Talk:Senkaku Islands

"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)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Okinawa Trough content in territorial dispute section

The cited passage from Ji Guoxing's paper discussed maritime boundary delimitation and continental shelf demarcation(EEZ), not territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands themselves. The original source places this discussion in the context of East China Sea continental shelf delimitation under UNCLOS, specifically comparing the continental shelf extension principle advocated by China and the equidistant line principle advocated by Japan. The article mentioned that the Senkaku Islands issue is a factor affecting the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone at sea, rather than the EEZ delimitation dispute caused by the Okinawa Trench affecting the issue of islands ownership as suggested in the current version. The cause and effect relationship has been reversed.

Maritime delimitation operates under UNCLOS provisions, while territorial sovereignty relies on historical title, occupation, and treaties. The Okinawa Trough delimitation controversy would exist even if the island sovereignty issue were resolved. They are completely different problems and separate legal frameworks.

Thus I suggest remove the paragraph to improve accuracy by avoiding confusion between territorial sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction issues. Or adding this content to a separate "EEZ delimitation" section. Symantec2000 (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Symantec2000. Do you mean the paragraph of the part from "The existence of the back-arc basin complicates descriptive issues. According to Professor Ji Guoxing of the Asia-Pacific Department at Shanghai Institute for International Studies, ..." until "...the trough is just an incidental depression in a continuous continental margin between the two countries ... [and] the trough should be ignored .."?
I agree with deleting the paragraph because the quotes are only partial and the meaning is unclear.
And it seems that the paragraph is about a maritime delimitation dispute (the principle of continental shelf extension vs. the median line principle), which is legally distinct from the territorial sovereignty dispute over the islands themselves. みしまるもも (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree : I confirmed that the delimitation of the continental shelf in the East China Sea under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a separate issue and cannot be used as a basis for this discussion of sovereignty. And, this page is not a page that makes claims about the continental shelf. (WP:NOTADVOCACY)
This is a blatant misuse, so I will delete it. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Alreedy deleted. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2025

I would like to kindly suggest changing the spelling of "Tiaoyutai Islands" to "Diaoyutai Islands" in the article. According to formal romanization rules, the Taiwanese consonant ㄉ corresponds to the letter "D," not "T." Therefore, for accuracy and consistency in romanization, "Diaoyutai Islands" is the correct form.

Link to romanization rules: http://www.edu-fair.com/Fair/WG.html Frankfu100 (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It corresponds to "D" in pinyin, but "T" in the Wade-Giles romanization system in use in Taiwan. You can see this in the chart you linked. The article lists both spellings. Day Creature (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that ㄉ is "T" in Wade-Giles, while there is no default spelling for Taiwan's Zhuyin. Both Taiwan's and US's official government documents actually use "Diaoyutai", not "Tiaoyutai":
Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs: https://en.mofa.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=2920
US Congress: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42761 Frankfu100 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Both spellings are in use in Taiwan (see the sources cited in the "Names" section, including one from the ROC government that uses "Tiaoyutai"). Day Creature (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Change "Tiaoyutai" to "Diaoyutai" per Wikipedia naming policies

I request changing the Taiwanese name romanization from "Tiaoyutai" to "Diaoyutai" based on Wikipedia's established naming policies and current evidence.

Per WP:Manual of Style/China-related articles, "English Wikipedia uses Hanyu Pinyin without tone marks as the default method of romanising Chinese characters." The Pinyin article states: "Taiwan adopted Hanyu Pinyin as its official romanization system in 2009, replacing Tongyong Pinyin."

WP:Naming conventions (Chinese) indicates that "the common form is often the Hanyu Pinyin romanization without diacritics."

The evidence strongly supports "Diaoyutai": Out of the 5 Taiwanese sources cited in the naming section, only 1 ("The ROC government reiterates its sovereignty over the Tiaoyutai Islands"[30] from 2003) used "Tiaoyutai" while the other 4 ([34]-[37])all used "Diaoyutai." Notably, the sole "Tiaoyutai" usage predates Taiwan's 2009 adoption of Hanyu Pinyin. While both spellings do appear in sources, Wikipedia should follow current official policy rather than legacy usage.

The substantive difference between mainland China and Taiwan's naming convention is 钓鱼岛 vs 釣魚臺島 (the character difference and "臺"/"台"/"tai" suffix), not the romanization system. The current "D vs T" emphasis obscures this actual naming distinction.

Proposed change: The Taiwanese name should be rendered as "Diaoyutai" per current official romanization policy, with (optional) historical note that "Tiaoyutai" appeared in pre-2009 documents using older romanization systems.

This change aligns Wikipedia with established naming policies and reflects current official usage patterns. Frankfu100 (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Yue🌙 07:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for the underlying policy of United States' position

Just a gentle reminder:

To explain this point clearly, it is essential to consider "policy of deliberate ambiguity" and changing "offshore balancing". However, these pages are still under development and not yet ready for linking. It would be good to prioritize organizing those pages first and then gradually link to them from this page. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Senkaku_Islands