Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 1

Article biased
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)


 * 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)

This page should be moved over to Daiyutai, or a seperate page for sekaku. Delirum's move to this page is either bias or ignorant to politics, economics, and history. US handed over administrative rights of these island in the San Fransico treaty to Japan specifically noting administrative and no claims to right or ownership. Japan's claim is based sole on that treaty, which is also an illegal treaty under international law signed by US and Japan alone. China and Taiwan claims are based on geography, history, and legal international treaties signed by all parties involved. Specifically in the treay sign in Egypt, Japan's only legal claim are the 5 main islands. This was done intentionally to limit Japan imperialistic ambitions and to assure peace with its asian neighbors. Even disputed territories north between Russia, Korea are all illegal claims by Japan.

Despite the pacifist constitution, Japan has the military with the SDF, and the capabilty to produce 1000 nuclear warheads in a week. The only reasons Japan has not enforce these claims is its citizens and that fact that China only has to nuke 5 islands.

People go to jail for negligent homicide in the US. People go to jail in China for posting the wrong stuff on the web. Nobody goes to jail in Japan for sending troops to Iraq. Thus, ignorance does have its consequences. HD888

Title
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)

Woahwoahwoah... I didn't mean there was POV in Delirium's actions (although there undoubtedly was), I meant that the article itself clearly reflects the opinions of someone who favors Japanese claims to the islands.

Also, it's worth noting that the islands really and truly belong to the nice, peaceful, wonderful Ryukyuan Kingdom, which the evil nasty Satsuma clan invaded and was later evilly annexed by evil prewar Japan. However there was never any war over this land (ie the property of the Ryukyuan Kingdom) until well after Japan laid claim to it, and no residents of the land can recall their parents or grandparents or themselves signing the kingdom over to Japan under any sort of legally binding contract, and obviously to this date the treatment of the former subjects of the King is not with the best interests of the subjects or the land in mind but rather the welfare of those of the mainland Japan which is quite shameful, and for this reason now a small minority has been actively fighting for independence from Japan, and the majority would support such a move if it were an option. A couple of years ago, there was even a governor (Oda Masahide) who nearly gained partial independence for the region but failed because of Japan's recent economic slump; even though he is out of office his plans are still around but on the back burner.

Under this reasoning, if one decides that the former Ryukyuan Kingdom is the property of Japan, then by default the Senkaku Islands (termed by China the "gateway to Loochoo [ryukyu]") belong to Japan. Of course of the population of the entire world most people aren't even aware that there are people who would like to see the secession of the fmr Ryukyuan Kingdom from Japan, and undoubtedly the supporters number not many over 3 million if even that. So by this logic, the islands belong to Japan.

One could follow similar logic to reason that Sakhalin, the Amur River basin, the Kamchatska Penninsula, as well as the Kurile Islands belong to Japan because the Ainu (who the Japanese government claims are 100% extinct which is far from the truth), the former "owners" of these lands are now citizens of Japan. However this isn't really as good an argument because Ainu land was never under a single central Ainu leadership, while Ryukyuan land most definitely was for a number of centuries.--Node ue 18:47, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They are Japanese territories right now as far as international law is concerned. It's gonna be very hard for China or any other nations to contest the claim if they bring it to the International Court of Justice. --211.126.45.201 17:13, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to me a good way to deal with the matter. 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. Whether this claim is valid or not is disputed, but if the claim is still disputed, i.e. the administration by Japan is still disputed, we cannot use the fact of the administration to decide if we should use Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu Islands as the "proper name".

My suggestion that we should make a separate page called "Diaoyu Islands or Senkaku Islands" is the most fair and logical. By placing Diaoyu before Senkaku is only that that is the alphabetical order and that the alleged evidence in support of the claim of China is chronigically earlier than that of Japan. -- 130.88.185.84 01:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! Fuzheado 01:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * "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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Certainly, but this doesn't means that Japan is really a pacifist. During the 2nd World War Japan has killed 7.5 million Chinese civilists. (versus 0.6 million jews killed by nazis.) Today Japan has the most powerful and modern naval forces and missile systems. A Japanese mayor said even, if Japan want, it can make 1000 atom bombs within a week. (USA and Russia have even to import chips, sensors, turbines etc to produce their submarines, aircraft ... And Japan is make more and more aggressive politics (see the news about japan-korea- and japan-china-relationships) and it is on its way to liberate from the restrictions of 2ww-penalty on him. I don't know the word Chinese imperialism. Please explain me what do you mean. --84.173.17.228 01:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


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


 * 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)

Concensus
So let's say, do you think a separate page for both is fairer instead of directing one to the other?

