Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Arbitration enforcement warning: Talk page conduct

The above move discussion contains quite a bit of nastiness, edit-warring, inappropriate language and confrontational attitude by various participants. I remind all participants, but particularly Lvhis, Phoenix7777 and Benlisquare, as well as everybody else who uses this talk page, that such conduct, if it is repeated in future discussions, may result in discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  10:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sure the conduct in this talk page stands out more than the rest that occurred in this talk page. After so many years + numerous disputes and you are just only giving a warning. That's very effective. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So you guys are fighting still?!

I see User:Lvhis, User:Benlisquare, User:Oda Mari, User:Phoenix7777 etc, etc, etc... and that's from years back.

I can understand the whole naming fight is quite meaningful for some parties, but it's been 3 years (or is it 4?)... come on guys. It's not a nice way to spend the Christmas too!

After a glance through this wall of fighting, the elephant in the room is that it is filled with fighting between Benlisquare, Lvhis, and Phoenix7777. In fact, Phoenix had been trolling in basically every argument he had on this topic over all these years. It seems like he has survived yet another arbitration untouched, which suggests there are incompetent administators involved. He's either got some special immunity or somehow gamed the rules enough to satisfy some self-inflated egos. Either way, they will pay for that decision in the form of future ArbComs, ANI's, and RFC's which will generate tonnes of boring long essays and links that they have to go through (or at least pretend to).

If you guys simply can't resist talking about the Senkaku vs Diaoyu naming dispute, there are tonnes of better-qualified places out there for these kinds of discussion. You are almost guaranteed to be surrounded with competent posters who know basic history, principles of research, number analysis, and critique of sampling if you start a discussion in some popular academic forum in history or policy. Reddit is also a good place to go to since the more informed exchanges tend to get upvoted while the ignorant scraps (like some of what we see here) tend to get hidden due to downvotes.

But anyway, let's just wait for China and Japan to sort this thing out. It's not like the naming of this page will have any meaningful effect on the status and those islands are not even of much interest other than the fact that it's something the two countries are fighting over and something that gets those stubborn nationalist distracted from their own countries' internal problems. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "But anyway, let's just wait for China and Japan to sort this thing out." - I could turn 60 years old, and this might not even happen. Both countries have their problems. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be insulting to autistic people. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Amended. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, writing things like that stupid phrase you just deleted is what loses you points, Benny. Swearing and discriminatory remarks are the easiest sound bytes to be used against someone. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Man, that f-off is poorly done too, Benny. Man oh man. That RFC is just painful to look at. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never considered myself to be a good debater to begin with. I'm sure everyone's noticed this by now, right? --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That part is obvious. It's a wonder nobody really gave you much warning aside from that little slap on the wrist by Sandstein. How did you manage it? 174.89.163.195 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm the type to speak my mind, and not give a damn about people's feelings, societal norms regarding what can and can't be said, or how my words can be turned around. I can be forgiving, but to a certain degree; I'm the type who on occasion gets into bar fights on a Saturday night for this very reason - I can overlook most things 90% of the time, but catch me on a bad day and the cops are involved (which funnily enough, only give a slap on the wrist). I'm not a good propagandist, and hardly will ever be. I hate stupid social hugboxes like Reddit for this exact reason: people get praised by saying things that people want to hear, which is completely silly.

People might not like how I view things, but I see the behaviour of both the Chinese and Japanese governments as like small children diagnosed with a certain condition that I won't name -- children who are unable to think outside of the box, unable to consider the other side, have special demands, and will cry forever until they are satisfied -- and I don't see it changing any time soon. I find both governments completely laughable, and this whole thing is becoming futile and pointless, seemingly dragging on and on. Many people might disagree with my opinion, and that's fine. You're you, and I'm me. Those who disagree with my comparison with national governments and a certain medical condition can just pretend I didn't say anything.

