Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Pinnacle Islands

A discussion thread about changing the name from Senkaku Islands to Pinnacle Islands reached no consensus at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Requested move. The name change was suggested in hopes of mitigating aspects of the long-standing territorial dispute, but other points of view were also persuasively presented. --Tenmei (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Rare earth metals

どうぞ:

Quote: "Industry observers said a ban on exports of rare earth minerals to Japan remain, despite Chinese officials’ insistence that they had never stopped shipments... Separately, Chinese customs officials continued to prohibit all exports of rare earth minerals to Japan over the weekend, industry officials said, but the Chinese government showed signs of taking a more conciliatory stance toward Japan... Chinese Commerce Minister Chen Deming (陳德銘) suggested instead in a television interview on Sept. 26 that Chinese entrepreneurs in the rare earth industry might have halted shipments because of their own feelings toward Japan... Thirty-two companies in China have export licenses for rare earth minerals, and 10 of them are foreign. Chen did not address why the 10 foreign companies would have strong feelings toward Japan, or why all companies in the Chinese industry halted shipments on the same day, Sept. 21." Would it be possible that the point earlier removed regarding the export ban be added again, but reworded to take into account this newer information? Yes, China denies such export bans from taking place, but that doesn't explain why rare earth metals aren't making their way into Japan. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this shouldn't go into the article, not because of source, but because of WP:RECENTISM. The blocking of rare earth metals just isn't part of the "long term" story of the Senkaku Island dispute. If the issue is ongoing, it may be part of the greater Japan-China relations story, but it's only tangentially connected to disputed ownership of the Islands. In fact, I would argue that a lot of the recent history section should be simplified and summarized; right now it's not so important, but I'm hoping that once we can get past the more fundamental problems, that we can convert the timeline chronology into prose per normal article style. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is too early to explain the 'rare earth' controversy. maybe we could simply quote the publicly known facts, e.g. rumour and china's officially denial (including from Wen). as to Lee's question of explanation, there are many plausible explanation for why the export was delayed, eg, it could be due to a general delay in all exports. see this FYI (not for the wiki though) http://agmetalminer.com/2010/10/01/clarifying-western-media-accounts-of-%E2%80%9Cchina-rare-earth-metal-ban%E2%80%9D/ San9663 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No, my point is that even if China actually stopped the rare earth shipments, it was because of Japan holding one of their citizens (for what Japan said are legal reasons and China says were not). Thus, it's not about it being too early, it's that it doesn't belong in the article at all. It only seems related and important because it's so recent. That information could be discussed, maybe, in Japan-China relations, but it isn't closely enough connected to the Islands dispute to belong here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds ok for me. Note that even in the original NYT report, it mentioned blocking of unprocessed rare earth oxides, salt and pure metals. "Semi-processed alloys" were explicitly described as "not blocked". This adds doubts to whether this is something effective (and hence intentional). The more likely explanation seems to be there are poeple who tried to capitalize on this opportunity in metal price speculation, either the business owner in China or those trying to raise fund to mine in US.San9663 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Title of this article

Personally, I think both articles should continue to use the name "Senkaku Island". Just as a quick search, Google News pulls up over 1000 hits on "Senkaku Islands," including Japanese, U.S., and international sites. On a number of the non-Japanese sites, the name Senkaku is even used without any mention of the other 2 names "Pinnacle Islands" finds only 32 hits, only 3 of which appear to be about these islands and all of which list Pinnacle Islands after the Japanese and Chinese names. Now, searches like that are only a starting point, but the fact that the results are so lopsided is a good indication of a starting point. The next question would be which name is commonly used in international reference books, like other encyclopedias, academic journals (if their are any), and atlases/maps.

