| Revision as of 03:12, 3 February 2011 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Next step towards agreement: more explicit← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:05, 28 December 2024 edit undoYue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers71,713 editsNo edit summary |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{notice|1=This talk page is only for discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands; any discussion of the islands—outside of material directly relating to the dispute—should be discussed at ]. Thank you for your cooperation.}} |
|
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Notice|1=This talk page is only for discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands; any discussion of the islands—outside of material directly relating to the dispute—should be discussed at ]. Thank you for your cooperation.}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{ITN talk|19 August|2012}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|geography=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan|importance=high }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Japanese=y|Chinese=y}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|author=Pete Hunt |
|
|
|title=China and Japan's Misplaced Pages War |
|
|
|org=] |
|
|
|url=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu?page=full |
|
|
|date=2013-02-05 |
|
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130212053624/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu?page=full |
|
|
|archivedate=2013-02-12 |
|
|
}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}} |
|
|
{{old move|date=22 September 2024|from=Senkaku Islands dispute|destination=Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1247116831#Requested move 22 September 2024}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=start|importance=high|geography=yes}} |
|
|
{{WPTAIWAN|class=start|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WPCHINA|class=start|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archives|auto=long |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1|units=month }} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposed section and table == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just after the introduction and before the dispute discussion begins, would it be helpful to add a "Geography" section with the following table? Note that Chinese names come first in this table. |
|
|
|
|
|
;Geography |
|
|
{{collapse top|Table of of disputed Islands, Chinese first}} |
|
|
{|class="wikitable" |
|
|
|+'''Table of of disputed Islands''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!Chinese name!!Japanese name!!coordinates!!Area(km<sup>2</sup>)||Highest elevation(m) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Diaoyu Dao (釣魚島)||Uotsuri Jima (魚釣島)<ref>] (GSI), .</ref>||{{Coord|25|46|N|123|31|E|type:isle}}||4.32||383 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Huangwei Yu (黃尾嶼)||Kuba Jima (久場島)<ref>GSI, .</ref>||{{Coord|25|56|N|123|41|E|type:isle}}||1.08||117 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Chiwei Yu (赤尾嶼)||Taishō Jima (大正島)<ref>GSI, .</ref>||{{Coord|25|55|N|124|34|E|type:isle}}||0.0609||75 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Nan Xiaodao(南小島)||Minami Kojima (南小島)<ref>Google Maps, </ref> ||{{Coord|25|45|N|123|36|E|type:isle}}||0.4592||149 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Bei Xiaodao(北小島)||Kita Kojima (北小島)<ref>Google Maps, ; GSI, .</ref>||{{Coord|25|45|N|123|36|E|type:isle}}||0.3267||135 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Da Bei Xiaodao({{lang|zh|大北小島|大北小島}}/北岩)<!-- redundant? ref to be deleted? <ref>GSI, </ref> -->||Okino Kitaiwa(沖ノ北岩)<ref>GSI, .</ref>||{{Coord|25|49|N|123|36|E|type:isle}}||0.0183|||nominal |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Da Nan Xiaodao (大南小島/南岩)<!-- redundant? ref to be deleted?<ref>GSI, </ref> -->||Okino Minami-iwa(沖ノ南岩)<ref>GSI, .</ref>||{{Coord|25|47|N|123|37|E|type:isle}}||0.0048|||nominal |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Fei Jiao Yan (飛礁岩/飛岩)||{{Nihongo|Tobise|飛瀬}}<ref>GSI, .</ref><!-- redundant? alternate name to be deleted? or<br /> {{Nihongo|Tobishou|飛礁|(past name)}}-->||{{Coord|25|45|N|123|33|E|type:isle}}||0.0008|||nominal |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
], the ] and the ] ... and "]" is the intersection of disparate data sets which are undisputed in our article about the ]?]] |
|
|
Maybe this is not the way to handle this. Could this be a consructive step? --] (]) 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Some of the disputed aspects of this section are mirrored at ]. --] (]) 17:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Geography section intro sentences == |
|
|
|
|
|
The previous sentence said that a dispute about the names is a ] for a larger dispute. Unless there is a reliable source making this claim, then it's ] and cannot be included. Furthermore, I don't even think it's true--it makes it sound like the main public debate is about the names, and that that debate is hiding the deeper territorial debate. But in every bit of research I've done for this and the main article, the actual issue is always portrayed as a territorial dispute, with the name dispute being secondary. That is, this debate is not the same as the ]. China does not go to international conferences, diplomatic settings, or news reports and argue "These islands should be called '''Diaoyu'''!" Instead, they go to these settings and say "These islands belong to China!" Thus, there's no "proxying" going on here. If someone has a reliable source that uses that terminology, then I suppose we can consider including that, although it probably belongs in a section other than '''Geography'''. ] (]) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I also raised this point in the Tenmei's thread in ]. As you said, the naming is only a dispute amongst we editors and is not actual matter of dispute between China and Japan. ] (]) 08:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re-formatted inline note == |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this format will make it easier to discuss a disputed article in a ]? In this format, the ] web page is the core of the supporting citation; and redundant clarity or emphasis is provided by: ''restatement'' + ''and see'' + ''compare''. --] (]) 23:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
: The noun ] may help to describe this parsed format. --] (]) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|''People's Daily'' (8 Jan 1953): disputed sentence + inline citation support}} |
|
|
:<u>Disputed sentence</u>: The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953. |
|
|
:<u>Inline citation note</u>: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, ; retrieved 29 Jan 2011; |
|
|
|
|
|
:* ''restatement'' ; excerpt, "... an article in the People’s Daily dated January 8, 1953, under the title of “Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation”, made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands"; accord ; |
|
|
|
|
|