As for the earlier RfC, I've always reserved my right to a tit-for-tat method of dealing with things. If someone behaves respectfully towards me, I will reciprocate in full; you can see this yourself, by looking at the dates of each post. At first, I wasn't too concerned about anything, and was one of the first people willing to make compromises (prefering the Japanese name first within ordering, not using Pinnacle, etc), and considered myself the least partisan of the !voters on the two sides. As soon as Phoenix7777 started flinging his trouble over and over, I had no more reason to let this slide. I did things just for the sake of being against him, because I just didn't like him and what he was doing at all, and that's that. I'm no propagandist, and I don't take shit whilst saying pretty nice words like everyone else does. That's not how I do things; I have limited patience like most human beings not trained by government propaganda departments, and I don't partake in honne and tatemae nonsense. I'd never get a job as a government spokesperson due to who I am. I reserve the right to be pissed off when another party is being intentionally disruptive and then has the nerve to cry wolf about it. I don't see why I don't have a right to be pissed off - the first amendment of the US lets me, as does common sense.

Sorry for the WP:TLDR, but it's one of those days when my verbal diarrhea sets in. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well kid, there's much more circle-jerking in Wikipedia (among "reputable" editors/admins) than Reddit.

And as well, redditors don't spend eons meticulously decorating their profiles with obnxious show-off boxes and labels. :)

If you don't like Phoenix then maybe you should just avoid him and all. As far as my observation goes, the admins are content with letting his trolling slide just as they are content with tolerating your bad behaviour. No amount of protesting is going to change the status quo for you guys until one of you personally gets on the bad side of an admin (like Lvhis did).

Remember, Wikipedia is governed by a thousand very entrenched volunteers with lots of personal time to waste, no term limits, and almost wholly immune to accountability. You can't just expect to get your way by acting like a baby and complain tactlessly. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you're trying to achieve by drilling into the fact that I do stupid shit here on Wikipedia. I know, and everyone else knows, news at 11. There's no need to redesign the wheel. Something unrelated though: You claim on Sandstein's talk page that you've "forgotten" your login credentials, but I get the feeling that you're just choosing not to log in, and I get the feeling that I've probably met you before in the past. Just pointing it out though, not that I'm going to hound you or anything -- you can rest assured, I'm not going to get too concerned about things from too far in the past. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I honestly do not remember my credentials so you can be rest assured that I do not remember them. :)

I will drill on anything I find pleasing to drill on and it's not personal too - I was digging on Lvhis, Sandstein, and Phoenix as well... and these guys are not exactly friends with each other.

I am not realistically expecting to achieve anything, but it still feels good reminding the admins that they are a sloppy bunch. Although if we are lucky enough, a responsible admin would indeed hop in and topic ban some misbehaving trolls, and that'd be a good step forward for everyone. 174.89.163.195 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I see things died down again. After pages of fighting, lawyering, and admins pretending to be doing their job, it's once again back to step 1... and I don't think has learned anything from this yet. Until next time, folks :) 174.89.163.195 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

There's no problem with the name Senkaku Islands, a name in which I am in favor of. However, the way the name was changed is clearly in violation of NPOV, the basic fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It was changed without permission, without vote, and without consent out of nowhere, and we expect people who read this article to believe that the islands are really the property of Imperial Japan. Clearly, Wikipedia is descending to the level of what Japan, is doing to their children in elementary schools. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

See the "Requested move" section above. Also please read WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, it wouldn't be surprising to say that new editors would come to such judgements, especially since many of them would have no idea as to what earlier discussions have been about. Surely when a new editor turns up, the last thing on their mind would be to read through the talk page archives? Perhaps consider creating a FAQ for this page, similar to the one at Talk:Kim Jong-un. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

An FAQ would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have read through the discussion prior to, and I do not need that explanation. Actually, the change was based on a technicality to change the name to Senkaku Islands, a name in which most editors were in favor of. So the article retains its neutrality and NPOV if there was democracy, rather than disagreement. Dark Liberty (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion of an FAQ is an excellent one. A tide of POV pushing swirls around all the articles relating to disputed islands in the East and South China Seas (pun intended), and it would be a good idea to clarify accepted editing practice for newcomers to the topic/Wikipedia. The question is, where to start the discussion? I suspect here is too parochial so perhaps the existing Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea would be as good a place as any to make a start but there may be better places out there. Ideas? ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that an FAQ is necessary here WhisperToMe (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Request change to neutral name

Why is Dokdo called the obscure name "Liancourt Rocks" and yet this page is called "Senkaku Islands"? Shouldn't it be called the equally obscure "Pinnacle Islands"? Please apply all principles fairly. Either change this page to "Pinnacle Islands" or change "Liancourt Rocks" to Dokdo.