If you agree so, then change it accordingly. If not, please kindly advise me why.

Also, consensus is not the proper way to deal with the matter like the present one. I mean we may decide who is to lead us by a majority. But when we are disputing what is the factual "right" and what is factual "wrong", consensus or majority opinion does no help. This is not about moral right and wrong, and not about norms when the majority opinion prevails. This is about the fact, which even if the majority agrees to what is the fact is no proof to the fact itself. The only way to do so is by valid, sensible arguments made out of good faith. (by 130.88.185.84)


 * Splitting into two pages is not an option becuase that will make updating difficult. Please also take a look at how to move a page and do not move content when people are still in disagreement.


 * Calling it the Senkaku Islands is the same as the Republic of Macedonia situation. Whoever controls a piece of land gets to call it whatever they want, whther they have right to it or not. Should we move Republic of China to "Renegade Provincial authority of Taiwan" or Cyprus to "Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus". To avoid bringing ourselves into endless debates on who is right, we just use the objective measure of who exercises the sovereignty, not who is entitled to it. --Jiang 02:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And why the Republic of China should be placed before the People's Republic of China then? It is well settled in the international arena that the PRC Government is the ONLY authentic government to represent the Chinese people. The one who insists on doing things according to the international platform seem to ignore this fact when it is about whether the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China prevails. On the other hand, personally, I don't like to do things according to norms (not to say "varying norms"). I only place PRC in front because that's the alphabetical order. (by 130.88.185.84)


 * Again, I am reverting you because I don't agree on the move for reasons given above and even if I agreed, you need to move according to how to move a page (this can only be done if you register a username). The page history need to be preserved to give people credit for their work.


 * I agree that the PRC should be placed first because P comes before R, and not because might and size makes right.--Jiang 02:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your argument is not quite sound to me, my friend. In Olympic Games we only call the Taiwanese representatives as Chinese Taipei. That is clear evidence that who exercises control doesnt matter. What really matters is who is entitled to a place. And if that is disputed, then we should keep things impartial.

For example, you have a cat called "Lina". You have an ownership right to it. No one can steal that ownership right? And if somebody suddenly steals the cat, and he/she calls it "Mary" instead, do you think the general public will like to refer it as Lina or Mary?

This may be an awkward analogy. But my whole point is control is not a proper objective standard. It is the ownership that is in dispute now. So we can't call the cat Lina or Mary until the ownership is settled. And one thing I have to make clear: I am not concluding that Japan is a thief. The owner and the thief of that cat can either be one of the other, and I do not want to comment on that here in an encyclopedia.

I also don't agree moving to a separate page will continue to cause endless disputes. That should be an effective way to finish off things. I also don't understand why updating will be difficult. Readers will be redirected to the correct page automatically. They shouldn't find it difficult to locate to the correct page for updating.

(by 130.88.185.84)

Also, the reason I talked about the PRC and Republic of China thing is that when you reverted my edits you also reverted my changing the order according to what the alphabet tells us.


 * I am not convinced that the IOC adheres to NPOV. Until the 1960s, the Taiwanese team played under "China". So did entitlement switch in the 1960s or 1949?


 * It will only be you and those you know that will refer to it as "Lina". The other person and those that other person know will call it "Mary". The general public does not know. It all comes up to how many people each of you know.