:* ''and see'' {{cite book|url= http://books.google.com/books?id=vDpEiKR2osoC&pg=PA127&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false |page=127 |title=Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands |first= Unryu |last=Suganuma |publisher=University of Hawaii Press|year= 2001 |isbn= 0824824938 |quote=To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao , the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:* ''compare'' {{cite news|url=http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201009220480.html|publisher=Asahi shimbun|title=Why Japan claims the Senkaku Islands|date=2010-09-25}}; excerpt, "In his book "Gendai Chugoku Nenpyo" (Timeline on modern China), Masashi Ando referred to a People's Daily article dated Jan. 8, 1953, which makes reference to the "Senkaku Islands in Okinawa"; {{cite book|trans_title=Modern Chinese Chronological Table 1941-2008|first=Masashi|last=Ando|publisher=Iwanami shoten |isbn= 978-4-00-022778-0|year=2010|language=Japanese|page=88 |quote=「人民日報」が米軍軍政下の沖縄の尖閣諸島(当時の中国の呼び方のまま. 現在中国は「釣魚島」という)で日本人民の米軍の軍事演習に反対する闘争が行われていると報道. 「琉球諸島はわが国台湾の東北および日本九州島の西南の間の海上に散在し、尖閣諸島、先島諸島、大東諸島、沖縄諸島、大島諸島、吐噶喇諸島、大隅諸島など7つの島嶼からなっている」と紹介(新華月報：1953-7)}}; </ref> |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
:Tenmei, there is no "dispute". The translation is totally wrong and the claims based on that translation are also wrong. Yes, there were many Japanese sources that believed it, but so did many American Republican media believed Obama to be a Muslim. |
|
|
:The matter was beyond settled (and you were there when we discussed it) but it appeared ] and ] loved the false information so much that they'd do anything to present it as truth. |
|
|
:If you would like to convince me of your good faith and editorial integrity, you can start by removing all contents and references associated with that Remin Ribao article. ] (]) 03:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
[[Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|thumb|right|180px|Parsing argument content — acknowledging categories of constructive comments:<br> |
|
|
* Refuting the Central Point<br>* ]<br>* ]<br> ____________<br> Identifying remarks which are unhelpful:<br>* ]<br>* Responding to Tone<br>* ] ]] |
|
|
:: ] -- This may a good time to remind you of something you already know. The first paragraph at ] explains: |
|
|
:::"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is ], not ]-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." |
|
|
::<u>] is drained of meaning by ]</u> — which is a ] way of echoing what ] meant when he suggested "''put the spade down and stop digging''" .<p>Perhaps you might consider alternative approaches: |
|
|
::* No — these words are ] |
|
|
:::* Oda Mari and John Smith's |
|
|
:::* Tenmei ... |
|
|
::* Better — these words encourage ] |
|
|
:::* ] which contradict or rebut the explicit and ] support for <u>one sentence</u> about a January 8, 1953 article in ''People's Daily'' include .... |
|
|
::] -- your recent edits and your future choices are paired with unsurprising consequences. --] (]) 07:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Tenmei, I don't like your "concatenated" form of citation because (1) it makes unable to reuse the citation for other part as you experienced this time. (2) it decrease the readability. However if you accept my modification to the citation, I accept your format '''only in this case'''. ―― ] (]) 10:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The concatenated citation format was removed . --] (]) 17:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;<small><s>Revert |
|
|
This edit restored text that ] blanked out. ] -- <u>Please </u>.] -- Please re-think your confrontational strategy; and please reconsider how your recent edits and your future choices are paired with unsurprising consequences.</s> --] 17:52, 30 January 2011</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Next step towards agreement=== |
|
|
{{shortcut|WP:MULTI}} |
|
|
The "Good practices" sub-section at ] suggests: |
|
|
:*<span id="multi" />'''Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums.''' This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is probably best to leave our archives undisturbed; and instead, relevant excerpts are consolidated in a collapsed format below: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1 — 7-Dubious addition }} |
|
|
|
|
|
; |
|
|
|
|
|
::::As for the Ryukyu and Okinawa issue, please see the source. |
|
|
:::::"''To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao , the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan.''" |
|
|
::::It unambiguously states ''Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture)'' twice. Please refrain from insisting the original research. Even if Ryukyu Islands include a part of Kagoshima, it depends on the context of the story. ―― ] (]) 00:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::These events are relevant to this dispute because they constitute the reaction of certain population groups towards the dispute at one point. If they portray the Japanese in a negative way, then it is not intended, as the sources I cited are legitimate and were simply reporting observations. Again, if you have any concerns about their reliability, then that's a different matter and I would expect some '''good research''' to be done to defend such allegations. |
|
|
:::::Your other point ties directly to one of the you've done in which you've '''failed to justify'''. To reiterate, the Japanese source cited is definitely mis-interpreting the Remin Ribao article because this is what the Remin Ribao article said: |
|
|
::::::"琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛." |
|
|
::::::which translates to: |
|
|
::::::"Ryukyu Islands are distributed between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛." |
|
|
:::::For the rest of the article, Okinawa was only mentioned as Okinawa Islands (which is different to Okinawa Prefecture). Since you are Japanese and thus are familiar with Chinese characters, I trust you can validate that yourself. If not, then you can ask Chinese editors like '''Winstonlighter''' or '''San9663''' to confirm. |
|
|
:::::In the future, I'd appreciate it if you would get to know the context of an argument before butting your head in. ] (]) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I can confirm the literal translation is correct. To be more precise, literally, it reads, ""Ryukyu Islands are scattered on the sea between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's Kyushu's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛."". To reach a compromise, maybe one solution is to quote the exact lines printed and let the readers to interpret? ] (]) 03:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I think two of those islands are not even a part of Okinawa. The paper, if you've seen the complete, original edition, was referring to the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands and why the native population (formerly the Ryuku Kingdom, which also spans more than Okinawa) was protesting against U.S. military operations. We probably have an academic author who couldn't read his primary source and didn't check with English sources either. Sigh.] (]) 06:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Collapse top|Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1 — 16 Wrapping up some old issues}} |
