Talk:2010 Senkaku boat collision incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are the videos really okay to link?[edit]

As much as I personally would like to keep those videos linked, I'm not sure that we can. WP:EL says we can't link to any videos on video sharing sites unless the uploader clearly holds the copyright to the videos. Now, in the U.S., U.S. government docs are almost always considered to be in the public domain, but I don't believe that's true in Japan. Usually we err on the side of safety, and don't link to sites that may be copyright infringing just to be safe. Does anyone have any counter argument that shows that those videos are safe under WP:EL? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple uploads for each of these videos on youtube now. I suppose if the Japanese government launches a complain, youtube would take them down so the links will be dead anyway? The original uploader has been deleted the account (probably by the uploader himself, to avoid being traced by the government). I would think there may be issue if wiki upload and host these videos, but just linking to external websites should be okay? I have never heard of anyone got sured by providing a link, especially for non-profit organization.
BTW, this brings back a debated issue on the 'senkaku dispute' entry, where a map of Washington Times was uploaded on wiki, I still think wiki should provide a link instead of hosting that jpg file.San9663 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with San9663. Copyrights violation is an offense subject to prosecution only on complaint by a victim according to Japanese law. Admitting that the video clips are authentic to the one filmed by Coast Guard, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary said that Japanese government opened investigation only for breaking confidentiality imposed on national public officers. The video clips are so widely spread on the internet, but the government has never taken practical action to delete the files. If there is a concern that linking may be considered contributory copyright infringement, we can replace the links by files reproduced by news paper company such as [1] and [2]. Using copyrighted material without consent is allowed for news reporting purposes in Japan, and those two reproduced files above are copyrighted by the reliable news agency.--Tomo_suzuki ( talk ) 17:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need another edit-war[edit]

To Oda Mari: You'd better make tea, not edit-war please! STSC (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored and added ref to the information you removed. Please do not create a groundless/meaningless edit war anymore. Oda Mari (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, you're both edit warring. Can we please work out a compromise wording here, please? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"when the illegally operating Chinese trawler Minjinyu 5179 collided with Japanese Coast Guard's patrol boats near the Senkaku Islands of the Okinawa Prefecture in the territorial waters of Japan" - This statement is clearly not a NPOV on the disputed islands. STSC (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should complete translation first. The current article doesn't tell the whole story. It's a fact that Japan's decision to arrest them was based on this law 外国人漁業の規制に関する法律. Critics of the government decision to release the captain argue that the government bent the rule of law and due process. While the rule of law is loosely enforced in China, it's an absolute principle in Japan. And it's not just Japan, either. On March 05, the Korea Coast Guard caught ten Chinese fishermen for illegal fishing in Korean EEZ, but they violently resisted with axes and hammers. 2 Chinese fishing boats seized after violent resistance There was another similar conflict between Korea and China after the Senkaku incident. China claims Taiwan, the whole South China Sea, and even part of India as theirs. Can we really establish a NPOV??? If so, how? --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other events have nothing to do with this article. The NPOV question revolves around the issue of whether or not we can say that the fishing ship was "illegally" in that location, or whether or not we can say that the islands belong to Japan/Okinawa Prefecture. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian, then who controls the islands? Oda Mari (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost me, Qwyrxian. South Korea and other nations are irrelevant? Get serious, maritime security is the regional issue.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What he meant was that you are comparing Granny Smith apples with Golden delicious apples. Sure, both are apples, but they aren't the same. One happened in disputed waters between China and Japan, and another somewhere else in a completely different and irrelevant location. Just because both are maritime issues doesn't mean that you can affirm correlation between the two. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to give further clarification, what I meant is that, while those issues may be related in the real world, they have no bearing on our discussion here. Our job here is not to determine the meaning of the event, or to put the event in a larger conflict. Our only job is to figure out how to write a neutral, verified, encyclopedic article about the event. For example, neither China nor Japan dispute that that law is used to arrest people in Japanese territory; the dispute is that the Chinese government does not consider the water around the Senkaku Islands to be Japanese territory. Thus, the question here is, how do we represent the event given that ownership of the islands is disputed (no matter whose claim we think is actually "true")?Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of the title is questionable[edit]

As Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute, the neutrality of the title would be questionable when the title uses the Japanese name "Senkaku". STSC (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the boat collision did not happen on the disputed islands but on waters near them, perhaps a better title would be 2010 East China Sea boat collision incident. Quigley (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or "September 2010 Chinese fishing boat incident in East China Sea". STSC (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both names are too vague. Where in East China Sea? Neither the Japanese article nor the Chinese name are like that, and both includes the islands in the title.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English site here does not have to mirror the Chinese or Japanese site. From the title I suggested we should know which incident (as reported in the news in September 2010) so the location East China Sea should be enough. STSC (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that the collision occurred entirely due to the dispute over who has the right to be fishing in the waters around those islands. That is, this isn't a random collision that occurred in the middle of the ocean, it's a collision that occurred because both parties didn't believe the other party had the right to be where they were, due to the dispute of the island ownership; thus, it seems to me that it's the "2010 X Islands boat collision incident". What should X be? Well, as STSC is well aware, we are currently entering formal mediation to discuss and hopefully come to a consensus of the article title for Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. While it technically does not have to, it makes sense to me that whatever is decided at mediation there would also apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Oda Mari - I'm assuming good faith and not entering edit-war with you. You don't seem to understand what the POV-title template is for, and you removed it without valid reasons. STSC (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The POV-title tag is restored in line with other "Senkaku" articles. STSC (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary links to Japanese Wiki site[edit]

This is an English site primarily for English speakers, therefore, any "See also" link to Japanese site would be unnecessary within the article. STSC (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details on damage[edit]

If the sources are out there, details on the amount of damage done to the two Japanese ships as well as the Chinese trawler need to be added. I remember hearing somewhere that the damage to one of the Japanese ships was fairly extensive and was expensive to repair. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the detail of the damage is available. However there are sources describing the amount of money Japanese coast guard claimed to the Chinese captain. The repair expense is 5.31 million yen for Yonakuni, 7.08 million yen for Mizuki and other expences, a total of 14.29 million yen.
  • "(title in Japanese)" (in Japanese). Okinawa Times. February 11, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  • "(title in Japanese)" (in Japanese). Asahi.com. February 10, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)(Archived by Freezepage])
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xinhua News headline[edit]

