Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobthefish2 (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 13 November 2010 (→Islands names and table). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is for discussion of the Senkaku Islands article; any discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands should be taken to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you for your cooperation.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Senkaku Islands was copied or moved into East China Sea with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Senkaku Islands was copied or moved into Senkaku Islands dispute with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan: Geography & environment High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 12:39, January 24, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Taiwan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Senkaku Islands was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 June 2008.

[REDACTED]

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Congressional Research Service: Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands Dispute: The US Legal Relationship and Obligations, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. ‌

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help: Japan China Taiwan The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Maps not in English

San9663 points out a problem here.

Questions remain unanswered about the hyperlinks which are part of the chart in the "Geography" section.

This thread is only a small first step towards resolving a few related issues in a relatively non-controversial aspect of our subject. --Tenmei (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is likely the longitude/latitude coordinates for the GIS links were wrong. Some were actually correct and quite precise. Google map also takes these coordinates. Google map also has a "link to" function (upper right corner) which gives you the link. e.g. this links to the peak in the main island. So perhaps we just have to enter the coordinates, fine tune it a bit, and do the link. I also suggest we use "maps.google.com" instead of the .cn or .jp subsites. San9663 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a bug in the "GSI" site. e.g. for Huangwei/Kubashima, I checked the Geohack link, which links through to google map with the same coordinate and it was correct.San9663 (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Which links have problems and which links are good? 222.166.181.245 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

One trivial aspect of this issue is easily resolved here. The citations with embedded links to Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI) and/or to Google maps are re-positioned in the "Japanese names" column. This edit diminishes the scope and value of these citations and links. As it is now configured, they verify only the shape of the island and the kanji version of the island name. Is this agreeable?

If it is deemed desirable, a set of Chinese maps can be associated with the cells in the "Chinese names" column?

If it is preferred, the cells in the "Coordinates" column can be populated with data from any source other than Geohack?

Does this represent a tentative, short-term plan which a consensus can accept? --Tenmei (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the fact that GSI is a Japanese site. It is only geographical information, not politics. The problem here is that the links were incorrect. I know google map coordinate is not precise. When I clicked into the GSI links, many points to the middle of the ocean, with a label Ishigaki somewhere in the corner of the map. I have to zoom out to see that it the label, Kubashima, Ishigaki. This is like showing a Maui map pointing to the ocean 10 miles away from island in question, with the label of Hawaii and you have to zoom out and move the map to see the island of Maui. (The confusion arises also because even in the Japanese perspective there are the island of ishigaki and the city of ishigaki -- I thought it referred to the Ishigaki Island at first but only later found that it was the latter) I am tempted to think the GSI data is more accurate than that of google map. Maybe you can do some 3rd site research and correct (/fine-tune) the coordinates if that is the case. I think if you can pinpoint the coordinate then the problem could be solved (that may mean slightly different coordinates between GSI and Geohack, as you suggested) San9663 (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick poll of involved users

Before taking this to the wider community with an RfC/RM (which we will certainly have to do eventually, as this will be contentious no matter what consensus we come to "locally"), I'd like a quick poll of what the involved editors believe the name of the article should be, given all of the searches, analysis, policy discussion, etc., that we've had so far. Senkaku Islands? Diaoyu Islands? Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands? Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands? Pinncale Islands? Something else? I certainly won't hold anyone to their response here (i.e., you can change later in the face of more evidence/arguments), but I am interested to see what you would do, assuming you were unilaterally making the decision (although, please try to decide based on the guidelines, not just "Name X because obviously Country Y owns the islands.")Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is easier to poll opinion if there is a 2 option choice. i.e. only 2 to choose from. So let's first do the poll of Existing Title (Senkaku) vs a neutral title (Senkaku/Diaoyu). It will be less contentious to put Senkaku first for now. We can leave the issue of S/D vs D/S for later.San9663 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