|
|
|
|
|
; |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some unresolved issues from this . It will be great if we can resolve them once and for all. ] (]) 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>'''Still under construction'''. Will finish the rest bit by bit over the next few days. ] (]) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! Issue !! Supporting Argument !! Opposing Argument !! Proposed Action |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Whether or not Remin Ribao article has said Senkaku Islands belong to Okinawa. . |
|
|
|| |
|
|
* "... Okinawa is is considered a synonym of Ryukyu. See Ryukyu Islands." -- Oda Mari (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* "... please see the <nowiki></nowiki> source. |
|
|
"To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao , the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan." |
|
|
It unambiguously states Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) twice. Please refrain from insisting the original research. Even if Ryukyu Islands include a part of Kagoshima, it depends on the context of the story." |
|
|
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
* "This article is not a textbook of mathematics and the sentence is not a '''mathematical equation'''. An author has a privilege to insert his/her own interpretation in the parenthesis. If Okinawa is important in the context (actually it is) and Kagoshima is not, then the author will ignore ''Kagoshima'' and insert ''Okinawa'' inside the parenthesis. See all these books using "''Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa)''". " |
|
|
―― ] (]) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|| |
|
|
* "Japanese <nowiki></nowiki> source cited is definitely mis-interpreting the Remin Ribao article because this is what the Remin Ribao article said: |
|
|
"琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛." |
|
|
which translates to: |
|
|
"Ryukyu Islands are distributed between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛." |
|
|
For the rest of the article, Okinawa was only mentioned as Okinawa Islands (which is different to Okinawa Prefecture)" |
|
|
--Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Remin Ribao figure said the disputed land was part of Ryukyu islands |
|
|
|
|
|
Remin Ribao figure did not say the disputed land was part of Okinawa islands |
|
|
|
|
|
]" |
|
|
-- Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* "... whatever <nowiki></nowiki> said would not change the contents of the Remin Ribao article ...". -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|| |
|
|
* Restore the edit since Ryukyu Islands is not the same as Okinawa and the article only said Senkaku Islands is a constituent of Ryukyu Islands and not the Japanese province of Okinawa. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<center>Note: unrelated rows of this table have been omitted -- see archived table </center> |
|
|
.... ] (]) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe I've commented on any of the above before, so pardon while I weigh in my opinions: |
|
|
1) I have no opinon about the Remin Ribao article and its translation--there seems to be no solution to me. Basically, what I see is the supporting side quoting a reliable source about the translation of the Chinese document, and the opposing side saying that the reliable source got the translation wrong. In general, I usually prefer going with the reliable source, but when we're talking about a translation issue, I'm somehow more hesitant...an ideal would be if we had an English language reliable source that said the opposite of the Japanese secondary source; then we could include both interpretations of the Remin Ribao article. Without such a source, I really don't know what to do .... ] (]) 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<center>Note: unrelated diffs have been omitted -- see archived thread </center> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::....Here's my translation of the three Chinese paragraphs I listed. They are all texts located within the Remin Ribao article: |
|
|
:::::Chinese Text: 琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛屿，总计共有五十个以上有名称的岛屿和四百多个无名小岛，全部陆地面积为四千六百七十平方公里。群岛中最大的岛是冲绳诸岛中的冲绳岛（即大琉球岛" |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::English Translation (except for some of the location names): Ryukyu Islands are scattered at a region that is north east to our nation's Taiwan and south west to Japan's 九洲岛. They are seven island groups composed of Senkaku Islands, 先岛诸岛, 大东诸岛, Okinawa Islands, 大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛. Each group of islands have lots of large and small islands. There are more than 50 islands with names and around 400 small islands without names. The total land surface area is 4670 square kilometers. The largest island of all islands is Okinawa Island's Okinawa Island (which is the Large Ryukyu Island). |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Chinese Text: 美国在一九四五年六月占领了琉球群岛后，就着手在该岛建筑军事基地。 |
|
|
:::::English Translation: After annexing the Ryukyu Islands on June 1945, America has built military base on the islands. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Chinese Text: 美国侵略者竟不顾“开罗宣言”、“波茨坦公告”等各项国际协议中都没有规定托管琉球群岛的决定，也不顾苏联政府和中华人民共和国政府的一再声明，更不顾一百万琉球人民的坚决反对，竟勾结日本吉田政府，擅自在它片面制订的对日“和约”中规定：“日本对于美国向联合国提出将北纬二十九度以南的琉球群岛……置于联合国托管制度之下，而以美国为唯一管理当局的任何提议，将予同意。 |
|
|
:::::English Translation: America the invader disregarded Potsdam declaration and associated international treaties which did not decide on governorship of Ryukyu Islands. They also did not care about the words of the People's Republic of China or the opposition of a million Ryukyu natives. Instead, they conspired with the Japanese government and decided by themselves to insert their own rule in the Japanese peace treaty: "Japan will agree to America's suggestion to the U.N. regarding to have the Ryukyu Islands located 29 degrees south of the north latitude.... transfer to U.N. supervision where America is the sole controller." |
|
|
|
|
|
::::.... ] (]) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{shortcut|WP:EXHAUST}} |
|
|
The "Good practices" sub-section at ] suggests |
|
|
:*<span id="focussed'' />'''Keep discussions focused''': Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion. |
|
|
|
|
|
No agreement about an article in the ] has been achieved — see above. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Wikisource text helps us move beyond this exhausting distraction. |
|
|
|
|
|
* Chinese Wikisource: |
|
|
* Japanese Wikisource: |
|
|
* English Wikisource: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|Wikisource: 包括尖閣諸島 ... is translated "including the Senkaku Islands" }} |
|
|
|
|
|
In the text below, the key phrase 包括尖閣諸島 is recognizable in the middle of the second line. |
|
|
:<u>Chinese</u> |
|
|
; 琉球群島人民反對美國佔領的鬥爭 |
|
|
|
|
|
<u>琉球群島散佈在我國台灣東北和日本九洲島西南<br /> |
|
|
之間的海面上，包括尖閣諸島、先島諸島、大東諸<br /> |
|
|
島、冲繩諸島、大島諸島、土噶喇諸島，大隈諸島<br /> |
|
|
等七組島嶼，毎組都有許多大小島嶼、總計共有五<br /> |
|
|
十個以上有名稱的島嶼和四百多個無名小島，全部<br /> |
|
|
陸地面積爲四千六百七十平方公里。</u>群島中最大的<br /> |
|
|
島是冲繩諸島中的冲繩島（即大琉球島），面積一<br /> |
|
|
千二百十一平方公里；其次是大島諸島中的奄美大<br /> |
|
|