This edit has been re-inserted a number of times, once by IP 132.239.10.116 and twice by User SummerRat, here and here (both incorrectly marked as minor edits). The edit in effect re-states, though less clearly, the immediately preceding sentence, The Senkaku islands are administered by Japan and claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, which is ref'd to WP:RS and not in dispute. The edit also falls foul of overlinking. It incorrectly uses the citation template to mis-attribute the article title, replacing it instead with a 'quote' from Xinhua News. From what I have seen elsewhere, the use of Xinhua News as a neutral source is considered problematic on Wikipedia. The best case scenario is that the editor in question has made a genuine error in applying a line of text from the article as the article title. Assuming good faith to it's elastic limit, I don't see what the edit adds to the article. I have previously raised my concerns regarding accuracy of the translation here and here. I suggest the edit be removed as both unhelpful and unnecessary for the reasons outlined. RashersTierney (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and undid the edit. The first sentence of the Background section says "The Senkaku islands are administered by Japan and claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China", and it's clear to readers that the PRC and the ROC do not recognize Japan's administration. If readers want to know more about it, they can jump to the dispute article. The addition is an unnecessary emphasis of the PRC and the ROC's position. It could be WP:UNDUE. See my talk page. I explained it to the editor, but it seems to me that he didn't listen. Oda Mari (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User SummerRat has already been warned by Qwyrxian for problematic editing on this topic. I've brought their current edit warring to the attention of Qwyrxian. RashersTierney (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original record of the spokesman's remarks: [3]. Anyone with sufficient Chinese proficiency can testify that what I translated is faithful. Would you mind informing me your concerns. Thanks. Wiki's content should be balanced. The term "administration" itself is biased. China and many other political entities do not recognize such an "administration" and Chinese law enforcement vessels have been conducting periodic administrative operations in the waters of Diaoyu Islands. Moreover, if you count the number of countries in the world that recognizes Japan's "administration", possibly you find out more countries formally deny Japan's "administration" claimed by itself than those do. To make views balanced, which is a principle of wiki (otherwise you can just bring every Japanese source up), adding a sentence to show China's view is justifiable. If such a sentence is deleted, people may wonder what's China's view towards Japan's "administration" and say China "acquiesces" to Japan's stance, which is a distorted partial picture mis-perceived by the general public, which Wikipedia strives to avoid. I am open to any constructive comment about the neutrality of my translation. If Wikipedia can do a good job on providing views from both sides, its popularity and recognition will surely increase dramatically, instead of being superseded by other encyclopedia websites. SummerRat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to reiterate my stance again. The sentence itself stating that "are administered by Japan" is biased, even with the clause "claimed by" following it. A more neutral way to state it would be "Japan claims that it administrates". Can I ask who agrees that Japan administers those islands? How many countries and which countries have this view? Or simply Japan and U.S. alone? If this view is not widely accepted by the international community, how can you say it's neutral? This sentence violates the neutrality. My edition is just a way to correct it. I disagree with User:Oda Mari's point that anyone who is interested in the issue can go into the dispute entry. The sentence itself is prejudiced. As probably it turns out now my translation is faithful but was repeatedly reverted by some users because they claim that it's "wildly translated", please think thrice, do more research, show facts before damaging Wikipedia's neutrality, open spirit.SummerRat (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My major concern for this article is that apparently most content is a mere translation from its Japanese entry, as has already been pointed out by some previous editors. Japanese sources nonetheless describes things in favor of Japan, either consciously or unconsciously. This article needs improvements. A distorted picture not only upsets Chinese contributors but also, more devastatingly, ruins Wikipedia's reputation.SummerRat (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's reputation rests on its core principles, one of which is WP:NPOV. If you are incapable of seeing that your edits are not addressing but creating problems in this regard, perhaps you should confine your editing to topics where you aren't being constantly 'upset' by 'distortion'. The Agence France-Presse source does not need 'counter-balancing' by your insertion of a Chinese government press release to make it neutral. Changing your source from the Xinhua News to the government press release (still with unaltered, incorrect title) has not addressed the problem in any way. RashersTierney (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the word 'administered' as it appears to be the root of this dispute and does not in fact appear in the reference. I hope this settles the matter and the contested subsequent sentence and 'reference' can now also be removed. RashersTierney (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your removal of "administered". Now the treatment of the sentence is neutral. The Agence France-Presse's original article does not include any sentence stating the islands are "administered" by Japan, either directly or by implication. The claim "administered" was introduced by its translator (possibly a Japanese editor) and violating WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, such a violation was ignored for a long time, this is what I, and many Chinese contributors, have been upset. Moreover, Agence France-Presse itself can be biased sometimes. I notice you mentioned that Xinhua News website, a portal news website by Xinhua News Agency, seems "unreliable" or "problematic". Xinhua is one of the biggest news agencies in the world (and possibly the largest in terms of employees). It's one of the most reliable news sources worldwide. Most of the Chinese news you hear from foreign news agencies (e.g., AP, Reuters, AFP) are provided by Xinhua. OTOH, I intended to put the sentence in some quotation field. I thought putting the sentence I want to cite in the title field is one way to cite. Otherwise, where to make the cited sentence stand out. This is what I see on some other wiki entries.SummerRat (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality of Xinhau News has been questioned several times at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which is why I provided a link to previous discussions. I removed the word 'administered' not because 'control of the islands' can't be referenced to a reliable source, such as this BBC article, but because it is unnecessary. The issue is comprehensively covered at the linked main article, Senkaku Islands dispute. Your edit, on the other hand, now attempts to answer an issue that hasn't even been raised. RashersTierney (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Administration""control". The word "control" (Chinese: 控制) is more neutral than "administration" (Chinese: 管辖). The undertone (Chinese: 潜台词、言外之意) of "control" is that the legitimacy might still be questionable. "Administration" as you may see in administration (government) or public administration suggests somewhat recognition or legitimacy. Do you say the Obama Administration or the Obama Control? Japan's claim of "administration" is dubious, scarcely recognized by the international community. Moreover, China has been conducting regular, periodic law enforcement cruises in waters around the disputed islands since last September, including expelling Japanese intruders. JCG is unable to keep Chinese law enforcement boats out. This is the evidence that Japan's "control" is even shaken now, which makes its claim "administration" faker. To take another instance, Taliban controlled 80%+ of the land of Afghanistan before 2001. But both China and U.S.A. recognized the Northern Alliance as the only legal government of Afghanistan. It would have been really weird (I don't believe) U.S. officially said most land of Afghanistan is "administered" by Taliban just because its legitimacy was in question. But it's likely you hear it's "controlled" by Taliban which sends out an undertone. Taking care of the nuance of word meanings is a basic requirement for Wiki editors, which highly relates to the accuracy and neutrality of the article. But I don't see this was respected here. Hope mixing them together by some editors is only a lack of knowledge instead of an intended biased act, cloaked in the pretense of defending WP:NPOV.SummerRat (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point, since neither word is used nor proposed, other than in your now redundant sentence. RashersTierney (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Senkaku Islands which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident. 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:

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) 23:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Senkaku_boat_collision_incident&oldid=1213064695"