Talk:Kuril Islands

Inhabited?

Are these islands currently inhabited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.66.228 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2004 (UTC)

Of course they are. And can you tell which country owns them? Judging by the article, it's Japan (which is not)

Would be nice to know the actual population of these islands, if someone has it. Maps made in Japan generally just show a few half-drawn roads and a mixture of kanji and Ainu place names. --Heian-794 14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Observations

Some observations:

• "Japan is economically supporting the people living in the islands. In case Japan would be able to solve the dispute for their benefit there is no clear plan for the destiny of the current inhabitants."
  1. I thought the islands were uninhabited? Is the JP government paying people to live there, or are they economically supported through normal trade? In either case, I think it should be made clear what the author means by "support."--69.212.98.139 17:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. I don't think it's important if Japan doesn't have a plan for inhabitants yet when there hasn't even been any indication of potential willingness from the Russians to return the islands.--69.212.98.139 17:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Update: Due to the above unanswered questions and the ambiguity of the statement made by 219.5.38.6 (who by the way has only contributed once and seems to have since abandoned it), I am yanking it from the main article. Hope this is OK with everyone. --69.212.100.83 02:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "Russia reclaimed them after the WWII (Treaty of San Francisco), but Japan maintains a claim to the four southernmost islands, called Northern Territories in Japan (see Kuril Island conflict)."
  1. This makes it sound like the USSR got the islands through the treaty when in fact the treaty doesn't give them the rights to the islands. In fact the USSR instead got the islands from Japan during WWII before the treaty even existed through military invasion right after the USSR abolished their existing peace treaty with Japan.--69.212.98.139 17:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. It should be noted that the USSR was not a participant in the Treaty of San Francisco, and a peace treaty has never been signed between USSR/Russia and Japan after the War ended.--69.212.98.139 02:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• "クリル列島" isn't really a Japanese name but a Russian/Ainu name written in Japanese writing system, so it's kind of redundant.--69.212.98.139 17:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "There is frequent seismic activity, including a magnitude 8.5 earthquake in 1963 and one of magnitude 8.3 recorded on November 15, 2006, which resulted in tsunami waves up to 1.5 metres (5 ft) reaching the California coast.[5]"
  1. This is very American-centric. What would be more useful is knowing the height of the tsunami when it hit neighbouring land.

That's a stupid observation - the California coast is a neutral statement showing the strength of the wave, and nothing more. Please, next time, use your head.

Infobox

I want to add the infobox saying about the Russian and Japanese names from the article, for the sake of organization, like Liancourt Rocks and Sakhalin. Please post objections here. Mr Tan 09:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time Immortal?

"The islands were inhabited by the Ainu from time immemorial" This is in no way accurate. Time immortial? What the hell?

Time immemorial means time outside of memory, or for longer than we can remember. Not forever.

One thing is for sure: The Ainu people were living on Kuril Islands long before any Japanese were aware of that island existed. Therefore, not mentioning the original inhabitants of the islands shows that this article is not credible. So I have decided to mention the "real owners" of the islands. Now, it is much more fair. I have even added the link on Wikipedia's article on Ainu people. Let's not distort the truth and live a lie. Peace.

Actually this article does mention the Ainu people. But incredibly, not in the history section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.2.48 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 May 2009 UTC

Proposed Merger

See Talk:Kuril Islands dispute, one of the options proposed is merger with this article Nik42 04:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment out

Why was the translation of Chishima Rettō commented out? I've restored it Nik42 03:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge tag

I added a merge tag to this and to Japanese administration of the Kuril Islands. Much of the info is redundant, but there is some additional info on the other page. I'll let someone else with more knowledge about the subject judge how accurate it is, and what should be kept or discarded. --Nobunaga24 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is valuable information that can be moved to the main Kuril Islands article, but merging would make it seem like the islands belong to Japan, not Russia. It already reads too Japanese. The Kuril Islands are under Russian control. They are Russian islands and no Japanese (in any significant numbers) live there any more.--Sir Edgar 02:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that someone actually went ahead and merged the two articles it all sounds really weird. Is everyone sure "Japanese administration" should be part of the general article? I started copy editing the History section but then had second thoughts. Shouldn't we discuss the changes here first? --16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry, forgot to sign. BTW, here's a link with some historical info we could use in rewriting the article% http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Rotunda/2209/Khabarovsk.html#Sakh --apoivre 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Change in Emphasis