島，面積七百三十平方公里。琉球群島綿互遠一千<br /> |
|
|
公里，它的内側是我國東海，外側就是太平洋公<br /> |
|
|
海。<br /> |
|
|
美國在一九四五年六月佔領了琉球群島後，就著<br /> |
|
|
手在該島建築軍事基地。隨著美國在亞洲大陸上侵<br /> |
|
|
略計劃的破產，琉球基地的建築工程也就更趨積極<br /> |
|
|
起來。遠在美國發動侵略朝鮮戰爭前，美國在琉球<br /> |
|
|
群島的軍事工程就已佔用了琉球三分之一的土地，<br /> |
|
|
用作建造基地的費用超過了兩億美元。其後，琉球<br /> |
|
|
基地的建造計劃一再擴大，而且以更大的速度進行<br /> |
|
|
着。一九五一年六月二十二日「美國新聞與世界報<br /> |
|
|
道」雜誌曾透露齣美國侵略者的野心：「美國在冲<br /> |
|
|
繩島的目標是用空軍獨霸亞洲，要使它成爲太平洋<br /> |
|
|
的最大基地。由冲繩島起飛，Ｂ二十九型轟炸機能達<br /> |
|
|
到亞洲大部分內陸地區，轟炸半徑可能包括中國全<br /> |
|
|
部和西伯利亞大部地區――包括西伯利亞大鐵路。<br /> |
|
|
Ｂ三十六型轟炸機則可達到更遠的距離。」去年九月<br /> |
|
|
八日，冲繩島的美國官員竟公然宣佈：「用來將冲<br /> |
|
|
繩島改變成「太平洋的直佈羅陀」的全部經費將近<br /> |
|
|
四億八千萬美元。建築工作正在按計劃進行，防颱<br /> |
|
|
風的公路、飛機場、兵營、司令部以及其他軍事設<br /> |
|
|
備，將遍佈全島。」另一方面，據不久前日本的報紙<br /> |
|
|
消息稱：美國在冲繩島那霸港入口處的浮島神社<br /> |
|
|
下，已脩建了具有八萬噸容量的三個地下油庫，冲<br /> |
|
|
繩島週圍各島都散佈着基地，共修建有二十幾個大<br /> |
|
|
型飛機場，並且在奄美大島、宮古島、冲之永良部<br /> |
|
|
島等島嶼上都裝置了雷達。許多島上都建成了兼作<br /> |
|
|
飛機跑道用的軍用公路。而美國通訊社也早經不止<br /> |
|
|
一次地承認：「美國Ｂ二十九型轟炸機，每天都從<br /> |
|
|
冲繩島起飛去襲擊北朝鮮」。 <br /> |
|
|
與建築及使用琉球軍事基地同時，美國侵略者積<br /> |
|
|
極陰謀永久霸佔琉球群島。美國佔領琉球後不久，<br /> |
|
|
就獨攬了琉球的一切政權。去年以來，美國侵略者<br /> |
|
|
竟不顧「開羅宣言」、「波茨坦公告」等各項國際<br /> |
|
|
協議中都沒有規定託管琉球群島的決定，也不顧蘇<br /> |
|
|
聯政府和中華人民共和國政府的一再聲明，更不顧<br /> |
|
|
一百萬琉球人民的堅決反對，竟勾結日本吉田政府，<br /> |
|
|
擅自在它片面製訂的對日「和約」中規定：「日本<br /> |
|
|
對於美國嚮聯合國提出將北緯二十九度以南的琉球<br /> |
|
|
群島……置於聯合國託管製度之下，而以美國爲唯<br /> |
|
|
一管理當局的任何提議，將予同意。在提出此種建<br /> |
|
|
議，並對此種建議採取肯定措施以前，美國將有權<br /> |
|
|
對此等島嶼之領土及其居民，包括其領水，行使一<br /> |
|
|
切及任何行政、立法與司法權力。」美國以這樣卑<br /> |
|
|
鄙的手段擅自爲其無限期霸佔琉球群島的侵略行爲<br /> |
|
|
披上「合法」的外衣後，並於去年四月一日在島上<br /> |
|
|
建立了以比嘉秀平爲首的琉球傀儡政府。<br /> |
|
|
七年多以來，美國侵略者用極其野蠻橫暴的手段，<br /> |
|
|
把琉球群島變成了美國的軍事基地；一百萬琉球人<br /> |
|
|
民在美國的奴役與剝削下，已陷在水深火熱中，過著<br /> |
|
|
極爲悲慘的生活。凡是被美軍圈定爲構築軍事目標<br /> |
|
|
的土地，全部居民便被趕出自己的鄉土，現在僅冲<br /> |
|
|
繩島就有三分之二的土地被徵作軍用。琉球人民不<br /> |
|
|
僅土地被強佔，而且有勞動力的年青人大部被強迫<br /> |
|
|
去參加建築美國軍事基地的奴隸勞動。美國侵略者<br /> |
|
|
用槍刺殘酷地逼迫琉球人民自己去毀滅賴以爲生的<br /> |
|
|
和平家園與漁村，以致全島農田荒蕪、食糧缺乏、<br /> |
|
|
漁業不振，戰前頗具規模的糖業也迄未恢復。同<br /> |
|
|
時，美軍用恐怖的警察統治壓製琉球人民的反抗。<br /> |
|
|
從一九四七年起，美軍就藉口保守軍事機密，禁止<br /> |
|
|
居民旅行全島。美國憲兵及其走狗琉球警察（都是<br /> |
|
|
過去充當過日本軍閥的爪牙現在被美軍起用的當地<br /> |
|
|
流氓）佈滿全島。村落和村落之間佈有鐵絲網，兩<br /> |
|
|
村的村民來往必須先向警察報告並獲得允許，否則<br /> |
|
|
就要以「偷越界綫」治罪，公路旁也佈有鐵絲網，<br /> |
|
|
有的甚至通有電流。因而，琉球人民對外貿易被禁<br /> |
|
|
止，交通被阻撓，耕種和捕魚被限制，一切的自由<br /> |
|
|
權利全被美軍剝奪。而且，戰爭中砲火損毀了全島<br /> |
|
|
房屋的百分之九十，迄今絕大部分琉球人民無處棲<br /> |
|
|
身。去年琉球北部一帶遭受飢荒時，災民竟被迫吃<br /> |
|
|
蜥蜴、蛇等以延續生命。在美軍中做工的琉球工人，<br /> |
|
|
工資只及美國工人的九十分之一，受僱在美軍酒吧<br /> |
|
|
間、飯館及機關中的琉球婦女，每月工資最多只有<br /> |
|
|
四塊美元。荒淫無恥的美軍，也給琉球帶來了大批的<br /> |
|
|
「吉普女郎」，駐在琉球群島的美軍野蠻地凌辱琉球<br /> |
|
|
婦女。美軍隨便槍殺琉球人民的暴行也屢見不鮮。<br /> |
|
|
琉球群島曾經是美國和日本激戰地區，當地居民<br /> |
|
|
死亡慘重，戰爭創傷深深烙印在琉球人民心中。琉<br /> |
|
|
球人民痛惡戰爭，熱烈要求和平。戰後美國侵略者<br /> |
|
|
變琉球爲基地和奴役剝削的軍事殖民地政策，逼得<br /> |
|
|
琉球人民不得不挺身起來用各種方式展開反對美國<br /> |
|
|
佔領者的鬥爭。最初，爲飢餓所迫的琉球人民，開<br /> |
|
|
始奪取美軍物資，後來逐漸發展爲公開襲擊美軍並<br /> |
|
|
大量奪取軍用物資。據日本報紙消息：前年一月冲<br /> |
|
|
繩島嘉手納機場航空隊的太巴斯（譯音）兵營就被<br /> |
|
|
奪去了九十七件軍火物資。去年一月二十一日，嘉<br /> |
|
|
手納機場航空隊第十八號火藥庫又丟失了火藥七噸<br /> |
|
|
半。島上美軍的軍火倉庫，經常「無故」爆炸。例<br /> |
|
|
如一九四八年八月，在冲繩島附近的一個小島上，<br /> |
|
|
美軍的軍火庫就爆炸了一天一夜，把美軍儲藏在該<br /> |
|
|
島的軍火全部炸毀。去年從台灣傳出的美國新聞電<br /> |
|
|
訊中，曾透露琉球人民遊擊隊和美國佔領軍展開了<br /> |
|
|
激烈鬥爭，琉球人民且曾潛入冲繩島的卡台那（譯<br /> |
|
|
音）機場中將機場破壞。<br /> |
|
|
被迫爲美軍工作的琉球工人不斷地進行罷工、怠<br /> |
|
|
工以反抗美軍的奴役。去年六月，冲繩島建築美國<br /> |
|
|
軍事工程的琉球工人，不顧美軍的禁令，舉行了要<br /> |
|
|
求提高工資的鬥爭，得到了全島工人的支持。七<br /> |
|
|
月，島上松村包工組的工人舉行反對解僱的罷工，<br /> |
|
|
全島各地都舉行了支持罷工的示威。琉球人民反對<br /> |
|
|
美國佔領的鬥爭已和反對戰爭、保衞和平的運動結<br /> |
|
|
合起來，並正在更有力地向前發展着。去年的五一<br /> |
|
|
節，冲繩島的工人、職員和市民，在琉球人民黨的<br /> |
|
|
號召下，不顧美軍的鎭壓，舉行了保障生活權利大<br /> |
|
|
會和示威大遊行。最近，冲繩島人民又廣泛地展開<br /> |
|
|
了反對琉球傀儡政府爲日本吉田政府徵兵的運動。<br /> |
|
|
琉球人民反對美國變琉球爲軍事基地、反對美國<br /> |
|
|
奴役統治爭取自由解放與和平的鬥爭不是孤立的，<br /> |
|
|
它是和日本人民爭取獨立、民主與和平的鬥爭分不<br /> |
|
|
開，也是和亞洲及太平洋區域人民以及全世界各國<br /> |
|
|
人民保衞和平的鬥爭分不開的，因而，雖然美國佔<br /> |
|
|
領者對琉球人民實行野蠻鎭壓，但最後勝利必定是<br /> |
|
|
屬於琉球人民的。<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: — 《人民日報》1953年1月8日</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The article is not neutral == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<s>It leans heavily in favor of the Japanese side. We need it to be more balanced. ] (]) 21:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)</s> |
|
:<u>English</u> (Google translation) |
|
|
;Ryukyu Islands, the struggle of peoples against U.S. occupation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:These sorts of comments are more helpful if you can suggest a specific edit or raise a specific statement from a specific source you'd like to see incorporated. ] (]) 22:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
<u>The Ryukyu Islands are scattered in the sea northeast of Taiwan and southwest of the island of Kyushu (Japan), consisting of seven groups including the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa islands, Oshima Islands, the Tokara islands abd the Osumi islands. Each group has many small islands, a total of more than a total of fifty four hundred names unnamed islands and islets, the total land area of four thousand six hundred and seventy square kilometers.<u> The largest island in the Ryukyu Islands, Okinawa, has an area of 1211 square kilometers. The second largest island is Amami Oshima with an area of seven hundred and thirty square kilometers. The Ryukyu Islands are within the East China Sea at the edge of the Pacific Ocean .... |
|
|
|
<s>::It refers to the islands as Senkaku almost exclusively. This means Misplaced Pages endorses Japan's claims. ] (]) 18:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)</s> |
|
<br/> |
|
|
<br/> |
|
|
<br/> |
|
|
;Raw text |
|
|
<u>Ryukyu Islands scattered in the country northeast of Taiwan and Japan, Kyushu Island, southwest between the sea, including the Senkaku Islands, the first island Islands, Daito Islands, Okinawa Islands, Big Island Islands, earth Karma La islands, Okuma islands, the seven group of islands, Each group has many small islands, a total of more than a total of fifty four hundred names unnamed islands and islets, the total land area of four thousand six hundred and seventy square kilometers. </u> Islands, the largest island in the Okinawa Islands Okinawa Island (Ryukyu Big Island), an area of 1211 square kilometers; followed by the Big Island Islands of Amami Oshima, an area of seven hundred and thirty square kilometers. Ryukyu Islands, a thousand kilometers far from each cotton, it is the inside of the East China Sea, the high seas outside the Pacific Ocean .... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 (by Rkunstnc, who has fewer than 10 edits as a registered user) == |
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
] |
|
|
; External links |
|
|
* （簡体字） |
|
|
* 《人民日報》1953年1月8日4頁（繁体字） |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Senkaku Islands dispute|answered=yes}} |
|
This "new" information confirms the ] ] ] which are already incorporated in the article text. |
|
|
|
Omit ungrammatical "the" before noun subjects "China" and "Taiwan" as follows: |
|
|
1) Change "between Japan, the China, and the Taiwan" to "between Japan, China, and Taiwan" |
|
|
2) Change "Both the China and the Taiwan" to "Both China and Taiwan" |
|
|
3) Change "This is viewed by the China and Taiwan" to "This is viewed by China and Taiwan" |
|
|
