on one of the Chinese sections as well, in the "Tokyo court ruling" section.  If counter-arguments exist for any of the individual arguments presented, I think we should insert them.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I will take a look at that. But as far as this paragraph is concerned, the fact that the Qing dynasty conquered Taiwan in 1683 is not a particularly strong counterargument, since that fact in and by itself does not mean that the Diaoyu islands were controlled by "China" (neither were they, of course, controlled by "Japan"). Qing authority over Taiwan did not extend beyond the Western coast of the island.--Niohe 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, since no one has responded I will remove the sentence. I think 24 hours have passed since I made my first edit, so I hope I won't be busted for 3RR.--Niohe 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments and counterarguments 

message: I added a fact tag after the Qing dynasty claim. I can't really see how the conquest of Taiwan in and by itself meant that China exercised control over the Diaoyu islands. That is next to impossible to prove, especially since no government exercised full control over Taiwan proper prior to the Japanese occupation 1895. If the point is that the government of the PRC makes that claim, this should be made explicit and an appopriate source added. Actually, I think both the Chinese and Japanese claims sections should be merged for better clarity. For instance, to write "Ming dynasty claim" makes it look as if the Ming dynasty actually claimed the islands, which would be difficult to prove. --Niohe 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No government exercised full control over Taiwan proper prior to the Japanese occupation 1895??? Define the term "full control"? If you count the revolts of Taiwanese and native people during Japanese occupation, actually, I think the only government has the full control is the ROC government nowaday.--Jerrychen0067 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't remove the source I provided.  The sources on both sides of the argument can be said to be POV.  But that's why we include both sides of the argument in order to achieve NPOV.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ming and Qing dynasty claims 

message: Why does only the Dokdo article have a "Disputed Title" banner and not this one? The name of the islands is clearly in dispute.--222.233.205.193 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if Dokdo's name has been changed to Liancourt Rocks, NOT Dokdo or Takeshima, this island should be definately called "Pinnacle Islands". If this is not fair, dokdo should be renamed Dokdo or I would think wikipedia is definately leaning onto the Japanese side JustShin 10:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. I hope Wikipedia to be consistent on all naming issues. Several users in the Talk:Dokdo page have claimed that Dokdo renamed to Liancourt Rocks because it is English Wikipedia, and commonly used English name. Even though Dokdo is also widely used in many English books and documents. If that's how it works, the Japanese name Senkaku should be changed to Pinnacle. Pinnacle is commonly used and English, While Senkaku is not English word. Motivr 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this article also have a "Disputed Title" banner? 

message: Liancourt Rocks has recently changed its description of the control situation as "Korea maintains a physical presence" but "claimed by Japan". By contrast, this article states the analogous situation as "administered by Japan" and "claimed by China". Noting that several of the same editors active on this page are or were also active on that page, I suggest that some steps are taken to bring the two articles into consistency in this regard. --PalaceGuard008 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the term "control" in lieu of "administered" for this article (or is there a constant physical presence on the islands by the Japanese)? —LactoseTIT 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a lighthouse, but no people, I think. I like "control", too. --PalaceGuard008 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me; I'll make the change.  If anyone objects feel free to change it I guess, but  please put the reasoning here. —LactoseTIT 13:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency in verb usage? 

message: As the discussion on article naming have been inactive for more than a week, I'm going to remove  in a day or two. --Kusunose 09:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-title