I added quite a bit of content on the geography and marine and terrestrial ecology of the Kuril islands. I've placed these sections ahead of all the material on 19th century Japanese Administration and World War II history because I personally feel that it is more important. As an ecologist who works on the Kuril islands, I am certainly biased. On the other hand, I think there really is a consensus among the people that live and work on and around the Kurils that their greatest `value' of the islands lies in their tremendous biological richness and on their priviledged isolation from anthropogenic impacts.

In fact, I would move to take the World War II history into a completely separate article. The article on Hawaii, as an example, hardly mentions World War II, even though it's significance was far greater. The detailed section on Japanese Administration is also a bit of an aberration, considering that there is virtually no comment on the current, active, existing, present Russian administration.

On a similar note, why is the Kuril island article part of Wikiproject Japan and NOT Wikiproject Russia? Is California part of Wikiproject Mexico?

Finally, the human history on the Kuril islands does not begin with the Edo period. There is an enormous omission of the Ainu presence on the islands, the Jomon presence before that, and possibly earlier people. It would be great if someone knowlegeable about the prehistory could contribute!

If other people feel otherwise about any of these points, please do share. Eliezg 08:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work, Eliezg. Unfortunately, this article sees too little attention from anyone not trying to use Wikipedia to vindicate Japan's territorial claims to its neighbours. As to your questions, the World War II subsection and the one on Japanese Administration used to be separate articles until someone merged them into this one without consulting anyone first. I don't want to start an edit war so I invite everyone to discuss everything here before making any drastic edits on the matter our Japanese friends feel so passionate about. Could we make it a vote? Mine would be separate articles --apoivre 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from redirect page

The following was moved from the talk page of a redirect to here:

Note: There is a huge question mark as to how far the Matsumae clan really controlled the Kuril islands. When the clan established itself in Hokkaido during the Edo period, it did not even control the whole that island, and left most of it to the Ainu. I think there is a difference between "control of the Kurils" and "we've heard there are more islands to the north, and if anybody asks, they're ours". -- Mkill 20:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added "nominal" to the description of the administration. I agree completely - as far as I am aware, the Matsumae had little control over Ezo at all, only rarely venturing north of the Oshima Peninsula, but claiming all of that land and the Kurils as well purely on the basis of it being within a sort of Japanese frontier sphere of influence. Not entirely different from Satsuma's claims to have had Okinawa & the Ryukyus within its sphere for centuries earlier, or China's claims to Korea, Tibet, and other areas. LordAmeth 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Adult editors are needed here to maintain neutral tone.

Lies in favour of japanese point of view: Article lies about Russians staying north of Urup.Russians had a settlement on Iturup in 18.century.Iturup is located south of Urup.See wikipedia article about Iturup where the Russian settlement is mentioned. Frank Russian (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an english wiki, what do you expect? -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.180 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What motivations would induce English-speaking Wikipedians to promote "lies" in favor of either contender? Adult editors are needed here to maintain neutral tone. Editors who log in tend to be more respected.--Wetman (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a clear contradiction, though. I'll tag the first of the two sentences contradicting each other. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

History

" . . . through Japanese invasion of the Ainu homeland, and subsequent ethnic-cleansing, the ethnic population was decimated by the invaders."

Is it historically fair or accurate to assign morally and ethically charged phrases like "ethnic cleansing" to the Japanese invasion of Ainu territories? If so, all expansive cultures throughout history are guilty of “ethnic cleansing.” Besides assigning modern cultural judgments to a past entirely unfamiliar with modern concepts of human rights, to assert that Japanese invaders engaged in a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing suggests an intimate knowledge of the history of the period belied by an obvious lack of other pertinent and supportive details throughout the history section, namely dates. This statement seems heavily biased and the article would see improvement with more neutral phrasing.