But others might prefer Pinnacle, for instance. The numerical results aren't really important, I'm just trying to get an idea if people think a switch is appropriate, and, if they do, what they think the appropriate English name is. Please note that if we do this, we're not going to do this in steps--that just results in increasing potential edit warring, not decreasing it. Also note that warring over the order is the explicit reason why guidelines recommend against dual names. If an RFC can't agree on the order, then we can't do the move to that (and will have to stay with Senkaku or go to Pinnacle). 04:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pinnacle or whatever also fine. I personally have no objection to Pinnacle either. But if there are more than 2 options to vote, once needs to be careful about how the research comparison is done (like what we have discussed before...do we count S vs D? or S+S/D+D/S vs D+S/D+D/S? and also in the voting...do we ask people to rank preference, or do we do a "vote out by elimination" (as in Olympic host city votes? sometimes, e.g., the choices are not mutually exclusive. IMHO, to resolve the dispute, and minimize future controversies, the more practical approach is to first vote or a choice between a "POV" (either Senkaku or Diaoyu) names vs a "Neutral name" (pinncle or S/D or D/s), then decide which name in the group it should be. Only 2 steps. San9663 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. The results of the vote are only out of my curiosity, to see what sort of local consensus we have. No decision of this type should be made on voting--per everything else on WP, it should be by consensus. Voting should only be a very last resort. And, in any event, no matter what we vote or decide here, this has to go before a wider community via WP:RfC or WP:RM anyway, so the vote is doubly irrelevant. The only real relevance of the vote would be that if we do have a fairly strong/stable consensus, then we could go straight to a WP:RM, but if we don't, we should probably start with a WP:RfC with wide canvassing (of the acceptable, neutral type, like at Wikiprojects). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, that sounds good as well. would be ideal if RfC can result in some consensus. San9663 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Analysis

Is it possible that a table format can be useful at this point? This Talking past each other 2 table summarizes one view of the current straw poll status. If any one of the cells does not accurately reflect the current views of "involved users", it is my mistake. Sorry. As needed, the table can be improved by timely edits. --Tenmei (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei, Can I suggest you start with direct quote from wiki policy first? San9663 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote? I'm not sure I understand.

If you wanted me to tweak the top left cell, I have done so.

If you wondered about broken links in the first column, they have been repaired. I don't know how broken links evolved at 1+2+3+4.

If there is something else, please explain again so that I can address any other inadvertent errors. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, opinions are again largely divided by culture of origin. There is no way we are resolving this without a RfC/mediation/arbitration. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say things like "culture of origin" - you're implying this has something to do with race. And as I've pointed out previously, arbitration isn't useful unless you're accusing someone here of disruptive editing. Arbitration only deals with behaviour, not article content. John Smith's (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. Opinions of territorial disputes between two nations are often divided significantly by this dimension. I did not say User:Qwyrxian or User:Tenmei are necessarily voting solely based on cultural allegiance nor did I say those who had a different opinion to them are not necessarily doing so. But the fact that the results of the vote so far appears to be split by such a criteria is still unsurprising. Given what we know of User:Winstonlighter, User:STSC, User:Oda Mari, and User:Phoenix7777, how they will vote on this (if ever) is almost certain.

My perspective on this is that there has been enough discussion regarding this matter to the point that any further debates will not further sway the opinion of anyone here. If User:Qwyrxian wouldn't mind, he and I can work on the details of a RfC post in the near future. Otherwise, I will type one up by myself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Each of my edits in Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are informed by care, research, judgment. These diffs withstand closer scrutiny -- even when I was simply wrong, like my mistake here.

In contrast, your diffs here and here are insufficiently risk averse.

In other words,

I am only one, but I am one.

I can not do everything, but I can do something.

I must not fail to do the something that I can do.

I can and do say "no" to guesses about so-called "culture of origin" or "cultural allegiance. It is practical and seemly for each of us to reject this house of cards. --Tenmei (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read my post again. I didn't accuse you of anything.

However, I'd like to add that the list of "contexts" you had on the table are so heavily biased (much like your previous table) that I am not even going to bother to correct. They appear to me as a set of policy-based questions that are almost designed to suggest a particular type of conclusion. Given the discussion between Qwyrxian, San9663, and I had regarding the issue, there are plenty of issues you have omitted and are definitely not representative of what was discussed. While I will still assume you are acting on good-will, please do keep in mind that I am not the only one who has had problems with your way of adding structure to a discussion. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for example the wiki principle is fine for me, though it said more than the two lines Tenmei quoted. I also think the 4 'contexts' of your quote do not reflect exactly what wiki principles say. e.g. the 'really really really' is nowhere to be found in wiki's principles. So i cannot agree to. San9663 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

San9663 -- Aha, I see. Why don't you click on the hyperlinks for 1+2+3+4. You will learn that each is a distilled summary proposed by Qwyrxian. The words are not mine, but each of these restatements seemed innocuous to me. Your comments show that you rejected the words without clicking on the hyperlink which would have clarified the issue.

