Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

POV in map distances

Anybody else annoyed that the map measures distances to one Japanese city and the other distances are to the nearest Chinese coastline? Hcobb (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Come on, are you serious? The map show the distance from the closest Japanese landmass, which is Ishigaki Island. The map doesn't even show the distance from Pengjia Islet administered by Taiwan, which is 140 kilometres away. If this really was a "POV map", it would be a really shitty POV map that doesn't do its job, because there's hardly any POV. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Error in spelling - Senkaku Islands dispute

Section 'United States' position' near bottom "States" spelled wrong in 'United Sates Senate' Parthaginian empire (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

>> U.S. Split With Japan on China Zone Puts Carriers in Spat.> US and China set for tense air zone talks >> China stands firm on air defence zone>> US 'deeply concerned' over China defence zone>> Japan and China: A clash of empires?>> Biden: US commitment to Asia beyond doubt>> China’s Widening Defense Commitments Risk Straining Military>> Tension over South Korea airspace expansion >> China ships enter waters off disputed islands>> The Pacifist War(Lihaas (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)).

This article is pushing a pro-Japanese (nationalist) POV

It's curious that the sourcing is largely from non-academic sources, while the leading work in the field (Suganuma, refcite 12) is cited only twice, with a narrow scope, whereas that source contains the historical data necessary to balance the POV claims pushed by the pro-Japan/anti-China Western news media (US State government) that focus on the period starting from the 1960s.

It is strange that there is a Japanese language references for Shihei Hayashi, but nothing in English, whereas he is discussed by Suganuma, for example. There are also Chinese language references. In short, the recorded history related to the islands goes back to the 16 century (Chinese Ming dynasty), whereas Japan doesn't get involved with the islands until the late 19th century.

I'm going through Suganuma's book now and will be incorporating material from that. After doing so I will probably start an RfC regarding the name of this article, because the name is inherently POV, and there is no question (based on academic RS) that it should be "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute". It is rather easy to demonstrate that such is the factual disposition of the state of affairs regarding the islets, as will become apparent with the incorporation of more material from the Suganuma book.

Note that anyone following this should also check the related "non-dispute" article on the "Senkaku Islands", where there is a related evaluative process underway.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy with more academic sources; I personally haven't read the book you mention, and trust it would be a good add. Keep in mind though, that this article is, in a certain sense, "supposed" to "push" the Japanese POV, and also the Chinese POV--it's job is to lay out, not the "answer" to the dispute, but the positions that all sides have staked, along with how the dispute has manifested itself in events (protests, military engagements, etc.), and how the dispute is perceived by other world powers. We have to present the debate neutrally, but we do still have to show the arguments that make up the debate.
As for the title though, an RfC would be inappropriate. I think it's basically implied that whatever title we choose for Senkaku Islands will also apply to this article. In fact, this article is really a sub-article of that one, split off for length and simplicity reasons. We seem to be moving forward steadily though slowly towards getting an RfC prepped on that article, so we should see some forward movement on the name within a few months I presume. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's good. No need to do double work on these.
The book is the most thorough study to date, probably in any language, and goes through all approaches to the dispute in a methodological manner while presenting the full extent of historical documents and maps extant. I just checked the google books preview and see that nothing before p.99 is available, so I will try to post a couple of passages when I can after I've had time to go through some more of the book.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Suganuma is in fact cited 8 times already, with 6 of those cites to the same "pp. 89–97" (which is poor citing since material should be cited to the page it is drawn from. Statements that require drawing on eight pages at the same time are statements that may not reflect what those pages are saying; a thorough explanation is in order when a single page or two consecutive pages cannot be cited).--Brian Dell (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Senkaku Islands which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Miscategorization?

Just a quick question, but shouldn't the stuff in the second half of the "Japanese position" section actually belong in the "Chinese position" section. I'm referring to everything after "The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC)..." Why is what the People's Daily saying being conflated with the Japanese position? Such an organization of facts can actually be grounds for NPOV violation, since its injecting the editor's opinion that the debate needs to be framed within a strict China vs Japan debate that is ahistorical. I would call this "retroactive analysis," or, in more simple terms, the use of modern categories and ideas, and forcing them into a past when they did not exist. Just because the "Chinese position of the past" can't be reconciled with the "Chinese position of the present" does not mean that the former is no longer "Chinese," and has to be turned into "Japanese." Doing so ignores history, and is a rhetorical strategy frequently used by nationalists all around the world to engage with the "practice of forgetting" things that they don't want to hear. I argue there needs to be a more historical approach to this article, one that can accommodate the fluidity of and changes within knowledge across time, rather than a nationalist approach that argues that this is China vs Japan. Please include stuff what the People's Daily is saying, and what all these maps were saying before the 1970s, into the Chinese position, with a quick note that that this is not the same as the Chinese position of the present. Thanks. --Imbored2013 (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It is probably because the section was renamed from Arguments from Japan to Japanese position[[1]]. By the way, your post above is something like WP:WALLOFTEXT. Please consider to create paragraphs.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Error/Clarification of Citation

Currently the article states, 'In 2014 the Republic of China and Japan came to an agreement on fishing in the waters around the islands.[12]' However, the article cited discusses Taiwan and Japan's agreement, without mention of mainland China. Though Taiwan is still sometimes considered 'the Republic of China', I am proposing an edit to clarify the statement to more accurately reflect the fact that it is Taiwan (replace 'the Republic of China' with 'Taiwan') and Japan who came to an agreement, not mainland China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1zhao (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of highlighting the distance from Naha

What's the point of highlighting the distances from both Naha and Ishigaki? Seems like Ishigaki only would suffice. --Makkachin (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias?