4) Change "an invitation from the China to work together" to "an invitation from China to work together" ] (]) 06:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I removed all of these, thanks. ] (]) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Taiwan? == |
|
In the absence of credible support for ] or ], no reasonable cause for continued disagreement exists. --] (]) 17:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I know that for many purposes the Republic of China is known as Taiwan in English, but for a diplomatic dispute where both Chinese states are pursuing the Chinese claim, the full name of the state really should be mentioned in the lede and probably most uses of it. ] (]) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 22 September 2024 == |
|
:Overload! Look, I fully accept that Bobthefish2 thinks the translation is wrong. Heck, I even believe that it's very likely that it's wrong. I believe him (and another editor, I think San9663?) about six and a half thousand times more than I believe Google Translate. In fact, Google translate is essentially useless for anything other than a very broad picture, and we're dealing here with the exact translation of a few very specific words. There's a reason why human translators still make a lot of money despite the existence of (terrible) free translation software and (slightly better than terrible) non-free translation software. So your addition there doesn't help settle the issue (btw, could you collapse the Chinese text and translations? They don't really help us understand the right way forward). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
:The problem is, (as Bobthefish2 and I have been discussing on ], is that we have reliable sources that say otherwise. The biggest problem is that one of those reliable sources is from a University Press, which is near the top tier of Misplaced Pages sources. We can "dismiss" the Japanese sources, as they're obviously partisan--at best, they tell us what the Japanese government thinks the article meant. However, I do have a question about the book--does anyone have a copy or can anyone get a copy? That section has a citation/footnote, but it's not in the free Google download of the book. I'm interested to see if they author directly cites Remin Ribao directly, or if the author cites one of the Japanese translations (as this could effect the reliability of that claim). |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
:The other thing is, is there anyone who has any reliable source (i.e., not another Misplaced Pages editor) which states that the Japanese translation is wrong? If so, I think we can easily solve the problem by saying "Some sources, such as researcher X and the Japanese government, claim that a 1953 Remin Ribao article indicated that... (ref ref ref); however, source Y says that that interpretation is a mistranslation of the original text, which actually meant...(ref)." That would perfectly contextualize the issue--the point is, we show that Japan has made a certain claim, and that that claim may be incorrect. That's kind-of the point behind having a dispute article--that we don't just include the "evidence" from the different sides that's "right", but we provide a wide selection of different evidence. We're trying to describe the "dispute", not the underlying issue of who really does "own" the islands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 17:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Or, in other words, what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon ] just based on AGF-ing him. ] (]) 01:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute}} – This move is supported by principles of WP:COMMONNAME, precision, naturalness, and NPOVtitle. |
|
== Geography Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article discusses a territorial dispute between China and Japan which has sometimes flared up. From the Chinese perspective, the islands are the Diaoyu islands. From the Japanese perspective, they are the Senkaku Islands. Our current title pre-supposes the Japanese perspective in Wikivoice. |
|
I propose that the table in the geography section be removed, and replace with <nowiki>{{Main|Senkaku Islands#Geography|Senakuku Islands geography}}</nowiki>, plus a 2-3 prose sentences, stating approximately where the islands are (latitude/longitude), total number, and total area. The whole point of having this (the dispute) article is that we should include all of the general information at ] and only the information which strictly relates to the dispute belongs here. See, for example, how ] has no geography section (including info only in the lead), ] includes no geographic info outside of the map, and ] contains no geographic information at all. In fact, now that I've looked at those examples, I'd prefer to completely removing the geography section, but would consider a "Main" template + short prose to be a not-horrible compromise. Does anyone support keeping the table? Does anyone support removing the whole section? ] (]) 05:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:The geography section should not exist due to lack of relevance. The only possible reason to keep it is if Tenmei moves the sea boundary materials to this page (which he should). ] (]) 05:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Let's not put this in terms of what Tenmei should or should not do—that makes it sound as if xe has some sort of special right or responsibility to make changes to the two articles. If consensus says the section should be removed, then it should be removed, whether or not Tenmei agrees. ] (]) 05:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No. Of course he doesn't have special rights, but it'd be much better if he can learn to listen and clean up after himself. After all, those changes were introduced by him. Have you realized how much time we wasted just to dispute those changes he made a while ago (i.e. making copies of tables, removing chinese columns, etc)? I'd much rather prove a point to him so that we don't have to go through this again than having to request consensus on every petulant change he makes. I am sure you'd, by now, realize how exceedingly difficult it is when it comes to getting a consensus on removing pro-Japanese or anti-Chinese contents. I really hate to refer things as anti/pro-Chinese/Japanese, but that's what they are most of the time (and this page is about a dispute between China and Japan). ] (]) 05:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, but, in this case, this table is neither pro-Japanese or pro-Chinese--it includes both, and, I think, this article should include neither (as I expressed above). As I'm a big fan of not getting these pages locked, I'm going to wait a day before removing the section, but will proceed with doing so absent a consensus to keep the section in. ] (]) 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I am not a big fan of getting these pages locked either. However, I also do not like having to police these pages when I am confident that all that will come out of it is inaccurate information. I can, of course, leave this page to the wolves, but the notion of getting it locked with an admin controlling the