Please see the discussion archives in the header box above as to why there is no consensus to move the page to "Pinnacle Islands". ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 18:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Japanese always win on Wikipedia.--Sir Edgar (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're unhappy with the article's name but it's not pro-Japanese, it's Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not "pro" anyone.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering Japan acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands prior to annexing the Diaoyu islands and that Japan only has administrative control, the original name of the island should be represented. Wikipedia should not be biased toward US interests. At the moment, anytime someone quotes wikipedia to me I just laugh.....its just as corrupt and propaganda driven as US corporate media.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/?_r=0 http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2012/10/03/interview-with-professor-yabuki-on-the-senkakudiaoyu-crisis-and-u-s-china-japan-relations/ http://www.japanfocus.org/-Fang-Ming/3877

Furthermore, Japan acknowledged these islands were in dispute with China when their leaders met in 1972.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2013/02/20/japan-and-u-s-ignored-chinese-signals-and-history-blundering-into-the-senkakudiaoyu-crisis/ The new book on the Senkaku/Diaoyu island crisis by Yabuki Susumu (矢吹晋), professor emeritus of Yokohama City University, one of Japan’s most eminent China scholars. The book (written in Japanese) is entitled:「尖閣問題の核心 」(The Core of the Senkaku Issue), and bears a subtitle:「日中関係はどうなる」 (What is to Become of Japan-China Relations). I believe that the book is the fairest and most objective, as well as the most thorough, exposition of the positions of both Japan and China, and–critically–the U.S., on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. At the risk of oversimplifying, I think I can summarize Professor Yabuki’s analysis and conclusions as follows: 1. The Japanese position on the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue is indefensible on several counts, including most fundamentally Japan’s unconditional acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (which required the return of all territories “stolen” from China). 2. The Meiji government’s annexation of the Ryuku Islands (theretofore an autonomous kingdom) in January 1885, within which the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were identified, followed three months later by the Qing Dynasty’s surrender of Taiwan and the Pescadores to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki (ending the Sino-Japanese War) are both mooted by the terms of Potsdam. The islands were and are clearly part of Taiwan, which in addition has the most legitimate claim to continuous use/occupation. 3. The Japanese position that Senkaku/Diaoyu is part of Japanese territory because it was awarded to Japan by the U.S. in the Okinawa Reversion agreement of 1971 is similarly contrary to fact. The U.S. awarded to Japan only administrative authority over the islands, not sovereignty. Sovereignty was specifically not transferred. The U.S. continued to maintain was undetermined between the three claimants and would only be determined through discussion and agreement. (As I noted in the last post, the Obama administration–in a monumental blunder–effectively changed this policy by failing to object to and stop Japanese “nationalization.”) 4. Japanese policy–and particularly public misunderstanding–has been based on the false assertion, uttered by then foreign minister Fukuda Takeo in testimony to the Upper House of Diet on December 15, 1971 that Okinawa Reversion had accomplished the restoration of Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Whether Fukuda misunderstood the issue, or intended to deliberately deceive the country through this testimony is unclear. 5. The Chinese position on handling the territorial issue was, before Japanese “nationalization,” grounded on the 1972 agreement between Prime Minister Tanaka Kakue-Premier Zhou Enlai, when the terms of Japan-China diplomatic relations were determined, to “shelve” the issue–i.e., to avoid any acts that sought to enforce one side’s claim to sovereignty. 6. Yabuki cites his own research and authoritative third party sources to charge that the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs removed from official transcripts of the Tanaka-Zhou discussions that agreement to “shelve” the issue, allowing future Japanese governments to fraudulently claim that the issue was not discussed and that China asserted a claim over the islands. 7. Under the circumstances above, the decision of the Noda government to “nationalize” the islands was a grave provocation, a fundamental change in the status quo, tantamount from the Chinese point of view to aggression and forceful annexation of Chinese territory. An equivalently forceful Chinese response to “balance” the level of its sovereign claim was inevitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerdantResources (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Pinyin

