Template talk:Territorial disputes involving Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 February 5. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] "What the hell is this?"

What the hell is this? Are we going to create "Disputed islands claimed by China" that has Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, etc. also? --218.222.11.194 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means, if you are interested in those matters, please create those templates. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name changed to "Disputed Japanese islands claimed by other countries"

If it's to be one of "Japanese navigational boxes," this is a proper name. --Saintjust 13:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that it would be POV to call them "Japanese islands". Two out of four of those island/island groups are not even controlled by Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"Disputed islands claimed by Japan" is as much a pov because it is assuming that Japan is the one "claiming" those islands owned by some other countries. Since this template lists articles from the Japanese point of view, "Japanese islands claimed by other countries" is only more natural a name. Create "Chinese islands claimed by other countries" also if you'd like. --Saintjust 16:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because this is a "Japanese navigational template" doesn't mean it's from a Japanese POV. Nothing on WP should be from a Japanese POV, everything should be NPOV. Furthermore, it is a simple fact that Japan claims these islands. "Claiming" does not mean that Japan does not control them. The template does not suggest that these claims are not legitimate, and it does not say anything about what country currently controls them. That's NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the convention on Wikipedia. For the Sea of Japan, for exmple, the Korean name "East Sea" is used on Korea-related articles. And yours isn't NPOV, either. --Saintjust 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, this is not a Japan article. If you like, I can certainly remove the Japanese navigational category from the template. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Then remove the name of "Japan", or add all the names of countries involved. And stop using this pov template untile the issue is settled. --Saintjust 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave the POV tag in, but I fail to see what's POV about this template. These islands are disputed islands that are claimed by Japan. That's a fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Emphasizing only Japan claiming them is pov. Make it "Disputed islands in East Asia" or some neutral name like that. --Saintjust 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Again - it's a simple fact. This template reflects facts. These islands are claimed by Japan. The template was created specifically for the purpose of navigating through disputed islands claimed by Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a biased presentation of facts. It reflects your biased pov. I don't see any point in creating a Japan-spesifc template like this as it's only redundant to create similar templates for Korea, China, and every other Asian country. --Saintjust 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
How is it a biased presentation? Japan claims these islands! Also like I said, if you are interested in territorial disputes in those other Asian countries, by all means, create those templates. But how about this, we can rename the template and the header to "Disputed islands controlled or claimed by Japan", or "Disputed islands administered or claimed by Japan". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this template is perfectly fine for anyone who wishes to see a list of claimed islands by Japan. Good friend100 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Then please cast your vote on the template's deletion proposal[1]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan

Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Endroit 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Tsushima

"A territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states" - Territorial dispute. (2007, January 1). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:29, February 6, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Territorial_dispute&oldid=97797388

As far as I know South Korea is not claiming its sovereignty over Tsushima Island. Or are there other states which make such claim? --Kusunose 07:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Tsushima_Island#Sovereignty_claims_by_South_Korea. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the article, South Korean President Syngman Rhee later declared that Tsushima was part of South Korea in the Peace Line declaration of January 18, 1952. However, the Peace Line no longer exists. Do you have any source that say South Korean government is still maintaining its sovereignty claim? --Kusunose 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read all of the section:
Later, in the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, it was declared that the sovereignty of Tsushima was to be handed to Japan. Despite the fact that the Peace Treaty was signed in 1951, South Korean President Syngman Rhee later declared that Tsushima was part of South Korea in the Peace Line declaration of January 18, 1952.[4]
Provoked by Shimane Prefecture's claim to Dokdo (Takeshima in Japanese), the Korean city of Masan declared June 19 "Daemado day" on 2005-03-18, claiming Tsushima — Daemado (Hangul: 대마도; Hanja: 對馬島) in Korean — as part of South Gyeongsang province of South Korea. [5] The Masan council replied that it would not retract its claim, stating that Tsushima was never formally ceded to Japan. The Japanese government did not make any official response to the city council's claim.　The municipal council in Tsushima did make a strong protest to the municipal council of Masan on 2006-10-06, demanding the withdrawal of the ordinance, but Masan rejected the appeal. [6]
Syngman Rhee had claimed that Tsushima is part of South Korea. Has the South Korean government retracted this claim? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I have read all of the section. The last paragraph does not state any position the South korean government currently holds, hence my question. --Kusunose 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Masan city council declared "Daemado day" without the support of the South Korean government. According to Korea Times, the South Korean government asked Masan to withdraw its claim. A South Korean official at the time, "Lee indicated South Korea has a slim case for claiming Taemado the plan is likely to backfire." This confirms that South Korea is concentrating on Dokdo, and is NOT disputing Tsushima at this time.--Endroit 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the source. I'll be adding it to the Tsushima article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems the article already contains a link to a Dong-A Ilibo article, Government Says No to “Daemado Day”. The text 'but this was rejected by the Korean government' added around March 2005 with that link is no longer there, though. --Kusunose 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/r/Template_talk%7ETerritorial_disputes_involving_Japan_269a.html"