This table may have failed in many ways, but it does succeed in proving my willingness to invest time and effort in bringing fine focus to the five points Qwyrxian tried to make a week ago here. -Tenmei (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate the willingness in spending efforts to help a discussion, but you also failed to bring focus to the points that San9663 or I have brought up. Unless your intention is to undermine our arguments, I don't think you have succeeded in actually organizing the points that have been brought up so far. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@Bobthefish2: I am in agreement that we are very near the need for an RfC. I am still hoping that others will chime in with their opinion on the straw poll--I think it will be helpful for new people coming to the discussion to see clearly what people's opinions are, and what supports those opinions (e.g., it's helpful to know if someone supports, say "Senkaku" because it "obviously" belongs to Japan, or because they believe that is the name most commonly used in English). If you want, how about starting to draft the RfC on a subpage in your userspace? I'd be happy to comment. I think we probably both/all agree that we need to make sure the RfC itself is phrased neutrally and briefly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer Qwyrxian to "distill" it himself. I do not think Tenmei's "distillation" correctly reflect what we have discussed. Let's just leave the job to Qwyrxian, can we? having said that, and as i said before, i am okay with the wiki guideline to start with. i guess this is something we can all agree to. San9663 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a few general comments are appropriate at this point:

A. YES, San9663 -- this table exists to help us identify something we can all agree to.

B. No, Bobthefish2 -- The "Talking past each other" tables are not designed to undermine any arguments put forward by anyone. The near-term objective for all of us is to join issues rather than avoiding them. This table presents hortatory statements proposed by Qwyrxian as starting points for a discussion which establishes aspects of common ground -- that is all.

C. No, Bobthefish2 -- This table does no way attempt to "organiz the points that have been brought up so far". It only offers 5 bland sentences which were effectively ignored and an general inquiry which is also irngored. The only function of the table is to move past the failure to acknowledge that Qwyrxian invited comment about a few simple sentences.

D. No, San9663 -- The "Talking past each other 2" table is not a summary of everything presented thus far in this talk page venue. That complaint is not a fair and reasonable assessment of the words which are emphasized in clickable, hyperlink blue. This spin is not helpful, not credible, not forward-looking.

E. No, Bobthefish2 -- The table is not highly biased because it offers no argument nor any point of view. It is in fact, nothing more or less than a conventional cell-format structure which elicits data to help us assess the current status of talk page discussions.

F. IMO, the blue, hyperlink, clickable propositions are arguably nothing more than bland restatements of relevant policy. These were explictly proposed for discussion by Qwyrxian. Each point remained unaddressed after the first "Talking past each other" table -- and this second "Talking past each other" table has elicited only scant feedback.

G. IMO, this table has now produced a couple of responses; and this becomes a good start.

H. IMO, the problem with this table is not in its cells, but in the strategic non-response which effectively thwarts a more direct engagement with issues.

This diff should not be construed as argumentative; rather, I hope it is understood as an attempt to parse issues relating to a process for consensus-building. This is a step towards addressing disagreement more directly and constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I mimic Qwyrxian's model here. I decline to pursue discussion about these table-related issues. A few mischaracterizations have been corrected; and these small problems might have been more distracting if left unchallenged. --Tenmei (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, there are a lot I would disagree with your "context" statements. e.g. you said "Policy says we really really really shouldn't use Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa." This is simply not the same as what the policy stated. Policy said we should try to choose one name, if that fails, policy says we could follow the examples such as Liancourt Rock, even if that is not as popular as the two other names. Your statement are not policy statement but you presented them as if they were. In your language, these statements are "not helpful" in achieving a consensus. San9663 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should simply ignore this table. As I said, the "contexts" he provided are basically designed to suggest a particular conclusion. It's like a prosecutor asking a series of choice and non-comprehensive questions in an attempt to portray a certain impression of a circumstance. There's a term for this philosophy, but I don't remember it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Change of Chinese name