editorial process is a good alternative to that. ] (]) 06:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Tenmei has made changes to try to demonstrate that the names are "in dispute". I disagree with xyr interpretation of that article. The LDP (in the article) isn't opposed to the names--they're opposed to Google listing the names, which is Google's way of saying that the territories are in dispute. If you look at the actual quote from the LDP, their point is that "the Senkaku Islands are under the effective control of Japan in both history and the international law." That is, they are disputing Googles (implied) claim that the ownership of the islands is in dispute, not a claim about the names themselves. In any event, the chart is still not the right way to present this information, as demonstrated by the other dispute article I listed above. This particular historical point is already covered in the 2010 section of the dispute chronology. I say, the table (and section) should still go. ] (]) 08:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It appears that Tenmei has not said a word yet and is still adding things. ] (]) 16:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
I agree that it would be sensible to remove the table, instead relying on the one at the main article. Qwyrxian has made some good points above. ] (]) 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, we should avoid this for principles of common name. Recent academic sources already in the article which use Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute include at a minimum Wang (2024), Chen (2023), and Zhao (2023). An initial review of English google results also shows our article to be an outlier, with most sources using both names for the disputed islands. |
|
:Alright, I'm going to remove the table. I'm going to rename the section, "The islands," include a hatnote directing people to the Geography section in the other other article, and leave a 1-3 sentence summary here. If I can find a place, I'll move Tenmei's recent addition about what he perceives as a name dispute; if I can't find a place, I'll leave it here for future reference. ] (]) 23:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Here's what I removed: "The names of these islands and rocks have become the subject of an unresolved controversy.<ref>Ogura, Junko. CNNWorld (US). October 14, 2010; ''China Post'' (ROC). October 15, 2010; compare Saleem, O. (2000). ; excerpt, "The struggle among various countries to name the islands is an attempt to establish and solidify a perceptual transformation and ] for vested property interest or ownership of the islands."</ref>". |
|
|
::I put the first reference into the last line of the "2010" section. I replaced the reference that was previously there, because the previous reference is an opinion/analysis piece, therefore not as good a reference per ]. The second reference cannot be in this article, as it is about the ], and including that here is a direct and obvious violation of ]. Nothing in that article mentions the Senkaku Islands, and we are absolutely forbidden from trying to "contextualize" this issue (The SI dispute) in some sort of wider East Asian dispute unless a reliable source already does that. ] (]) 00:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The move also helps precision, as the current title may be unclear to English-language readers general readers who may have first heard the Chinese usage but not be familiar with the Japanese usage yet. |
|
==Alternate approaches== |
|
|
::''Former name of this thread was'' "Efforts to calm the dispute" ''section.''--] (]) 01:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, NPOV is served by not presuming the correctness of one view of the islands over another. Either Diaoyu/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu make sense - I think it is better to alphabetize so that no one presumes we are endorsing a claim, but at least in English I recognize that Senkaku/Diaoyu is more common order. The key point is to include both terms. ] (]) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
What's going on with this section? It doesn't make any sense to me. I feel like we should be able to include the first reference (the Edward Miles book) elsewhere (probably at the very end of the "Beginnings" section). I don't know what the Deng Xiaoping quote is meant to do, or why it belongs anywhere in the article, but maybe it just needs a better placement and context. In any event, the section is definitely mistitled, because the Miles reference itself makes it clear that it wasn't about "calming the dispute"; rather, both sides just agreed not to talk about it. To me, in a section titled "Efforts to calm the dispute", I would expect to read about specific negotiations, conferences, bi-lateral efforts, etc., that were specifically and intentionally directed at reducing tensions about the dispute. If we don't have any examples of such efforts, then I think the section should go. However, I do think that on the Xiaoping quote, I'm missing something, so I appreciate input. ] (]) 00:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:This ] should not be archived. |
|
|
{{quote box|style=margin-left: 8em|quote=:{{col-begin}} |
|
|
{{col-2}} |
|
|
* |
|
|
{{col-2}} |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose'''{{snd}}one of the most basic principles we always stick to in our naming conventions is we pick <em>one</em> name for something that we deem most appropriate. We cannot avoid the responsibility of doing this by gluing two names together with a slash. Admittedly, this form is well attested in sources as described, but I do not see it as appropriate to treat it as one name when it is clearly two, with that usage arising from palpable dispute concerning its components. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{col-end}}}} |
|
|
|
::But in this article, the ''something'' is ''the dispute'', which as you recognize the ''Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute'' is well-attested and sourced. So this is not an original or artificial construction, but the way sources themselves speak in common name about ''the dispute''. |
|