I know this font is very popular when there are Latin letters in Chinese text, but it looks very odd even in Chinese. The pinyin should be displayed in the same font as most of the article. --2.245.105.0 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Senkaku belongs to Japan

We will use the name Senkaku Islands, I think that is universal. However, the claims for all sides must be addressed, equally and irrevocably. I will not allow the name of the article to be changed suddenly and deliberately in favor of one or another (ie. imperial Japan) without that being addressed. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Total amount of island/rock in this islands.

With China(PRC) named 71 islands in Diaoyu/Senkaku, I suppose that mean there are at least 71 islands there (instead of 8 islands + 5 rocdks as mentioend in the article)?C933103 (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

The 1896 Times Atlas of the World shows Kuba Island under the name "Tiao-su and shows Uotsuri/Diaoyu Islands under the name "Hua-pin-su". [page 85, Map of China]. These names coincide with names and geographical locations documented in "A Complete Set of Nautical Tables..." by John William Norie published in 1816 on page 241. [Google reference https://books.google.ca/books?id=Yez7OoHP93UC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=%22huapinsu%22&source=bl&ots=HyoO_GEWrz&sig=wGVzJQ_929genphY_DtKcvPX1J0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IXSxVOKgCs_yoATk2oLQDg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22huapinsu%22&f=false ]

Paulhundal (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Editorial Suggestion

Would it be possible in the sovereignty section to add a link to the country of Japan, not just the governing body/country of China and Taiwan? There are very CLEAR links to Wikipedia articles on "The Peoples Republic of China" and "Taiwan" followed abruptly by "Japan" with no hyperlink to the article on Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Submarinevet (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Submarinevet, I agree that it seems incongruous to have only two of the countries wikilinked. The issue that we run into is that WP:OVERLINK says that we should only link each once, when it first appears in the article; by this standard, we should remove all 3 links from this section. I am not sure that that is the most helpful to the reader, and would like to gauge editor support for linking all 3 at the "sovereignty section". If there are no responses, I will standardise to either 3 wikilinks or no wikilinks in the next day or so. Hope this helps - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the extraneous links per WP:OVERLINK. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

China's Views

Diaoyu Islands, also known as Diaoyutai, Diaoyuyu, fishing mountain, is China's East China Sea Diaoyu Islands Island, the main island, = China's ancient territory since ancient times. It is located at latitude 25 ° 44.6 'north latitude, east longitude 123 ° 28.4', about 358 km from Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, about 385 km from Fuzhou, Fujian, about 190 km from Keelung city in Taiwan and about 174,000 square kilometers. Diaoyu Island is about 3641 meters long, 1905 meters wide, an area of ​​about 3.91 square kilometers, the highest elevation of about 362 meters, the terrain is relatively flat in the north, southeast side of the steep rock, the east rock reef quite like a minaret, the central mountains run through things. Diaoyu Island rich in camellia, palm, cactus, sea hibiscus and other precious Chinese herbal medicines, habitat with a large number of seabirds, "Bird Island" reputation. In 1972, when the United States withdrew from Ryukyu, the Diaoyu Islands "administrative jurisdiction" mixed Ryukyu "to" Japan, according to the ancient Chinese history records that China has been on the Diaoyu Islands have territorial rights. Therefore, the Diaoyu Islands dispute also arising from the current Diaoyu Islands and its territorial waters belong to the People's Republic of China, but Japan's actual illegal jurisdiction of the island. September 10, 2012, the Chinese government departments on the Diaoyu Islands and affiliated islands to carry out normal monitoring and monitoring. China's maritime law enforcement vessels in the Diaoyu Islands waters insist on cruising law enforcement, fishery law enforcement vessels in the Diaoyu Islands waters of the normal law enforcement cruise and fishing, to maintain the waters of the normal fishery production order. China also through the release of weather and ocean observations and so on, the Diaoyu Islands and its waters around the implementation of management.