User:Myheimu has changed the Chinese characters used in Diaoyu. Can one of our Chinese literate regulars confirm that the change is correct? It would surprise me to find out we've been wrong all along, but I have no way to tell one from the other in terms of accuracy. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's basically the same thing. He changed from "Diaoyu Islands" to "Diaoyu and associated islands". Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Collision incident section

I just re-read that section...does anyone else think it makes no sense? First, I don't believe that the collision "sparked new debate about natural gas drilling." Second, I don't have any idea what the latter part of that sentence is supposed to mean, about a "zero-sum game." I mean, I know what the term means, but I 1) don't see how it applies, and 2) don't see how using that term from the source helps the typical reader understand the incident. Wouldn't it make more sense to give some bare bones details (boats collide, Japanese hold the fisherman, China gets upset, Japanese release the fisherman)? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I was equally puzzled when I first read it. But since this entry is so controversial and I was wary of making new debate. I already raised the issue of a similar line in the lead section which we discussed a few weeks ago. I had thought it was some bad translation from Japanese which actually mean something. Now that you raise the issue, I agree we should just remove them, or do as you proposed in your final sentenec. San9663 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and make a change now, and I will absolutely do my level best to make it neutral, but I certainly welcome anyone else adjusting anything I don't get level. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

While you are at it, do you mind digging up who's actually responsible for the collision? I suspect the Chinese actually committed the offense, but the news sources I found were quite ambiguous about this issue. I'd say this belongs to the dispute page anyway...Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Who caused it? That depends on who you ask. If you believe the leaked video, well...it sure looks to me like the trawler drives directly into the Japanese boats twice, in spite of them attempting to evade. Of course, I'm no nautical expert. If you think the video was faked by the Japanese government (as the Chinese government has implied), then the matter is in doubt. Or, if you believe, as many Chinese netizens do, that the islands are all Chinese territory, then the Japanese are automatically at fault, because they shouldn't legally be there anyway. So....I just avoided the issue (as does the specific article). Hopefully at some point we'll get a non-Japanese, non-Chinese expert commenting on the videos to clarify what happened.

I edited the paragraph, sticking to bare facts. I didn't include the protests, because that just gets into too many complex details (which, as BtF2 points out, are better handled on the dispute page or the main page for the incident), and I didn't think i could make it neutral in just a few short words. I left one sentence uncited, because none of the cites on that other page really fit exactly. Anyone else is free to remove or cite it, although I'll try to look for something later if I remember. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that this caused diplomatic tensions to rise, but I'd prefer a good source, nonetheless. I definitely think we don't want to go beyond 1 paragraph, since the whole point is that we have a main article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it amounted to "disrupt diplomatic relationship". That would need to be something like calling back your ambassador. But even the recent call back of Japanese ambassador from Moscow wouldn't amount to that. So I changed the word into "disrupted official and non-official exchanges and activities". Please feel free to improve it. I guess we can also say "tension" has been raised.San9663 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: bobthefish's question. I think it is difficult to present the "cause" in wiki, even if all the videos will be released. To me it looks like the JCG tried to cut in front and block the trawler from fleeing, while the trawler tried to get away. If this is a normal traffic accident you may say JCG is at fault. But JCG viewed themselves as law enforcement and has the right of way and the right to demand obeidience. So it is back to the sovereignty issue. For simple traffic analysis there are some websites I found but I don't think wiki can take them as sources. San9663 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the Chinese boat rammed into the Japanese boat. But then again, I am not familiar with the physics of boat navigation. It could be as you've said. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bobthefish2, we should probably take this discussion off line, since our opinions do not count in wiki. :) but here are some of the HK newspaper reports and interviews with local maritime experts. I am sure Japanese sailors would say something different.San9663 (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the new phrasing as a more neutral word (at still matching the details). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Validity of Chinese name about Senkaku Islands

2channel and Futaba channel

This page has been linked from 2channel and the Futaba imageboard. I've seen a lot of related posts on 2chan recently, however they tend to 404 really quickly. -- 李博杰  | —Talk (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC) contribs email 06:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you give me the link where this page is referenced? Bobthefish2