 * I agree that we can't go by only a single name if we want to adhere to a neutral point of view, but we don't have an option when we want to name articles. People refer to the article by one name or the other, not both. We'll have to make a choice. What's more important is that we make the content of the article itself neutral. Where the article is located matters less, given that they all redirect to each other.--Jiang 04:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I am in complete agreement with Jiang that we should focus our attention on making the article neutral rather than changing the article title around. If the cat analogy applied to lands, then we'll have to rename all the states in the United States to native American names. Beijing will have to be pronounced as Peking, or whatever the original archaic pronunciation of the city was. In reality the cat analogy doesn't work because cats are different from lands. It is not uncommon for a piece of land to have more than one name, and choosing one name over the other isn't breaking NPOV rule. George W. Bush is a preferred article title over George Walker Bush but calling the article one way or the other doesn't make the naming decision a biased one, or a truth-distorting one, it simply means that the decision followed pre-existing Wikipedia article naming conventions. I'll be more convinced if you can specifically give me a well established and much agreed upon Wikipedia article naming rule that was violated, as opposed to a comparison with cats.--69.212.98.139 05:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 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).

The New York Times

The island of Uotsuri-Jima is claimed by both Japan and China.

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."

(by alphakey)

Since nobody inhabits the island, and since the island is in dispute, I do not see how it is possible for Japan to be a controlling power. For an uninhabited island strongly contested by three governments (China, Taiwan, and Japan), I do not see how you can redirect Diaoyutai to Senkaku without taking a blatantly anti-Chinese/Taiwan stand in the issue and overtly supporting Japan's disputed claim. There are three nations disputing an UNINHABITED island. How does Japan have a stronger claim than the others if nobody lives there? One way to resolve this issue is to find a neutral name we can direct both articles to, like the Pinnacle Islands. Another way is to have separate pages and to update both simultaneously by copying/pasting one to the other. The minimal extra effort it takes to simply copy/paste both articles once in a while far outweighs the redirect/editing wars than can ensure. In terms of maintaining a neutral encycopedia, it is highly unethical to redirect Diaoyutai to Senkaku or vice versa. -Stanford08

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Contested_East_China_Sea_Islands"

HD888

I removed the word control and added unihabited. To provide a bit of balance, I also added Japan's claim in a separate sentence in the title. The details of these islands should really be linked to both Senkaku Islands and Diaoyutai Island as separate pages rather than a single one.

-

US territory
Hmmm. Technically, the islands belong to the USA (a technicality like Taiwan really being US territory), as I don't believe that they are specifically mentioned in the 72 treaty. I wonder if anyone in America cares.... Probably not. Heh. Stargoat 05:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Taiwan is "technically" US territory? Since when? - Nik42 22:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Taiwan is part of China!! Do you know that!! Stop writing nonsense!! Go read more books!


 * Care to explain what the technicality is? With the exception of PRC and ROC, the entire world recognizes the islands as belonging to Japan, and Japan declared it as part of Okinawa back in 1895. The US returned Okinawa back to Japan in 1972.--69.212.98.139 03:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think there is any country recognises the islands as Japanese or Chinese. They have no opinion at all. --anon 10:27, December 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have references? Links? What's your reasoning? --68.22.251.127 23:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Getting kind upset about this, aren't we? This is only a trivial point of diplomacy.
 * The islands were disputed territory and given to the US to administer after World War II. As such, the UN had the US resolve the territorial issue.  They were not specifically given away at any point, even in the "Agreement Between the United States of America and Japan Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands".  In fact, no one really cared much about them, until the reserves were found near the island in '68.  However, the US has tacitly recognized Japan's claim to the island, if not taking the time to spell it out formally.  So technically, the US has what probably amounts to the strongest claim to the islands, though no one in the US really cares.  The American government is much more interested in neo-colonialism than colonialism.
 * If the United States had in 1971 been more careful about designating who the territory belongs to, then this mess would not be happening. Maybe the US should just spell out once and for all who the islands belong to.  That should resolve any legal issues about the island's status.  Though I doubt the PRC would care for that.  http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/rev71.html
 * Stargoat 15:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true that the US temporarily occupied some southern Japanese territories after WWII before returning them to Japan. When Norway claimed Greenland as their own territory, their claim was rejected by the League of Nations. It would be nice if the UN did more such judgements on disputes so that weak claims can be quickly thrown away.


 * More specifically, the 1971 reversion agreement you link specifies that the US will return all territories acquired under article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951). Since all the Japanese territories which the US temporarily acquired from Japan is spelled out in article 3, there is no room for the technicality that you mention to exist.