Ancient Chinese ancestors in the operation of the ocean and engaged in the practice of marine fisheries, the earliest discovery of the Diaoyu Islands and to be named. In ancient Chinese literature, the Diaoyu Islands, also known as fishing fish, Diaoyutai, fishing mountain. At present, the earliest records of the Diaoyu Islands, Chiyomei and other places of history, is a book in 1403 (Ming Yongle first year) of the "quiet delivery." [3] 1171 years (the Southern Song Dynasty seven years), guarding the general of Fujian Wang Dayou in Penghu to establish a barracks, sent to the suburbs of the island, including Taiwan and its Diaoyu Islands, including the subordinate islands in the military under the jurisdiction of Penghu, administrative Quanzhou, Fujian Jinjiang management The 1372 (Ming Hongwu five years), Ming Taizu sent to Ryukyu, Ryukyu King to the Ming Dynasty tribute. To 1866 (Qing Tongzhi five years) nearly 500 years, the Ming and Qing dynasties court has sent 24 envoys to the Ryukyu Kingdom royalties, Diaoyu Islands is the canonization to the Ryukyu through the way, the Diaoyu Islands records appear in the Chinese envoy Written in the report. [3] Jiajing eleven years (1532), Ming Chen Kan "so that Ryukyu recorded" in the Diaoyu Islands called Diaoyu Island, has been within the waters of our country. [4] 1561 (Ming Jiajing forty years), the Ming Dynasty garrison in the southeast coast of the highest generals Hu Zongxian presided over, Zheng Ruo has compiled the "sea map series," a book, clearly the Diaoyu Islands and other islands into the "coastal mountain sand map" into the Ming Dynasty Of the sea defense range. [3] 1605 years (Ming Wanli thirty-three years) Xu Bida and others painted the "heaven and earth unified coastal defense map" and 1621 (the first day of tomorrow Kai) Mao Yuan-yi drawn the map of "China's coastal defense map" , Will also be the island of the Diaoyu Islands into China within the sea. [3] The Qing Dynasty not only followed the practice of the Ming Dynasty, continue to be the Diaoyu Islands and other islands included in the scope of China's coastal defense, clearly placed in the administrative authority of the local government in Taiwan. Qing Dynasty, "Taiwan Fu Zhi" and Huang Shu Jing prepared by the "Taiwan Sea to Chang recorded" and other official documents detailed records of the Diaoyu Islands jurisdiction. [3] 1708 Ryukyu scholar Cheng Shun in the "Guide to the broad sense," a book will clearly record the Diaoyutai, Huangwei Island, red tail Island, and said the rice meters (Kumi Island) as "Ryukyu southwest on the town of mountain." In 1719, went to the Ryukyu Qing Dynasty canonization to Xu Baoguang in the "Zhongshan Biography" pointed out that the sea route is: by the town of Fujian five tiger door, take the chicken head, the vase, Peng Jiashan, Diaoyutai, Chrysanthemum Island, take the meter mountain, horse teeth island, into the Ryukyu Naha port. In 1762, the Portuguese "sailing needle map", clearly marked the Diaoyu Islands and its affiliated islands belong to Taiwan. [3] In 1786, the Japanese Sendai fan Lin Zhiping production of the "Three Kingdoms", "Ryukyu country map" listed Diaoyu Islands, and indicate the channel to China to Ryukyu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.234.17.186 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it was four tiger door and taking the chicken tail, not the head. The vase was used to take the meter mountain. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Title of Islands

It seems to me that there is a bias if the islands are called "Senkaku Islands" in the title instead of something like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.242.151.1 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I agree, and thought the same thing, exactly. Especially after reading the content of the page, and the length of time that each had any control, and that Japan was told to give up islands except their main islands, by the allies, after world war two. Then it seems the chinese claim is the correct one. And I came to the talk page to wonder what has been written here, and I see it is so clear that anyone immediately would think the same, when the name of the page supports the japanese claim, yet the content seems to make it clear the chinese claim is the true one. And the japanese one was only based on wrong actions to begin with. So it couldn't be accepted as justice in international law. As for the comment below about naming the islands in english. What? The claims are by china/taiwan, and japan. Where does english come into it at all? Europe and north america, do not rule the world and should not. Imperialism of powers from far away, over other countries is injustice.