That's bad news, although not that surprising. At least the page is already semi-protected. I suppose that if it starts to get worse, we can always request full protection. I hate to do that, since useful changes are being made to the article, as all of us "regulars" have been avoiding edit warring on the contentious stuff (although maybe that's because most of the really disputed stuff is going on at the dispute article, which is fully protected). And, while it seems unlikely, we do need to keep trying to bring them into the fold; on rare occasions, it should be possible to show a POV pusher how we work and what needs to be done. And if we don't try, that may escalate the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how 2channel and Futaba work, but maybe we can talk to their moderators and tell them to remind their users of Misplaced Pages policies? This will save a lot of work since you've already dealt with around half a dozen of these dudes recently. Bobthefish2 (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, you definitely don't know how 2chan works. I'm not a member (can't read Japanese), but take a look at 2channel. Not only do they not care about our policies, they don't even have the ability to police their own policies. Furthermore, they're 100% anonymous, and some subparts take active pride in being disruptive on other sites, particularly when it gives them an opportunity to push Japanese nationalism. I think that contacting them would actually make things worse, because they'd see that we're a target that can be effectively irritated. The better approach is to keep doing what we always do--cordially talk to newcomers, tell them about our policies, revert any policy-breaking edits they make, and, when they don't stop, get them blocked through 3RR, AIV, or whatever other venue seems necessary. Liancourt Rocks had the same kind of problems if I remember correctly, although those problems came from both 2chan and similar groups in South Korea. If things get really really bad (like they actually organize and start coming at the article in waves), we'll just have to go to full protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bobthefish2: On 2chan, pages immediately HTTP 404 once no one bumps them and they fall beyond page 10, or if they are deleted by janitors (in the event that a post is in violation of Japanese Law). You can't really have a solid URL link to a 2chan discussion as they appear and disappear every now and then. Also, mods on such boards seem to be in line with "freedom of speech, as long it isn't against Japanese Law" (and by that I mean certain types of pornography) - most don't really care about Misplaced Pages, it's not their job, and they don't fix what ain't broken to them. Going onto 2channel and making such a request would probably end up with multiple sages and a "not your personal army" reply.

@Qwyrxian: I don't think that this page will end up like Liancourt Rocks did. That article was essentially once an online battleground between VANK and 2ch, before the arbitration committee introduced the 1RR rule there. As far as I know, most Tianya and Mop users (the main source of online Fenqing) don't really care about Misplaced Pages (most Chinese use Baidu Baike anyway since Chinese Misplaced Pages is so lacking in content due to low contributor numbers), and most web-warrior Uyoku dantai only come in large packs once the trolls have already been fed. Hopefully my prediction is right. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

China is invading Senkaku Islands of Japan

China is naming a Chinese name without international permission in a Japanese territory of Senkaku Islands. Babochink (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for joining us. Do you have any new sources that help address this dispute? Please note that this article (and in more detail, Senkaku Islands dispute) contain sources that say that Japan owns the island, and sources that say that China owns the island. Please note that Misplaced Pages requires that we state what reliable sources say. If you have new reliable sources, we can discuss them. Finally, I removed the Youtube link--it doesn't help this discussion, and isn't reliable anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool username there, mind if I report you for WP:USERNAME violation? (바보 babo = moron, and chink is, well... obvious) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a coincidence or a case of sockpuppetry? Over the past week, we've had like 3-4 seemingly new Japanese users coming in and complaining about approximately the same issue (i.e. existence of a Chinese name for the islands). In fact, he reminds me of a certain person who was stalking you a while ago. Bobthefish2 (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Islands names and table

We've discussed this previously. As far as I could see there were no legitimate reasons given why in the previous discussion in the geography section there had to be a duplication of the Chinese name of the islands in the table header and in the image captions. We don't keep referring to the "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai islands" throughout the article, so why must this one section have the Chinese name - and just the Chinese name, not the Taiwanese or "English" (i.e. Pinnacle) names - in the header? There is no reason as far as I can see.

There's also the issue of the ordering of the names in the table, but I haven't played around with this as it involves a bit of care that I don't have time for now. John Smith's (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010
Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith's in this diff. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you to discuss the changes you are about to make in this talk page before making them. I don't believe the naming and name-ordering discussions resulted in an agreement that is consistent to the nature of your recent changes. And of course, as a reputable Misplaced Pages editor, you would probably understand how WP:BRD works unless you don't plan to follow it.

