Talk:Senkaku Islands

Change the name

The name should be Diaoyu islands. When you use the Japanese name it is not neutral. Cioppino123 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the Diaoyu Islands really any more neutral from an international perspective? Ultimately, Japan controls the islands, so imo its easiest to stick with the current name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It is more neutral. The islands should be known by their Chinese name. Cioppino123 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Japan administers the islands is the reason their name is on the article. If that changes in the future, then the name on the article will change to reflect that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, according to you if we should use the name used by which ever country administers the island, how about we start with renaming the Paracel islands to Xisha islands. Since you have suggested that we should name islands according to which country administers the island, you can start renaming all the articles of disputed territories to the name used by the countries administering them.

I agree Senkaku is not neutral, and seems to give connotations that these islands belong to Japan, when this is actually a disputed territory. This should be renamed to something more neutral regardless if it being occupied by Japan or not. 62.30.14.17 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Japan administers the islands is not in dispute. As for disputed territory, that exists all over the world, but there is typically someone that administers it regardless; it is exceptionally rare when there is disputed territory and nobody administers it, like the Bir Tawil. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

regardless of administration WP:NPOV prevails always in all matters as it is a core pillar of Wikipedia. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not only because the actual rulers of the islands, a more important reason is that "Senkaku Islands" has long been the common name for these islands in the English-speaking world, well before China first made its sovereignty claim over them in 1971. In fact, the Chinese government itself officially referred to them as the Senkaku Islands prior to the 1970s. Symantec2000 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to not move the article is present. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 04:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Senkaku Islands → Diaoyu Islands – An ngram indicates that "Diaoyu Islands" has superseded "Senkaku Islands" in terms of usage. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, looking at the graph more carefully [1], it's pretty spiky and not currently demonstrative of a long term trend. It's also not clear what type of media is being represented here.The islands still also remain under Japanese sovereignty and control, which also counts against changing the name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose i skeptical regarding the name change, because unless a nominator quoting Chinese media, most media sources whenever in Japan or overseas, still calling it "Senkaku Islands" in respect of Japanese control of islands. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Current administration of the islands is Japan. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Google Ngrams results are not definitive, but even if they were, the trend is too recent and close. If you adjust the smoothing to 20 and beyond, Senkaku once again overtakes Diaoyu. Yue🌙 21:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Permission for collecting herbs on three of the islands was recorded in an Imperial Chinese edict of 1893"

According to political science scholar Shaw Han-yi (who favors the Chinese claim) in his The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the P.R.C., R.O.C., and Japan:

Quote:

The first piece of evidence that has been subjected to debate regarding its authenticity is what appears to be an Imperial Edict issued by Empress Dowager Cixi in 1893. According to this edict, Empress Dowager Cixi awarded to Sheng Xuanhuai, a high-ranking official, three islands in the Diaoyutai/Senkaku chain to commend his gathering of highly effective medicinal herbs. The complete translation of the edict is as follows: [...]

Many Chinese use his piece of evidence to argue that an official document such as this imperial edict ordered by the Dowager Empress to her subject is a clear example of displaying state authority over the islands. While it is true that Sheng Xuanhuai did indeed maintain a well-known herbal pharmaceutical house Guangren Tang, and it is quite possible he actually had people sent to the disputed islands to collect medicinal herbs given his capacity as a high official himself and his close ties with Shao Youlian, the governor of Taiwan, the authenticity of the edict has been subject to considerable debate.

The Japanese have cast doubt on its authenticity based on their belief that the document was nothing more than a commercial advertisement for Sheng's pharmaceutical house; some Chinese scholars including Chiu Hungdah and Wu Tian[y]ing (both among the most prominent supporters of the Chinese position from Taiwan and China, respectively) who upon examining the document have also suggested that certain components of the edict are indeed problematic. Such components in question include the quality and color of the paper, the location and details of the imperial seal, certain expressions and terminology related to specific official positions, all of which were found to be either unusual in comparison to typical Qing official edicts or contained references that did not conform to actual historical events.

Endquote.

So it really was from the Qing era, but not from the Qing Dynasty itself. It was rather an advertisement for a pharmaceutical business.

He cites Wu's 1994 A Textual Research on the Ownership of the Diaoyu Islands Prior to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, p. 57 and Chiu's 1992 A Study of the Edict (1893) Awarding the Three Islands of Diaoyutai by the Empress Dowager Cixi to Sheng Xuanhuai, p. 187-190. 128.119.202.71 (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)