Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 1

message: This article as it currently stands is signficantly biased towards the Japanese's favor (it's almost entirely written from the perspective of a Japanese official; even as it introduces the Chinese claims, it refutes them in the same breath).  Under the Chinese claim section, half of the content is spent refuting the Chinese claim, while all of the Japanese claim section is in support of the Japanese side (such as sarcastic quotation marks around the word "claim" for the Chinese claim).  The article is deliberately written in a way that makes the PRC and ROC claims appear weaker than the Japanese.  Also, in most international media, the terms Senkaku Islands and Diaoyu Islands are nearly always referred together to preserve neutrality, hence Wikipedia should do the same too by having both names in the title of this article or just use the traditional English name (this IS an English Wikipedia). Naus 21:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the article to make it look more organised and to make it sound more balanced.  --Hong Qi Gong 03:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article biased 

message: I moved this to Senkaku Islands instead of Diaoyutai Islands, because that's the name used by Japan, which currently controls the islands (even though they're disputed). --Delirium 11:20, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
IMHO, there's quite a bit of POV there, although much of it is very well veiled. It seems to have been written in favor of Japan and Japanese claims and appears to purposefully reflect badly on PRC and ROC claims.--Node ue 01:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! Fuzheado 01:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: "The reason that the island is "administered" by Japan is exactly that the islands have not been properly returned together with Taiwan to China after World War II."  Some dispute Taiwan had been properly returned to China.  A-giau 18:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I believe the best solution is to name the page after a 3rd party name for the islands in the same way the Island referred to "Dokdo" (by Korea) and "Takeshima" (by Japan) is held under the title "Liancourt Rocks", the name bestowed upon it by the British. Im not sure if there is a 3rd party name for Senkaku/Diaoyu, but if so it seems to be the most effective way to impress neutrality (although one could argue giving it a Euro/Imperial name would imply a high pro-western bias, but given the fact that the Islands will either become Japanese or Chinese/Taiwanese, this seems irrelevant, as the bias would be towards a party not actually involved in the dispute). 
Diaoyutai Isles, which Japanese refer to as Senkaku Islands, have been Chinese territory since 1403. There are plenty Chinese historical documents prove the Chinese sovereignty rights over the isles. History Professor Kiyoshi Inoue of Kyoto University has rightfully pointed out that documents published by the Japanese government even state so. For example, the maritime chart published for the military in 1785 by an eminent Japanese scholar, Hayashi Shihei (1738 -1793), known as the Sangoku setsujozu (i.e. A Map of Three Adjoining Countries) attached to the Sanggoku tsuran zusetsu (i.e. An Illustrated General Survey of Three Countries) clearly indicated the Chinese ownership of these islands in the maps by unambiguous color-codes.
It is simply outrageous that Japan would shamelessly declare that it "discovered" the "uninhibited Senkaku Islands" in 1885 -- exactly one hundred years after itself published the existence and lawful ownership of these islands.
Japan, a self-proclaimed pacifist nation, not only uses naval forces to take over the islands, but has announced its intention to station as many as 1,000 SDF Marines on the Chinese territory. The Bush administration has just subtly supported Japan's militarist claim through the so-called "U.S.-Japan Security Concerns" last Saturday. The neocons in the White House are desperate to find new partners-in-crime in their own empire-building venture. Japan is certainly more than willing to return to its diehard dream of imperial ambitions. W. finally finds a perfect ally for his "Coalition of the Willing."
--217.230.17.157 23:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Dude, Japan is a pacifist nation. It has not been allowed to fight wars for the last sixty years - it just sometimes cheers its friend America on. It seems to me that this article is fairly unbiased, but advocates of Chinese imperialism claim it is biased in favour of Japan because the facts themselves are in support of Japan's claim. elvenscout742 15:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Just a small point - I believe the Nazis killed approximately 6 million Jews, not 0.6 million. Terrafire 12:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Japan is currently a pacifist nation.  Everyone knows they were an imperialist, militant nation before 1945, but they're surely pacifistic now (culturally and legally)  I think by "Chinese Imperialism" he means the desire by both Chinas to expand their territory to include the islands (and yes, I know that the claim is potentially biased). Windsagio 23:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Should the names Pinnacle Islands and Tiaoyutai be added? --anon 10:27, December 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Is that Wade-Giles? The main article says Taiwan calls it "Diaoyutai Lieyu". Who calls it Tiaoyutai? In either case -- to answer your question, if you're sure about a fact, just go ahead and add it.--68.22.251.127 23:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinnacle Islands, Tiaoyutai (Islands) 

message: Seeing as there's been a lot of controversy over the naming of disputed territories (and not just at this article), I decided to start a strawpoll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names). Since many people here are likely to have an opinion on this, I'm advertising it here. Please notify people whom you think might be interested. --Xiaopo ℑ 02:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A naming convention 

message: I find it interesting that Japan unilaterally declared incorporation of these islands in 1895, the same year it occupied Taiwan as a result of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895). 
This is exactly what happened with the islets in dispute between Korea and Japan, known as the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). Japan proclaimed them a part of the Shimane Prefecture under the doctrine of "terra nullius" in 1905, the same year that Japan annexed Korea after the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). 
Why didn't Japan make a claim on either of these locations before? Something to think about, eh?  
Obviously, these islands belong to Taiwan. Japan has simply refused to relinquish its claim. Because Taiwan is friendly with Japan, Taiwan doesn't seem to have taken up the Chinese claim for these islands as vigorously as the PRC. And Japan has taken advantage of this situation.   
The key issue, however, is that Japan has occupied these islands and ownership is 99% of the law.
Regardless, this article reads biased. Too much of it is written from the Japanese POV and the title should be amended to "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" as is commonly accepted. I think a more balanced perspective is required.--Sir Edgar 05:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1895 date of incorporation 