Pinnacle Islands, Tiaoyutai (Islands)
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)

The caption beneath the map at the news article |Japan plans defense against Chinese invasion says is the ROC callling so. -- 18:07, January 27, 2005, UTC

Way of presentation of the title
The text before the modification by Jiang. after the modification reference and comparison

-- 20:15, February 9, 2005, UTC

ROC garrison on Uotsuri/Diaoyudao, 1955
I recovered the original status after a map check. TW Island and Uotsuri are close and both are located on the south of Zhejiang Province where Tachen is located. So at this moment there is no reason to deny ROC troops garrisoning on the island.

Any opinion?

-Yes, Tachen is a littoral island in Zhejiang provence, many miles from Uotsuri Island. The shortest distance from the Zhejiang littoral islands to Taiwan is a north-south route. From the same islands to the Senkakus is an east-west route. With the protection of the US 7th fleet, it does not make sense why US Navy Task Force 702 would travel hunderds of miles out of the way to go to Taiwan. The claim that ROC troops were garrisoned on Uotsuri and fired on Japanese ships is pure fantasy, somebody must be confusing it with Japan and Korea's dispute over Dok-do/Takeshima (I can see how one would confuse ROK (Korea) and ROC (Taiwan), or simply combine the two situations to mislead people unfamiliar with East Asian territorial disputes) and I could not find any third party sources on the net, let alone the original information. I've read many posts on veteren groups websites (simply google "Tachen Evacuation") and there is no mention of taking any of the evacuated ROC troops to Uotsuri or any other of the Senkaku Islands. Further more, a BBC article mentions that the PLA did not interfere with the evacuation of the island, thus negating the requirement to garrison troops on a far away Japanese island to protect said evacuation.

-Matt Deering 14 Feb 05 2345Z

Tachen Island Evacuation History

Photos from the Evacuation

Title of Article
OMG, stop changing the name of the article, and most of all, if one is going to childishly redirect the page, at least do so with the content. If people are gonna be such big crybabies over the name, have the name of the article be nice neutral Pinnacle Islands, which can be redirected from either Diaoyutai or Senkaku.

A naming convention
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 &#8465; 02:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting the article from Diaoyutai to Senkaku is a blatant support of Japan's disputed claim to the territory. In the interests of neutrality, I suggest we either keep two separate articles with Diaoyutai and Senkaku or we choose a neutral name like Pinnacle Islands. In any case, redirecting to Senkaku is way too biased to be a viable option. --Stanford08

1895 date of incorporation
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)

Pinnacle Islands
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:
 * 1) The main article(s) be called Pinnacle Islands, a neutral name.
 * 2) In Chinese contexts articles referring to the Islands, it can be called by the Chinese name.
 * 3) In Taiwanese contexts articles referring to the Islands, it can be called by the Taiwanese name.
 * 4) 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 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)


 * 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)

court case
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)


 * 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)