The title of this article shows a clear bias towards the Japanese POV, and may confuse readers into thinking that the islands are officially part of Japan. I propose a new title, perhaps "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Tiaoyutai Islands dispute" for a clearer, unbiased label of this dispute. Any other suggestions? Leaving the title as "Senkaku Islands dispute" is quite biased and the goal of Wikipedia is to inform and not argue.Nzyo (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The title can only use one name. Even if all names were combined in the title, one has to come first. The obvious choice is to use the Japanese name, as Japan has actual control of the islands.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Overwork Deng's Quote in the Alternative position section

I have read the original Chinese paper from the source about the conference, where Deng said to postpone the question of Diaoyu/Senkaku. It actually goes like this:

"It does not matter if this question is shelved for some time. Perhaps our next generation will be wiser than us and will find a practical solution. (...) I have been thinking about a joint-development of the sub-oceanic oil fields for our mutual benefit. (...) No need for war or dispute."

This translation of what Deng said is more exact and expands on the possibility of joint-development, so please correct the previous Deng quote. 37.201.9.177 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong Bias

This article has a clear bias for the Japanese POV and I will edit it in 4 days.

Firstly, the opening paragraph states "Aside from a 1945 to 1972 period of administration by the United States as part of the Ryukyu Islands, the archipelago has been controlled by Japan since 1895" This is clearly biased to the Japanese POV as it is omitting the fact that the conflict arises not because whether or not it has been under the Japanese control since 1895, but because of its "original" ownership before 1895. By omitting this fact, it establishes a strong bias for the Japanese POV and thus this sentence should be removed or edited to include the aforementioned statement of the conflict.

Secondly, the opening paragraph this line " According to Lee Seokwoo, the People's Republic of China (PRC) started taking up the question of sovereignty over the islands in the latter half of 1970 when evidence relating to the existence of oil reserves surfaced" Which is clearly not fit for an opening paragraph and should be included in the Japanese position section of the article. Including this line establishes a clear bias for the Japanese side as I'm sure there are many lines just like from Chinese scholars stating contrary opinions. I suggest this line to be moved to the Japanese position of the article and removed from the opening paragraph. I hope I have made my reasons clear for these two changes in the opening paragraph. I will examine the body paragraphs more closely soon to see if there are any bias present. Please state your reason if you oppose this or have any opinions regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.39.4 (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Improvement

I agree that there can only be one title for this article. As a result, I suggest to change the title of this article to "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Tiaoyutai islands dispute" .Anthonykam (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonykam (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Anthonykam (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Historical documents posted on Internet show disputed islands are Japanese territory

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201508290025

Latest move notable or just same old same old? Hcobb (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Senkaku Islands dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Senkaku Islands dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

It seems pretty clear that most English news sources refer to this dispute as the Senkaku Islands Dispute (see for example http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27089658 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-1 while making clear reference to the fact that China/Taiwan refer to these as the Diaoyu Island Dispute which is supported by Benlisquare has pointed out (although not explicitly saying Diaoyu Island Dispute the overall meaning is reflected in his literal translation. I think that it should be noted that the English speaking world generally refers to the conflict as the Senkaku Islands Dispute while Taiwan and the PRC refer to it as the Diaoyu Island Dispute (again, I think this accurately captures the meaning of Benlisquare's literal translation). As such, I think this should be reflected in the description as this describes the situation while remaining neutral and clarifying the two sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEDominator (talk • contribs) 06:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the 1RR notice above, now that the addition in China has been reverted, we should be working towards a consensus on this Talk page, rather than making changes to the article directly. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to say Senkaku Islands dispute is translated from Japanese or Diaoyu Islands dispute is translated from Chinese. Just keep it simple. STSC (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

New Source

Tadayoshi Murata, The Origins of Japanese-Chinese Territorial Dispute (Tokyo: World Scientific, 2016). I noticed this hasn't been used yet, it supports the Chinese position but it uses a lot of evidence. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning about possible problems in this article

I have found two major problems in this article today, one being a sentence about the position of the US State Department and one about the attitude of Japanese government in the 1970's. From these two examples, I infer that this page may also have other problematic areas and I recommend that the article be thoroughly reviewed and checked by multiple experts at the earliest possible date, including the edits I made. I am not an expert in the specifics of this dispute, but the fact that I have seemingly discovered two major problems after a brief glance at the article is not a good sign. Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Discovered a similar situation on the Senkaku Islands page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Removed scare quotes used in the lead section around the words 'private owner'. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the US position on the dispute, it does seem that several officials have stated that the US takes what they call a neutral position on the underlying sovereignty question. However, I think there needs to be some kind of official State Department statement, not a collection of quotations, to sustain the sentences I was reading here. There may be a better wording for those sentences. Again, I am no expert in this area but I think there should be very very clear wording about who said what when and who they represented. A WikiLeaks document says " the State Department asserted that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing Japanese and Chinese claims to the islands," I read this sentence (especially the word 'asserted') as a partial proof that the sentences I hid on these pages may be a little bit of an overstatement. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Another possible source

Found this document from a Hong Kong university. Mathews, Gordon (May 1999). "A Collision of Discourses Japanese and Hong Kong Chinese during the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Crisis" (PDF). Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute/Archive_7&oldid=1248661008"