message: I am new to this dispute as it was brought to my attention from the Liancourt Rocks discussion page. First, I must say that this article is a complete mess and needs a serious clean-up. I suggest taking the Sea of Japan / Dispute over the name of the Sea of Japan solution. There is one article for simply the facts (no politics) and one article for the politics. The Senkaku page reads like a battle-ground and not an encyclopaedia. Secondly, I suggest calling this page "Pinnacle Rocks". I know it is not the most common name (in fact a quick google search (minus Wikipedia) brought up 212 hits), but it is a fairly neutral name as it favours neither China (Taiwan) nor Japan, plus it is the English name, right? Well, after doing my quick google search, I went to the CIA fact book "China" and got this name under the dispute part at the bottom: "Senkaku-shoto (Diaoyu Tai)". I then went to "Japan" on CIA and got this: Senkaku-shoto (Diaoyu Tai). In the same paragraph, though, they mention "Japan and South Korea claim Liancourt Rocks (Take-shima/Tok-do)". 
Now, I know that Pinnacle Islands are an extreme minority name for those islands, so listen to my solution:
#The main article(s) be called Pinnacle Islands, a neutral name.
#In Chinese contexts articles referring to the Islands, it can be called by the Chinese name.
#In Taiwanese contexts articles referring to the Islands, it can be called by the Taiwanese name.
#In Japanese contexts articles referring to the Islands, it can be called by the Japanese name.
I know that this goes against everything I have said in the past in other disputes, but I think that this might work for this one. The biggest difference (in naming) between these islands and Liancourt is that unlike Pinnacle islands, Liancourt is a fairly common name (but not the most common). Any thoughts? Masterhatch 24 August 2005
jg[a0ewjutg]0eqyg
:what policy would justify using "Pinnacle Islands"?
:I don't see a need to sweep all discussion of politics under the rug. We only move content out of the page if it is irrelevant or if it does not fit (in that case we use wikipedia:summary style). If the other non-political aspects of the article are missing, then those sections should be created/expanded. If the political section is not well-written or not npov, then it should be revised. I don't see how creating a separate article will solve anything. whatever text that is flawed here will remained flawed at its new location. --Jiang 11:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the name Pinnacle Islands. It's English, and it favors neither the Chinese nor Japanese claims. --Carl 03:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinnacle Islands 

message: This passage needs fact-checking.
:An important basis for the Chinese claim comes from a 1944 court ruling in Japan. In that year, the Tokyo court ruled that the islands are part of Taihoku Prefecture (Taipei Prefecture), following a dispute between Okinawa Prefecture and Taihoku Prefecture. The contents of the San Francisco Treaty itself regarding Taiwan (and by extension, the disputed islands) are sometimes disputed.
The "Tokyo court" is too ambiguous. It can refer to the Tokyo District Court, the Tokyo High Court, (and the Supreme Court). Feigenbaum 08:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd revert your edits. FYI, there were no Tokyo Supreme Court nor Tokyo High Court before 3 May 1947 when the modern Japanese constitution came into effect. Moreover, according to Prof. Chiu Hung-Ta's "Taiwan Fishermen's Testimonial" the Tokyo ruling is a final adjudication.--219.79.28.30 03:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  court case 

message: The Chiense name "Diaoyu Dao" and "Diaoyutai Dao" respectively mean "Angling Island" and "Angling Platform Island". Angling in the sense of catching a fish using a hook and line. This is different from Fishing, which means the catching of fish in general. I'm making that edit. Hope nobody objects. --Sumple 00:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A separate point -translation of chinese name 

message: Today China does not recognize Japan's formal incorporation of the islands and claims that the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 17 April 1895, in which China ceded Taiwan to Japan, ceded the islands to Japan, although the treaty does not explicitly mention them.
and 
Prof. Emeritus ASHIDA Kentaro (芦田健太郎) of Kobe University points out that the History of Ming (明史), the official history book of the Ming Dynasty compiled during the Qing period, described about Taiwan in the "Stories of Foreign Countries" (外国列伝) and therefore, China did not controlled the Senkaku Islands nor Taiwan and did not intend to possess them[1].
I have a question - does the History of Ming explicitly mention the islands as "foreign", or does it only mention Taiwan?  If not, then I see a discrepancy here in that the text supporting the Japanese claim mentions that the Treaty of Shimonoseki did not explicitly mention them, while at the same time, this detail is left out concerning the History of Ming.  And where did that "did not intend to possess them" part came from?  How does declaring something as "foreign" mean that you don't intend to possess them?  The reason Taiwan was foreign in the first place was because it was colonised by a foreign power.
Also, doesn't the fact that the islands were claimed in the Qing dynasty makes it moot that the History of Ming mentions them as foreign?  I mean the whole point of the Qing claim was that:
# The Dutch controlled Taiwan and surrounding islands, thus they were "foreign" in Ming dynasty.
# Then Koxinga defeated the Dutch and laid claim to them, no longer making them foreign-controlled, but controlled by Chinese rebels.
# Then Qing China defeated the son of Koxinga and laid claim to them, thus making it part of Chinese territory.
And shouldn't the Treaty of Shimonoseki fall under the Chinese claim section, and the History of Ming under the Japanese claim section?  It would make more sense if what's in the Chinese section actually supports the Chinese claim, and what's in the Japanese section actually supports the Japanese claim.
--Hong Qi Gong 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Taiwan and suggestion for re-organising the sections 

message: As I understand it, China has been dispatching war ships and drilling the gas fields, dispite the unsettled dispute. Could there be more information made available regarding development around the gas fields, and the geography of the gas fields and differing claims of Exclusive Economic Zones? Or is there already an article about that somewhere? (if so, a link would be nice) —Tokek 07:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request more info on the gas fields