Edit on Feb. 1
The edit on Feb. 1 by User:Sumple seems biased. At first, please describe here what you want to insist. Let's discuss one by one.--Corruptresearcher 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On edits made on Feb.1
 * I made those edits because this article itself is biased. I'll enumerate the biases as follows:
 * 1. The name of the main article has been changed to Senkaku Islands. This reflects an acceptance of Japan's claim of de jure sovereignty or de facto control, both of which are disputed issues.
 * 2. In each section, the Japanese name is listed ahead of the Chinese name. Again, this reflects of an acceptance of said claims which are disputed.
 * 3. In the detailed discussion in this article, all Chinese arguments are refuted or rebutted with a Japanese argument. However, not all Japanese arguments are refuted to rebutted with a Chinese argument.
 * 4. I will admit that it could also be biased to list Chinese names ahead of Japanese ones. Therefore I propose that the names be presented in a table. Since "Chinese" is alphabetically ahead of "Japanese", the Chiense names can be presented on the left hand column, and the Japanese on the right.
 * Regarding point 3., I can understand and accept your intension. We can discuss about substantial issues and find better expression, I hope.  However, I cannot agree with the other points.  In my understanding, the name used by the country controlling the place is listed ahead of the other claiming country in Wikipedia.  Currently Japan controls the islands more effectively than China against your opinion, as I will comment later.--Corruptresearcher 03:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On the substantive issues in this article
 * 1. terra nullius and Japan's claim of de jure sovereignty: The Japanese claim of sovereignty rests on the concept of terra nullius. The principle of terra nullius states that territory can be acquired by the first state ot exercise control over it, provided no other state has previously exercised control over it. This was the Blackstone view. The later Locke view that cultivation is required to demonstrate control is now discredited becaause of its chauvinistic overtones. By this criterion, the claim of "terra nullius" is suspect at best. This is because there is historical evidence that the islands were within the naval defence zone of the Ming Dynasty. Remember that the Ming Dynasty was when Zheng He's fleet sailed to Kenya and back, so China was fully capable of projecting naval power a few kilometres off its coast. As to why Taiwan was referred to as a foreign country on some Ming Dynasty maps - during the late Ming Dynasty Taiwan was controlled by Dutch colonialists, until it was recovered at the end of the Ming Dynasty. During that period, it is natural that the area would be labelled "foreign", in the same way that Hong Kong was labelled foreign to China prior to 1997.
 * 2. naming Japan's claim of sovereignty is betrayed by the names it has bestowed on the islands. The Chinese names precede the Japanese names in terms of historical records. In addition, most names are either derived from the Chinese name. The main exception is the name Senkaku, which appears to be derived from the English name, Pinnacle Islands. This suggests an attempt to wipe out the Chinese legacy of the island by adopting a new name derived from a third party name. A similar attitude is seen in Japan's insistence in referring to Taiwan as Formosa, and in referring to China itself as Shina. The fact that Chinese names predate Japanese names, and there are some documentary evidence that the islands were within the
 * 3. effective control. I dispute that Japan exercises effective control over the island. Effective control means an ability to control entry and exit from the island. The islands are unoccupied. Lighthouses or markers were set up solely to bolster an otherwise illegal claim, and so cannot be regarded as supporting that claim. Chinese (including Hong Kong and Taiwanese) protestors have made several landings there in recent years. The Taiwanese navy was able to patrol these waters without challenge in 2005. This indicates that Japan does not exercise full or effective control over the islands. --129.78.208.4 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 1, of course I know the Zheng He's voyage. Actually I respect it.  But, please remember, Ryukyu Kingdom obeyed China for convenience of trade but also was a vassal of Japan in the same era.  In addition, the control Japan on Ryukyu has been more substantial than China, including Senkaku Islands.