Better yet -- since this is an English page why not use the English name? The English language name for the islands is Pinnacle Islands. This is the measure taken for the Liancourt Rocks and avoids getting caught up in naming disputes based in nationalistic claims. It appears that this suggestion has ben debated in the past to no avail. However, a precedent has been set with the Liancourt Rocks and it offers a simple, even elegant, solution to this problem. Why not use Pinnacle Islands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.221.54 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

On both points above please see the previous move discussion, which returned no consensus on changing the title of the article. Pinnacle Islands is a decent idea in some respects, but it's a name that's almost never used in English-speaking media today. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Even though I speak 2 1/2 languages I looked for Senkaku because I can never remember the Chinese name. It's just a silly superficial thing with me.58.174.193.5 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is a US organization, and since Japan is a US ally, I think this means that Wikipedia should use the Japanese name. After all, people in China can't even see Wikipedia, due to the Great Chinese Firewall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan is a US ally, they speak Chinese, and refer to the islands as the Diaoyu Islands. Also, people in China use Wikipedia. They can use VPNs to bypass the firewall. That's why the Chinese Wikipedia exists. I think the title should be Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands to be neutral, or Pinnacle Islands because it is the island's name in English. Bezoomy5 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia should remain neutral and not side with neither the US Government's political agenda nor with China's PRC Government. I agree going forward with "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" would be a good compromise. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJae (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

For disputed place names, the principle of neutrality should be followed and the name should be displayed side by side, such as “Diaoyu Islands/Senkaku Islands”.Crablking (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2018

How can I edit the "Senkaku Islands",Because I find some words are contrary to facts，and I have been edited 10 times.Crablking (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Crablking (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: you should be able to edit it now. I looked at your user groups, and you are a member of "autoconfirmed" --DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I still can't edit it.And there is not [edit]2001:DA8:8005:B102:2945:B0D4:B8AA:46F6 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC) It's work,thanks14:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanru P (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2018

I still can't edit it.Why?2001:DA8:8005:B102:2945:B0D4:B8AA:46F6 (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC) 2001:DA8:8005:B102:2945:B0D4:B8AA:46F6 (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you're the same person who posted above, you'll need to log in to your Crablking account, as this article is protected from editing by new and unregistered contributors. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

HELP:How to view the list of administrators for this entry？ Yanru P (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Section on the documentary is biased

The section states opinions rather than facts and should be flagged Martropolis (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Imperial Chinese edict - a forgery?

In the article it is written: "Permission for collecting herbs on three of the islands was recorded in an Imperial Chinese edict of 1893." I thought this was an important fact concerning the islands, however untill I found an analysis in a paper of Han-yi Shaw, THE DIAOYUTAI/SENKAKU ISLANDS· DISPUTE: ITS HISTORY AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE OWNERSHIP CLAIMS OF THE P.R.C., R.O.C., AND JAPAN. p.62. Excerpt: "Perhaps it may be also suggested that while the imperial edict per se is not a genuine one and was possibly used merely as a commercial advertisement for Sheng's pharmaceutical house, evidently it was "fabricated" based on the common understanding of the Chinese public that the islands were Chinese territory [...]" Therefore I suggest that questions about the authenticity of the edict schould be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.176.241.107 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

Change "In the 1470s( early Ming Dynasty), . . ." to "In the 1470s (early Ming Dynasty), . . ." 202.246.252.97 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 01:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The lighthouse is much older

The lighthouse on Uotsuri was built by a nationalist group in 1978 and nationalized in 2005. See ja: 魚釣島灯台. The nationalist group built another on Kita-kojima in 1996. 220.147.88.128 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)