While nothing can prevent you from continuing the subtle acts of POV-pushing (such as removal of Chinese names), I'd much rather you to be at least somewhat constructive and willing to work with the rest of us here. Do you think you can do that? Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And as an experienced editor (if we're going to play the "civil incivility game"), you should know that WP:BRD doesnt' apply here. WP:BRD is a useful essay, but itself points out that it isn't applicable in all situations. The question is whether or not the 1) there is consensus to have the names there, and 2) whether or not that consensus is based on policy. My argument would be that as long as this article continues to be named "Senkaku Islands," the Chinese, Taiwanese, and English names should be mentioned only once. You accuse John Smith of subtle POV pushing, but he could just as easily accuse you of the same: why are you "subtly" trying to exclude the Taiwanese names? My point isn't to accuse you of POV pushing, but to point out that it's a useless claim here even if it were true, because whatever set of names we choose will support one POV or other--there literally is no neutral name here. And, while I don't recall exactly which of the policies/guidelines it's in, we're supposed to try to stick with one name throughout the article, mentioning alternates only when we need to to discuss the dispute. Otherwise it's just very confusing. So I would argue that, so long as we call this "Senkaku Islands," we keep only the Japanese names except in 1) the lead, where we list the island group's names in all relevant languages, 2) in the table, where we list all of the different names for the individual islands in each language, and 3) anywhere a direct quote uses another name. If we switch the article title, I suppose it will end up depending on what it's switched to. Which, as a side note points out a possible problem: are there English names for the individual islands? If not, that's a definite strike against Pinnacle Islands. Finally , Bobthefish2, I really think that it will benefit us to talk about the edits, not the editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2010

Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of Qwyrxian in this diff. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I do admit I have a habit of playing the "civil incivility game" if I personally consider an editor to be a persistent pest who has little interest in promoting objectivity. While I do admire the patience and generosity you allocate for obviously disruptive elements, it is a quality that I don't have.

Your mock allegation of my anti-Taiwanese POV-pushing, it is in fact inapplicable. The reason being the negligible difference, the correspondence to identical Chinese words, and a virtual lack of organized Taiwanese-style Chinese->English phonetic translation system. However, I do understand the point you are illustrating.

I agree that there is technically no such thing of "true objectivity", but the degree of neutrality of a decision is not binary. In a scenario where intense dispute is involved, common sense may suggest a dual name is more neutral than a single name.

I disagree with your comment on WP:BRD because this particular issue definitely does not have consensus. If I had to go through this shit load of crap (and with no objection from you or any other editor) just to get rid of an obvious misuse of the Remin Ribao article, I don't see why others get a free-ride on something much more ambiguous.

Anyway, let's hear what others have to say about the naming issue. I don't have a position on the name-ordering. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I'm willing to discuss anything - but it was previously discussed. I didn't sense that there were any remaining objections, but I decided to leave it for a while as there were a lot of other matters that needed addressing. I'm sorry if you found discussing something else stressful, but it wouldn't be appropriate to throw up objections to my edits because of that.

We can see if anyone else has a view, but if not perhaps we can revise this section per my previous suggestions (and without putting words in his mouth, I think Qwyrxian was leaning more towards my position). Then we can focus on the summary section. John Smith's (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I found discussing something else frustrating notably due to the degree of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:LAWYER exercised by you and a few others. If my edits were allowed to be subjected to the same procedural hurdles, I don't see why your edits should be exempted from that.

As to the naming, I agree that a dual name should not occur everywhere. But I believe at least some of us agreed, in a previous discussion, on using "neutral" terms in place of the names whenever appropriate. Examples would include "disputed islands" or "islands" instead of "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". I recall you protested against that idea but then there were also others who accepted it.

In addition, I advocate the figure captions should have dual names if the figures are simply photographs of some geographic formation. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not relevant to the discussion here. The implication of what you said is that because you're unhappy you're going to refuse to cooperate. I hope that's not the case. Where there is a disagreement between editors and policy doesn't help, it is appropriate to look at something like WP:BOLD. But as Qwyrxian said, that doesn't apply here. And as I've observed earlier, there didn't seem to be any outstanding objections when I made the edit.

You asked for some extra comments, and we've had Tenmei chip in now. Does this mean that I can go ahead and edit?

If the names are listed in the table, I don't see why dual names are necessary. John Smith's (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have an article name, you are allowed to use it - you can't censor it because some people were unhappy they failed to get the name changed. I do like to use alternative references to articles aren't filed with "article name........article name.......article name" every few lines.