 * Regarding point 2, both of Japan and China used the same name but how can you distinguish which country named the island first? Of course, Okinawans named at first.  So what?
 * Regarding point 3, what happend after the landing of the several protesters? All of them were arrested by Japanese authority.  On the contrary, some Japanese who landed recently have been arrested by Chinese authority?  Never ever.  These facts prove that Japan controls these islands more effectively than China.  One day, the Taiwanese navy patrol was reported showily, because it was quite rare.  Japanese Coast Guard patrols frequently but it has never been reported because it does not have news value.  --Corruptresearcher 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the group that made the landing is from the China Federation for Defending the Diaoyu Islands. Hong Qi Gong 03:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, the Japanese policy of Terra Nuillus was also used on acquiring the Liancourt Rocks before annexation of Korea. Terra Nuillus only works if the island has been previously uninhabited and undiscovered. The Japanese claim to Liancourt Rocks nest on Terra Nuillus declared in 1905, yet Japanese foreign ministry maintains that Japan solely knew the island's existence since the 17th century. (http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html - Funny thing there is no mention about the Terra Nuillus part)There are historical documents from Korea which reaffirms the Korean knowledge of the islands from the 11th century. Since first Japanese (official) claim to the islands were nested on the policy of Terra Nuillus, I just wanted to point this fun fact out. Deiaemeth 00:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Terra nullius does not mean undiscovered. Even if a country discovers a new island, the country does not obtain a definite territorial title but only have an inchoate title without occupation.  --Corruptresearcher 09:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. But Japan annexed the territory under "Terra Nuillus" and its claims were based on that the islands were not inhabited earlier and possessed by any states earlier. As you can read on the LR article, Japanese historians groundlessly asserted that Koreans did not possess the nautical skills needed to discover the island until 19th century. The Japanese authorities in early 20th century conveniently decided to forgo earlier history on the disputed territories. That's why Terra Nuillus is not mentioned in any of the Japanese foreign ministry website. Seeing as how this is the case for Liancourt Rocks, I wouldn't be surprised to find a similar incident in regarding the Senkaku Islands. Deiaemeth 09:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You do not catch my point. Japan annexed the territory under "Terra nullius" because no one occupied nor controlled there.  It is not problem of Koreans skill.  I do not know how and which histrians discuss about it but if you want to discuss about Liancourt Rocks more, please write it in the talk page of Liancourt Rocks.  --Corruptresearcher 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand Deiaemeth. He is saying that the terra nullius claim is suspect because japan habitually uses it when it shouldn't (example being Liancourt Rocks). Anyway, what with the Australian experience, anyone should be wary of any claims of "terra nullius". there just aren't that many nullius terras out there. --Sumple 22:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why "japan shouldn't use it"? What I mentioned repeatedly is that the country only find an island cannot prohibit other contries to use it.  Of course I know how the concept Terra nullius is applied to the Australian continent but the case is different: Senkaku islands were not controlled nor used by any contry.  (This is Japanese POV, of course.) --Corruptresearcher 08:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you only present Japanese POV, or if you present it in a way that makes the Japanese "terra nullius" claim stronger than Taiwan's claim of having used the island without your giving any additional evidence (just by making it sound lofty and as if it's abiding international law), then this article is BIASED. Understand? Taiwan claims to have used Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands, but Japanese chooses to ignore this.  The Diaoyutai/Senkaku island dispute is thus similar to the Liancourt Rocks dispute. Naus 22:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A separate point -translation of chinese name
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)