:This thread needs to remain on the active talk page despite conventional archiving practices. --] (]) 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::The idea to 'pick just one' leads to a problem of circular logic and dispute. Surely you would agree then that the page should be re-named then to Diaoyu Islands dispute (I ask rhetorically)? When you disagree (as you would and should), you would cite one of my bases (common name), but the solution to common name is ''Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute'', which of course you agree is well-attested. ] (]) 16:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The form is common, which makes this distinctly more plausible than other cases. I don't think it amounts to a justification for picking two names—it simply does not plausibly read as one name for me, hard as I try—have we pondered opting for a phrasal name per ]? Miraculously, I think it's true that this is the only active territorial dispute between China and Japan, so maybe some variation of ] is in play? It feels like it it needs to be tweaked, but... <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Your suggestion would also be a manifest improvement in page title, although I view it as losing the advantage of common name and precision which I view as supporting my proposal. If move discussion goes in that direction however, it would still improve the current state and I would not be dissatisfied. ] (]) 17:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The clear issue is that it's ambiguous with historical but potentially better known disputes, and I cannot for the life of me figure out a clean way to disambiguate it further... <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"...in the East China Sea"? ] (]) 17:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::First to come to mind, and really it probably is viable, but I got hung up on it being too many words, with one of them being "China". {{smiley|:p}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' as the proposed name is not a ]. The name should stick as close to the underlying ] article as possible for maximum ]. - ] (]) 22:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Out-of-date and primary source charts == |
|
I also don't see the point with it. The issue seems to flare up every so often, so are leaders on both sides calming things down? Deng was speaking nearly 40 years ago. ] (]) 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed the following charts, which are both out-of-date and sourced entirely to primary source documents by one of the disputing governments. This needs proper sourcing before being restored and it should be brought closer to up to date. Obviously it's in the page history but I'll also archive it here in case someone wants to undertake the project of making it suitable for the article: |
|
:Tenmei, probably you got your diffs wrong; all you linked to was the diff of me changing the section title, which I did because I thought people might think I meant "This is a new section on the talk page designed to decrease dispute on the talk page," when what I meant was "This is a new section on the talk page about the section in the article called "Efforts to end the dispute." In any event, do you have any actual comment about whether or not that section should stay? ] (]) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Also, please stop adding in links to my posts. Those links have nothing to do with what I commented, I find them distracting, and it looks like I said something I didn't say. I've asked this before--please do not edit any other person's comments; if you think such an edit is necessary, you may request they do it, but you may not do it yourself, per ]. ] (]) 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''The number of Chinese vessels entering the territorial waters near the Senkaku Islands.'''<ref>{{cite web |title=The numbers of Chinese government and other vessels that entered Japan's contiguous zone or intruded into territorial sea surrounding the Senkaku Islands |url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/page23e_000021.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402104412/http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/page23e_000021.html |archive-date=2 April 2015 |access-date=18 March 2015 |publisher=Japan Coast Guard}}</ref>{{#invoke:Chart|bar-chart|group 1=0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : |
|
:::] print by ].]] |
|
|
|
0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : |
|
:::] -- I am not obliged to accept the false premise of your question. Your questions are an attempt to establish and solidify a perceptual transformation and paradigm; and as such, it does not enhance our prospects for ] in the future.<p>This broad-stroke edit strategy is undermined by ] and by ] inline citations which are individually and cumulatively clear, credible and persuasive.<p>In other words, you don't "get it." Okay.<p>] doesn't "get it." Okay.<p>You propose to ]. Not okay.<p>I cannot concur. Nor do I concur that this section urgently demands our attention before addressing the other active issues which have been engaged in the threads above. --] (]) 23:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 2 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : |
|
::::Now the section is titled "Alternate approaches." Alternate to what? It can't be an "alternate approach" unless there is a "main approach." Unless you mean that the alternate to arguing is to...not argue? I can kind-of understand how the latter part (a cooperative approach) is a an alternate, but not what Xiaopeng says (which, is, basically, let's talk about it later). Also, the big fat side quote is a clear ] violation--we're an encyclopedia, not a weekly/monthly news magazine. And you want to tackle other issues? You're welcome to--we can work on things simultaneously, as long as we keep each issue in separate threads. ] (]) 01:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
0 : 0 : 1 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 4 : 0 : 13 : 19 : 15 : 21 : |
|
:::::<s>Not a violation of ] -- not <u>because</u> of the formatting. The quote template would not exist if it were violative of wiki-policy. As for the other parts of your diff,</s> Your ] limits the range of response. Please feel free to draft a different heading for this section; but I encourage you to restrain the impulse to blank it out entirely --] (]) 03:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
17 : 17 : 11 : 25 : 15 : 9 : 14 : 28 : 22 : 8 : 12 : 10 : |
|
:::::::My first time seeing Tenmei writing anything resembling standard English. ] (]) 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
6 : 9 : 6 : 8 : 5 : 6 : 4 : 10 : 10 : 9 : 8 : 7 : |
|
{{outdent}}] is drained of meaning by ] -- see context for ]. --] (]) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
8 : 8 : 9 : 9 : 9 : 8 : 7 : 6 : 9 : 7 : 8 : 7 : |
|
::::::::You could've used one short sentence to communicate your protest against my compliment. ] (]) 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
8 : 5 : 9 : 9 : 11 : 9 : 9 : 23 : 8 : 8 : 12 : 10 : |
|
:::::::::Would you two stop, please? If either of you is too irritated with the other to respond civilly, then just stop commenting to the other. Neither backhanded compliments nor over-linking is helping the issue. Every time we stop to comment on other people's motives or style of writing, we get drawn away from improving the article. ] (]) 05:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
10 : 7 : 10 : 12 : 12 : 12 : 12: 8 : 8 : 4 : 7 : 6 : |
|
{{outdent}}] is drained of meaning by ] -- see context for ]. --] (]) 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
7 : 6 : 7 : 7 : 8 : 8 : 7 : 8 : 4 : 4 : 4 : 0 : |
|
::::::Regarding just the quotation itself, Rquote and cquote are to be used for ], and, as such, belong (per the documentation) in places like essays. Quoting from the documentation of cquote, "NOTE: This template should not be used for block quotations in article text. " For that matter, this quotations isn't even eligible for block quote, because it's not 4 or more lines long, as specified in ]. So I'm going to convert it back into a regular quotation, while we continue to discuss what to do with this section. ] (]) 03:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