I am afraid you've misunderstood my intents. I simply was using the same arguments that were used to scrutinize my previous edits. Since I rode through those procedures as a cooperative editor, I'd don't see why anyone else should not be subjected to them at similarly applicable situations. After all, the protocols existed to ensure the validity of the edits in question (which I demonstrated in my cases). While I am now simply trying to ensure these same standards to apply equally to everyone, it appears such an effort is now considered as uncooperative because the author of those edits is now someone from an different opinion bloc.

Qwyrxian's opinion of WP:BOLD's seems somewhat weird. The WP:BRD:page specifically listed some conditions of use:

Two factions are engaged in an edit war

Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached

Active discussion is not producing results

Your view differs significantly from a vocal majority on an emotionally loaded subject

And interestingly enough, this is a recent enforcement by Qwyrxian.

If you want to play wikilawyer as with this

"If you have an article name, you are allowed to use it - you can't censor it because some people were unhappy they failed to get the name changed...".

... then I can also quote following

"Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For more examples, some of them involving changes within the twentieth century, see below."

... and argue that I can change all pre-1900 references to "Diaoyu" on the grounds that "Senkaku Islands" did not exist as a term before 1900. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One of Bobthefish2's phrases deserves repeating:

To help locate Bobthefish2's words in context, these words are highlighted above in blue with a hyperlink to the original diff at 02:40, 11 November 2010. If there is any objection to this non-word edit, please let me know. Please feel free to delete the hyperlink if it is unwelcome.

I have a question: Is this a well-known saying that is simply unknown to me, or is this only an example of words which surprised me? --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a quote from anyone, but the idea is not original.

Territorial dispute

This section needs some serious work. It should summarise the basic positions, not have some meaningless statements with weasel words ("some" is used twice in one sentence). John Smith's (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You are somewhat right. I think that when the article got split, we didn't do a good job of preserving a summary here. At this point, if I knew little to nothing abou the islands (i.e., if I were a new reader), I doubt that I would understand what this section means. However, as far as summarizing, it would have to be extremely briefly--that's why we have the other article.. I'll take a look at it later today if I have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just rewrote the section from scratch by summarizing and consolidating what seemed to me to be the key of the issues from Senkaku Islands dispute. I don't have the mental focus and patience at the moment to source it, but since everything I wrote (except for the last paragraph) is based directly of the other article, it should be relatively easy to just copy and paste references. Plus, I figured if anyone objected to my writing (as always, I tried to be neutral, but no one's perfect), I didn't want to bring over sources if they were going to be erased. If anyone else wants to source it for me, that's fine; otherwise, I'll work on it later tonight or, more likely, tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In our Wikipeida framework, Qwyrxian's otherwise reasonable approach is rejected by WP:NOR and WP:Synthesis. Moreover, the text proposed by Qwyrxian is an object lesson which demonstrates the value and prescience of these policies.

The "summary argument" excludes and re-frames the indispensable context and perspective; and this creates unintended consequences. In a sense, the core problem here replicates the discussion threads which focused exclusively on the introduction at Senkaku Islands dispute.

The restored sentences are not meaningless. Please note that the word "some" is edited out in response to John Smith's comments.

An English idiom accurately applies to the analysis of John Smith's and the revision suggested by Qwyrxian. Do you know the phrase "throw out the baby with the bath water"? --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't cite a single article as reflective of the Chinese media and another as the international press. You would need an independent, very reliable and respected source to make an overview like that. John Smith's (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a three different responses. First, the easy one: John which article or part are you referring to? I'm not sure if you mean the part I added or the part that Tenmei re-added. For my part, I certainly didn't intend to add only 1 citation--I was going to pull over at least 4-5, if not more, from the other article.