History of Ming
I edited expression about the topic that the History of Ming classified Taiwan and Ryukyu as foreign country. The Dutch occupation in the Ming era was only for 20 years while Ming dinasty had continued 280 years. They continued to occupy 20 years in Qin eran and Zheng's occupation was also short, only 20 years. It is too short to be significant. I think it is not the reason why the History of Ming classfied Taiwan as foreign country. At least, Japanese scholars never insist so. If Chinese neither, please delete the following expression: (Chinese scholars considers this is because Taiwan and these islands were under the control of first the Dutch about 20 years before the fall of the Ming Dynasty, then the Ming-loyalist Zheng Chengong and his successor until 1683.) --Corruptresearcher 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have doubts about the Ming dynasty classifying Taiwan and Ryukyu as foreign countries - that is, the claim or implication that the Ming classified Taiwan as a foreign country throughout the whole dynasty. They may have done during the period when Taiwan was occupied by the Dutch, but I can't understand why they would before that period, since Taiwan was administratively part of Fujian before the Ming. --Sumple (Talk) 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what I meant to say in addition was that the History of Ming was compiled *at the beginning* of the Qing dynasty, perhaps during the period when it was still occupied by Zheng? So to the Qing dynasty historians compiling the book, Taiwan was a foreign country? --Sumple (Talk) 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you read the History of Ming? The Taiwan is written in the different part from the part of inland including Burma, but written as the foreigh country along with Korea, Japan and Ryukyu.  If the Ming dynasty recognize it as inland and temporary occupied by others, it must be written in the part of inland with description about foreigh occupation.  In addition, the History of Ming was completed 1739, 55 years after the beginning of the Quing dynasty's rule for Taiwan.  Not at the beginning of of the Qing dynasty.  By the way, Taiwan became administratively part of Fujian after the Qing, not before Ming, in my understanding (if I am wrong, please show me sources).--Corruptresearcher 14:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the History of Ming. Have you? How long did it take you, given that its in, what, 30 volumes, and written in Chinese?
 * Anyway, the date is not conclusive - the Qing historians were writing about something that happened in the Ming Dynasty. As far as they were concerned, Taiwan was a foreign country at the end of the Ming Dynasty. Therefore, to them, with respect to the Ming dynasty, Taiwan was a foreign country. It does not say anything about whether the previous Emperors of Ming actually thought it was a foreign country.
 * In any case, this talk about whether Taiwan was or was not a part of China in the 17th Century is all beside the point, and I don't see why it is in the article.
 * The conclusive historical fact is that Taiwan was definitely conquered by the Qing Dynasty in 1684, and was thereafter administered by the Chinese government (until ceded to Japan) and attained and maintained a majority Chinese population. --Sumple (Talk) 22:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all of the books, of course. But I read the part regarding Taiwan.  It is not so long.  I can read chinese characters so I can understand outline although I cannot speak Chinese.  And your mention is underestimating the Quing historians.  Histrians always write about something that happend in the past.  Regarding neccessity of this part, it is written here to show the China did not control not only Ryukyu, including Senkaku, but also Taiwan during the Ming dynasty.  Anyway, I understand that the expression added by you is not the comment of Chinese scholars (nor Japanese ones) so I remove it.  --Corruptresearcher 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it not the comment of Chinese scholars? But fine, and I'm removing the comments about Taiwan being "listed" as a foreign country because it is irrelevant. --Sumple (Talk) 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the expression because in the above discussion you seemed not to be referring a certain comment of a Chinese scholar but just describing your own opinion. If there is a Chinese scholar who actually mentions such an opinion, please tell me who he is and describe his opinion precisely.  I could not believe the removed expression is academic opinion because it is not logical, as I described above.  It harms credibility of the Chinese scholars to keep the expression, I think.  I do not mind to keep the expression but please cite source, at least. --Corruptresearcher 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the comment about Taiwan being a foreign country in the History of Ming has no relevance to the status of the diaoyu islands.
 * I mean, but what is it supposed to say? we *know* that taiwan is not terra nullius. whether taiwan was or was not a foreign country does not affect whether diaoyu islands are terra nullius.
 * we know ryukyu was a separate country. whether taiwan was or was not a foreign country does not affect whether ryukyu was an independent state.
 * so what is that comment meant to prove?
 * not also that this so-called academic opinion is equally uncited.
 * i don't mind you deleting the counter-argument, provided the comment about taiwan and/or ryukyu being a separate country is either deleted, or re-shaped into something that is logical and relevant to the status of the diaoyu islands. --Sumple (Talk) 01:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a couter argument to the Chinese argument, "China claims that the islands were within the Ming Empire's sea-defense area and were part of Taiwan", in the previous paragraph. The Japanese scholar mentions that even if the Senkaku islands are considered as the part of Taiwan, Ming did not recognize Taiwan itself as the part of China.  I think the current expression, not written by me, do not clearly describes what the Japanese scholar insists.  I will modify it with citation later.  Of course, some counter argument by Chinese scholars to this opinion must exist but I suppose it must be more logical one than that currently mentioned in the article. --Corruptresearcher 03:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I cited a webpage written by a Japanese scholar. I tried to translate with some ommission.  If you are anxious what is ommitted, I can add more words to comlete translation.  I hope you can understand outline of his assertion by picking up Chinese characters.  The original text under discussion is written in Chapter 3 Section 2 (3) as follows:
 * 『明史』では、台湾は東蕃として「外国列伝」に入れられており、台湾北部の鶏籠山（今の基隆）も「外国列伝に含まれている. このように、明代には、尖閣諸島はもちろんのこと、台湾の北部（基隆）や台湾北東の彭佳嶼、花瓶嶼、綿花嶼、などに中国の支配は及んでおらず、また、中国は領有の意志も持っていなかった. --Corruptresearcher 23:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

About Taiwan and suggestion for re-organising the sections
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:
 * 1) The Dutch controlled Taiwan and surrounding islands, thus they were "foreign" in Ming dynasty.
 * 2) Then Koxinga defeated the Dutch and laid claim to them, no longer making them foreign-controlled, but controlled by Chinese rebels.
 * 3) 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)

Also, the text about Qing dynasty China defeating Zheng Jing to reclaim Taiwan is not accurate. It was Zheng Ke-Shuang, Zheng Jing's son and Koxinga's grandson, that was was defeated. He submitted to Qing rule in 1683. --Hong Qi Gong 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request more info on the gas fields
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)