Talk:1943 Cairo Declaration

Original text

Photocopy of the Cairo Declaration U.S. National Archives & Records Administration (RG59), reproduction of Japanese National Diet Library shows no signatures. Copy of text can be read at wikisource or external website. Oniows 12:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese organization insert fake URL as reference

In the content, an Japanese personal by the name EvergreenFir kept insert two references and a commentary section about Allies did not want to return Taiwan, however, those two references are faked US or UK government archive site. http://www.taiwanbasic.com is maintained by Japanese organization for unknown purpose, pretend to be US and UK archive site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cariostatement (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The document is legit. Please see http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1951v07p2&page=1481&isize=text I will replace the citation with this link if it helps you. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did you erase all the added text?

Oniows please state you reason when erasing all the added text. The Japanese National Library clearly stated the Cairo declaration was signed. The document you shown in the external link is merely a telegram to inform the radio operators of the time about when and what. Also the website you obtained the photocopy stated that it was signed but you choose to only include the picture. Why do you have to hide the desciptions? So I replace the external link to the page that has both the photocopy and Janpanese government offical descriptions. Please do not play any GAMEs here.

One last point. Japanese Instrument of Surrender, which is surely signed, clearly states the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration which referred to this Cairo Declaration. Xplorer 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

---

The text of the Cairo Declaration is already stored at wikisource. Wikipedia is not the place for storing copies of documents.

The Japanese site says that a Cairo Declaration was signed at Cairo, November 27, 1943. The same site reports that a "Cairo Communiqué" was signed on November 22, 1943, but the associated picture shows an unsigned communique intended for release on December 1, 1943. Is the Cairo Communiqué the same as the Cairo Declaration? Oniows 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes it is the same one, since the contents are identical. The 22 is believed as a typo since the same page also says 27. The document you shown is a photocopy of a world-time telegram to inform radio operator to broadcast the news. Of course there is no signature. It is like your emails. Does your email ever get signed by a human? (Telegram cannot include pictures like what we can do to email.) Even the text from wikisource says it is signed. The declaration was signed on 27 November and the communique is sent to all the radio operators which did not allowed them to be released before December 1.

If you have question on how telegram works, here is how. The operator send pulse signal and the other side recives through wireless link. The operator at the time needs to hear the signal by themself. The signal has long and short beep sound. The operator need to type what they hear by using typewriters. So a signature cannot be found anywhere on paper. (FAX machine, computer and scanner did not exist) Xplorer 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a communique

An official announcement resulting from a meeting or conference. The orginal of the word is French. Xplorer 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The detail of the Declaration is replaced by a Summary

To save space, summary instead of the entired text. Xplorer 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Section about the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands

I've commented out the section about the Senkaku islands because the text might be original research. The conclusion that the islands were not transferred to China by the Cairo Declaration is not supported by a citation and the Declaration also talks about giving lands taken by Japan before 1914 such as The Pescadores to China. Please discuss further instead of reverting again.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Although the Japanese central government formally annexed the islands on 14 January 1895,naming them the from Diaoyu Islands to Senkaku Islands, the Cairo Declaration does refer to this chain of islands because it stipulated clearly that "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed", which had no time restraint. Please keep the name which is known as "Diaoyu Islands" by Chinese and Taiwanese. 04:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands is the name used on the wikipedia page for those islands. It's the name we should use here. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1975, MiNr 2042.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

ROC Backtracking?

It appears that the government of Taiwan may have backed away from its previous reliance upon the Cairo Declaration:

“ The Tsai administration also announced changes to the school curriculum, under which the Cairo Declaration will no longer be taught in Taiwan’s schools as the canonical definition of Taiwan’s status. Predictably, this action met with outrage from Beijing and its allies inside Taiwan, who once again cited the Cairo Declaration and bitterly attacked the Tsai government’s decision. ”

Thim, Michael and Turton, Michael. “The Chinese Cult of Cairo and the Status of Taiwan”, The Diplomat (July 17, 2017).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

DPP rejects the document; KMT embraces the document. It depends on which party is in charge. Matt Smith (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Matt, do we have a reliable source saying what you just said? Happy New Year. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New year, Anythingyouwant. There are a number of Chinese reliable sources show DDP's rejecting the document out of its pro-independance position and KMT/CCP's severe criticism of it out of their pro-unification position. There are also a few English reliable sources show that. Matt Smith (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)