12 : 12 : 12 : 12 : 14 : 8 : 12 : 12 : 4 : 12 : 4 : 12 : |
|
:::::::My opinion is that "efforts to calm dispute" is kind of irrelevant. We can condense it into the "Reaction of ROC/PRC" but this certainly does not deserve an unique section. ] (]) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
8 : 8 : 4 : 8 : 8 : 8 : 12 : 10 : 0 : 8 : 6 : 8 : |
|
|
6 : |
|
|
0|width=800|colors=red|group names=|x legends= 2009 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2010 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2011 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2012 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2013 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2014 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2015 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2016 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2017 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2018 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2019 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2020 : : : : : : : : : : : : |
|
|
2021 :}}'''The number of ] by the ] against foreign aircraft. (2006–2015)'''<ref>{{cite web |date=25 April 2012 |title=平成２３年度の緊急発進実施状況について |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2012/press_pdf/p20120425.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202155123/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2012/press_pdf/p20120425.pdf |archive-date=2 February 2014 |access-date=28 January 2014 |publisher=Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=17 April 2013 |title=平成24年度の緊急発進実施状況について – 防衛省 |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2013/press_pdf/p20130417_02.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515025117/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2013/press_pdf/p20130417_02.pdf |archive-date=15 May 2013 |access-date=28 January 2014 |publisher=Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=21 January 2014 |title=平成25年度3四半期までの緊急発進実施状況について |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2014/press_pdf/p20140121_01.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202155053/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2014/press_pdf/p20140121_01.pdf |archive-date=2 February 2014 |access-date=28 January 2014 |publisher=Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=9 April 2014 |title=Scrambling in 2013 |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2014/press_pdf/p20140409.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413125145/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2014/press_pdf/p20140409.pdf |archive-date=13 April 2014 |access-date=9 April 2014 |publisher=Japanese Ministry of Defense}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=21 January 2014 |title=平成26年度の緊急発進実施状況について |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2015/press_pdf/p20150415_01.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150717024956/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2015/press_pdf/p20150415_01.pdf |archive-date=17 July 2015 |access-date=15 April 2015 |publisher=Joint Staff Office, Japan Self-Defense Force}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Statistics on scrambles through fiscal year 2016 |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2017/press_pdf/p20170413_02.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170414000647/http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2017/press_pdf/p20170413_02.pdf |archive-date=14 April 2017 |access-date=13 April 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=9 April 2020 |title=Statistics on scrambles through FY2019 |url=https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2020/press_pdf/p20200409_02.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200630160044/https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2020/press_pdf/p20200409_02.pdf |archive-date=30 June 2020 |access-date=30 June 2020 |publisher=Ministry of Defence}}</ref>{{#invoke:Chart|bar-chart|height=250|width=800|bar_width=50|stack=1|group 1=22 : 43 : 31 : 38 : 96 : 156 : 306 : 415 : 464 : 571 : 851 : 500 : 638 : 675|group 2=217 : 264 : 206 : 261 : 290 : 269 : 261 : 395 : 479 : 302 : 317 : 404 : 351 : 272|colors=red : grey|group names=China : Others|x legends=2006 : 2007 : 2008 : 2009 : 2010 : 2011 : 2012 : 2013 : 2014 : 2015 : 2016 : 2017 : 2018 : 2019}} ] (]) 15:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
Omit ungrammatical "the" before noun subjects "China" and "Taiwan" as follows:
1) Change "between Japan, the China, and the Taiwan" to "between Japan, China, and Taiwan"
2) Change "Both the China and the Taiwan" to "Both China and Taiwan"
3) Change "This is viewed by the China and Taiwan" to "This is viewed by China and Taiwan"
4) Change "an invitation from the China to work together" to "an invitation from China to work together" Rkunstnc (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I know that for many purposes the Republic of China is known as Taiwan in English, but for a diplomatic dispute where both Chinese states are pursuing the Chinese claim, the full name of the state really should be mentioned in the lede and probably most uses of it. 219.161.0.19 (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
This article discusses a territorial dispute between China and Japan which has sometimes flared up. From the Chinese perspective, the islands are the Diaoyu islands. From the Japanese perspective, they are the Senkaku Islands. Our current title pre-supposes the Japanese perspective in Wikivoice.
First, we should avoid this for principles of common name. Recent academic sources already in the article which use Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute include at a minimum Wang (2024), Chen (2023), and Zhao (2023). An initial review of English google results also shows our article to be an outlier, with most sources using both names for the disputed islands.
The move also helps precision, as the current title may be unclear to English-language readers general readers who may have first heard the Chinese usage but not be familiar with the Japanese usage yet.
Finally, NPOV is served by not presuming the correctness of one view of the islands over another. Either Diaoyu/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu make sense - I think it is better to alphabetize so that no one presumes we are endorsing a claim, but at least in English I recognize that Senkaku/Diaoyu is more common order. The key point is to include both terms. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the following charts, which are both out-of-date and sourced entirely to primary source documents by one of the disputing governments. This needs proper sourcing before being restored and it should be brought closer to up to date. Obviously it's in the page history but I'll also archive it here in case someone wants to undertake the project of making it suitable for the article:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
Done I removed all of these, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Remsense ‥ 论 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)