Not true. There have been many empires in history that merely (sometimes ruthlessly) exploited conquered peoples without trying to exterminate them - Akkad, Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, Macedon, Rome, etc., etc., etc. Unfortunately, part of medieval-early 20th century Japanese culture was a racial superiority idea that was bred from feudal times and has only recently changed for the better - the Ainu were systematically exterminated in many places in Japan. And this is why the sources in this article read the way they do.104.169.21.247 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Legal Position

I have not yet really fully read up on the disputes around sovereignty over these islands....but I think the following should be flagged; This is the text of the Declaration made by the USA when it ratified the Treaty of San Francisco. See the express reservations re Kurile Islands....The dispute appears to be broader than simply one between Russia and Japan:

Declaration of the United States Senate included with the Ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Japan

Issued 28 April 1952

The United States of America and El Salvador were the only parties to the San Francisco Treaty which issued Declarations with their Ratifications expressing reservations about some of the Treaty's provisions.

D E C L A R A T I O N

As part of such advice and consent the Senate states that nothing the treaty contains is deemed to diminish or prejudice, in favor of the Soviet Union, the right, title, and interest of Japan, or the Allied Powers as defined in said treaty, in and to South Sakhalin and its adjacent islands, the Kurile Islands, the Habomai Islands, the Island of Shikotan, or any other territory, rights, or interests possessed by Japan on December 7, 1941, or to confer any right, title, or benefit therein or thereto on the Soviet Union; and also nothing in the said treaty, or the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification thereof, implies recognition on the part of the United States of the provisions in favor of the Soviet Union contained in the so-called "Yalta Agreement" regarding Japan of February 11, 1945.

Regards. Staighre (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Russia Angers Japan With Visit to Disputed Islands

[Russian] President Dmitri A. Medvedev flew on Monday into the south Kuril Islands, which the Soviet Union seized from Japan at the end of World War II, making it clear that Russia had no plans to cede the mineral-rich territory despite Japanese protests ... Japanese leaders warned Russia in September that such a visit would damage bilateral relations.

read more at >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/asia/02kurils.html?hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.155.34 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your quote violated copyright - far too big a chunk - I reduced it - the link points interested editors to the full text.

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 02:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—41.235.136.136 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. I've added a few parameters to the {{coord}} template in the article, but I don't see anything wrong with the coordinates themselves. If you have a specific error in mind, please explain exactly what it is in a new thread containing the {{geodata-check}} template. Deor (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusing

There is no clear timeline of when the island moved between Russian and Japanese control. Very poor article. 90.202.56.144 (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

New map needed

The current map shows the KI too small to be identified without blowing up the image. This is now how we do maps. The present map could be used as a secondary one to indicate the islands' location in the broader geographic area, but it's unsuitable as the main image.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kuril Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110114103636/http://www.sakhalin.ru/Engl/Region/geography.htm to http://www.sakhalin.ru/Engl/Region/geography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226130312/http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/2005/tsunamis/Kuril_2006/index.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/2005/tsunamis/Kuril_2006/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020211225504/http://artedi.fish.washington.edu/okhotskia/ikip/index.htm to http://artedi.fish.washington.edu/okhotskia/ikip/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New talks over the islands

Japan and Russia are discussing the future of the Kurils, possibly heading towards a resolution https://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-russia-see-way-out-of-70-year-squabble-1536752725 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.225.162.201 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

European Parliament resolution on relations between the EU, China and Taiwan and security in the Far East 07.07.2005

15. Urges all countries in the Far East to seek bilateral agreements to resolve the outstanding territorial disputes in the region, in particular: a)the return to Japan of the 'Northern territories' that were occupied by the then Soviet Union at the end of World War II and are currently occupied by Russia

Ainu habitation

Can this section be expanded? There are no sources given. 36.232.47.62 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Gallery needed in "List of main islands" (last section)

We have a bunch of loose photos here, that need to be formatted into a gallery. I'll get to it myself, in due time.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)