Next: Tenmei, please identify any place where I have violated WP:NOR or WP:SYN. I know for a fact that I did not do so intentionally, and I am almost 100% certain I did not do so unintentionally. Perhaps you misunderstand WP:NOR, and the summary style. If so, no worries, as it's currently undergoing massive concerns at about 17 different locations, due to recently discovered problems relating to plagiarism, copyright violation, some Arbcom members, and a fundamental misuse of the terms involved. To summarize (!), summarizing sources is not original research. Combining 2 sources together is synthesis only when those combined sources advocate a point neither one makes. However, I believe that the paragraph I added states only facts and the explicitly stated opinions of each government. It is, of course, possible that in my drive to summarize I did go a little too far (my biggest concern would be the sentence/paragraph explaining the Japanese position, which should probably be a couple of sentences longer, just to make sure each claim is independently sourced. Finally, please don't confuse the lack of citations with original research. Everything I wrote is citable, straight out of Senkaku Islands dispute. I just didn't do it then because I wanted to fulfill my word and get a first draft up yesterday, knowing that the sources could be easily added later (i.e., today). Not having a citation is a violation of WP:RS, or, if no citation could possibly exist, WP:V. That's not the same thing as WP:OR.

Third: I have a lot of problems with the re-added text. But there's one that dominates: it simply doesn't belong in this article. The whole point behind having two articles (the "Main" tag) is that this article must contain only a bare-bones, factual summary (as such, it may be correct to remove the final sentence I added about economic issues). All of the details, including the "analysis", must go in the other article. So before I go forward trying to propose fixes to the problems (which, in brief, are that the section absolutely doesn't make sense and what does make sense is in the wrong tone and far more appropriate for a political science or philosophy journal than an encyclopedia), I would rather first see if there is consensus to remove it entirely. Then at the dispute article people can debate about whether that information can be including and how. But I don't see it serving a proper purpose here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, John Smith's -- point taken.

In response to a constructive critical comment, the subheading was changed from "Context and perspective to "Overview and perspective." Is this better?

Also in response, two related edits: (a) adding a dynamic list template; and (b) tweaking both format and wording of illustrative examples of disagreements about the causes of the dispute. The phrase "disparate perspectives" is a succinct characterization. Is this better? --Tenmei (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Qwyrxian -- I think I understand. At this point, nothing more needs to be added to my response to John Smith's. --Tenmei (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's worse now, because it's longer. I think the whole thing needs to be removed. I do like that you attributed the opinions, but my point is that they don't belong in this article at all--if they belong anywhere, it's at Senkaku Islands dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The dispute page exists for a reason. All we need is something like "The sovereignty of these islands is currently under dispute. Japan, People's Republic of China, and Republic of China have all laid claim on this territory.". Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we have a "Dispute" entry already, I agree this one should be kept at minimalistic and outline the broad introduction only, say, at most around 5 sentences. I would simply save the first two paragraphs about China(and Taiwan)'s position, and Japan's counter-argument (which should really be that Japan considers this is separate from Shimonoseki, hence Chinese argument voided). The a line saying this leads to many disputes and events ever since 1972 when US included it in the Okinawa package. The "perspective" section is probably not needed here (or be moved to the 'dispute' item)San9663 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the diff which started this thread: Is it possible that John Smith's frames an unhelpful proposition with unintended consequences? John Smith's argued that the article's "Territorial disputes" section "should summarise the basic positions." Qwyrxian accepted the premise and the ensuing problems are the unwanted result. Bobthefish2 and San9663 assent. In this straw poll agreement, two premises remain problematic.

• The Japanese government rejects the phrase "territorial dispute" as controversial; and even the Choson Ilbo in Seoul acknowledges the implications in print.
• Our shared experience on this talk page at at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute demonstrates why we must reject the reductionist premise of "basic positions" which can be summarized succinctly. The hypothesis is unworkable, impractical, etc.

On the other hand,

• Yes, I can readily agree with John Smith's observation that sentences I posted may need "serious work;" but it bears repeating that we need not "throw out the baby with the bath water."
• Yes, an explanatory context is needed for the headnote link to Senkaku Islands dispute.

The edited text addresses both aspects of improving this article. Please consider how a "borders" section might be edited in order to flows more naturally from the "Geography" section. I know you will not hesitate to edit this text in order to make it more readable, more understandable, etc.

The Senkaku Islands dispute article is structured in two parts:

1. A bilateral disagreement with a beginning, pro- and con- arguments, and tangential aspects
2. A chronology of bilateral relations and independent developments

The Senkaku Islands article is an appropriate place for anything else which helps the reader understand this subject. --Tenmei (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's much easier to simply comment there is a dispute in sovereignty. For interested parties, they'd still want to click the link to the dispute page anyway. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Japan-related articles
• High-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• B-Class Taiwan articles
• High-importance Taiwan articles
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Japan
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in China
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Taiwan