The only reason I can see to change the name would be if a large proportion of the international, English sources regularly used both names, and especially if they used them with a slash between them. In that case, we could say that since the English name is widely held to be disputed, but for Wikipedia we have to choose one name, we'll use the less common but neutral "Pinnacle Islands" name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Google search does not take into the fact that multiple spelling would refer to the same name in its original language, eg, you need to add up the search results for diaoyu/diaoyutai/tiaoyu/tiaoyutai. Nonetheless, I do not understand why one can use Liancourt for one case and not use Pinnacle for the other. I am sure Liancourt turns up in google much less frequently than either Takeshima or Dokdo. If use are going to use Senkaku here, there is no reason not to use Dokdo for the other. San9663 (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the governing guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). The primary question is, is there a widely used English name (note that this doesn't mean it needs to be an English word, and it may be identical to the local word--for example, we use the words Paris and Berlin, even though those aren't "English"). So, we would have to ask whether or not Pinnacle Islands is widely used. We can see that, at least in a Google News search, it is not. Even looking at an archive search, with "Pinnacle Islands" in quotation marks, I only get 15 hits, and all mentions of that follow mention of either Senkaku Islands or Senkaku Islands and some version of the Chinese spelling. So we definitely shouldn't choose Pinnacle Islands as the standard English term, because that term simply isn't used regularly in English (at least in newspapers searched by Google News; I'd like to see some other results from other places as well).
However, as I mentioned above, there is another reason why we might use Pinnacle Islands. If anyone really wants to get into the issue, I recommend reading the entire archive history of Liancourt Rocks. Well, no, I take that back, I don't recommend anyone put themselves through so much pain. But, once upon a time, I did read the whole debate (I wasn't an active editor at the time of the main debate), and the dispute there boiled down to this (in very very brief summary): 1) the islands themselves, were hardly ever mentioned in English, because the truth is that the English speaking world really didn't care very much about the Rocks except to report recent clashes over ownership. 2) In almost all cases that the islands were mentioned, both Dokdo/Tokto (the Korean name) and Takeshima were named, with no particular preference for either. 3) As such, it was shown that there really was no "standard" English name. 4) Edit warring over the name was very aggressive, involved external canvassing, and non-stop (except when protection was applied). As such, it was decided (and consensus still holds) that since there was no standard English name, and choosing either of the local names was bound to continue the edit warring, the English name was chosen as the suboptimal-but-at-least-neutral 3rd option.
So, in this case, here's my summary of the issue for this article:
  1. We need to determine if any of the three names is regularly used in English more than any other, by a substantial enough margin. When doing such an analysis, we need to be careful to "ignore" counts where the article says something like "Senkaku islands, or, as known in Chinese, Diayou", since those give no information either way. We also have to account for alternate spellings in Chinese, but again, if one article says "Diayou/Taiyou/etc.", that's still only 1 mention.
  2. If Pinnacle islands is regularly used more than any other, we should almost certainly choose that name. This matches the precedent for something like Florence, even though the local name is "Firenze".
  3. If either Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu is regularly used more than any other name, by a large, substantial margin, we should probably choose that name. Note that this matches the precedent for Sea of Japan.
  4. If Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu is used more often, but not by a large margin, or if the names are used approximately equally, we should discuss the issue, but probably go with Pinnacle Islands, in keeping with the Liancourt Rocks precedent.
Of course, no matter what we choose, we leave redirects at all of the other names. Furthermore, we make both articles conform internally to the name chosen for the article title (this is mentioned in the above referenced guideline). Does this seem like a good framing of the discussion? Does anyone want to object to the process before we actually start make observations? I would really rather establish a consensus if we can, because the problem is that if we can't, we'll eventually end up at ArbCom (like, say, with the issues surrounding Ireland). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a big deal to me. But it just looks totally strange compared with the Liancout/dokdo/dokto/takeshima entry. It seems you are suggesting the fact that the final compromise of liancourt is just because there were too much edit warring, while the pro-neutral (or non-pro-japan) editors here are too civilized to do that. This seems a weird reason (though a plausible explanation) and sort of look like an unfair wiki phenomenon. San9663 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a little unclear; the edit-warring was actually a result, not the cause, of the underlying problem--no one could establish, definitively, whether Dokdo or Takeshima was more common in English (despite lots of painful arguing about statistical analysis, search terms, etc.). So, either they were actually used about equally in English, or editors were just unable to get a solid "proof" of which one was more common. As a result, it was almost logical for the partisans to continue to push for their own name, because each side had "evidence" that their name was more common. However, the reason why I think we don't need to do that here is that I believe that, in English articles/books/etc., the term actually used is Senkaku Islands, not a mix of the two. However, if someone could show me that that isn't the case, then we could look to alternative approaches. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I believe Diaoyu and Diaoyutai are both quite commonly used in English sites and documents. Try doing a search in major search engines. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The title should not be decided just by a simple "google it". Wikipedia has very detailed guidelines on using the search engines as to what hits are acceptable and what hits are not. I would also point out that across Asia except Japan, the term "Senkaku Islands" is almost unknown but Diaoyutai is instantly recognisable. STSC (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean a simple search; this is why I started with Google News (current and archive) search, and meant it only as a start. We want to know what reliable sources use, not what joe random blogger (who's undoubtedly partisan one way or the other) uses. I'm particularly interested in what English maps and encyclopedias use. As to your (STSC's) comment about "across Asia", I have to issues: 1) How did you determine that one is almost unknown while the other is "instantly recognizable"? Do you have any evidence for that? I don't doubt that you believe it to be true, but, of course, we need actual evidence. 2) When you said "across Asia," did you mean "across Asia in English-language media?" Because, as far as en.wiki is concerned, only the English name matters when choosing the title. This is exactly like how our article on the city in Italy is called Florence, despite the fact that the local (Italian) name is Firenze (which redirects to Florence). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to copy and paste this over to Talk:Senkaku Islands#Controversy and Request for change of name. I think it makes more sense to discuss this over there, since that's the "main" article, and theoretically the one that would acquire more eyes. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge

This article is seemingly intended to be a split of Senkaku islands rather than a new article. The original article doesn't seem to be long enough but anyway, please use a proper way to discuss a split. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Yes, this is intended as a sub-article of Senkaku Islands — addressing issues relating to the territorial dispute in detail while leaving the main article to develop in a non-controversial context.
This stub was explicitly created as a constructive response to Nihonjoe's comment here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Senkaku Islands Content Split/Removal and in the context of Talk:Senkaku Islands#Discussion Regarding Content Split/Removal.
In corollary discussion threads, DXDanl suggested something promising. One phrase particularly deserves emphasis. The words imply a neutral tactic which can be adapted for use in other disputes which have not yet arisen:
"... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not."
IMO, DXDanl identifies a step in a constructive direction; and I responded by posting this headnote hyperlink in the territorial dispute section of the article.
Main article: Senkaku Islands dispute
Something constructive can be achieved by refining the focus of attention. This article "jump-starts" a process of parsing conflated issues. :In addition, I see that this tactic has been used at Liancourt Rocks dispute and Spratly Islands dispute.
In language Winstonlighter used here, this article is merited as a plausible tactic to diffuse "nationalistic-driven warring" and to avert some of the harm caused by discussion threads which only "end up in a dead loop." --Tenmei (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment I'll get to this by Friday if no one else starts moving contents before then. I'm just working long hours this week, hence few edits. So far more people have concurred to the split; see WikiProject Japan's Talk Page, WikiProject China's Talk Page, and WikiProject Taiwan's Talk Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DXDanl (talk • contribs) 08:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the disputed sections and the undisputed sections of the original wiki item (diaoyu/senkaku as a geographic location) needs to be separated within the item, so that reader can more easily identify the facts related to the item. but i do not think that necessarily means that a separate new item should be created, such that none of the information remain in the original item. San9663 (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer a completely new article under the neutral title 'the Pinnacle Islands dispute' with a new structure; and it should break free from hijacking by the pro-Japanese editors as seen in the original article. STSC (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This split is fairly common, including for other issues in this area. See, for example, Liancourt Rocks and Liancourt Rocks dispute, or, for a naming dispute, see Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute.
As for the title, I do think it's about time we had a discussion about the title of both articles. First, I think it's very clear that both have to have the same name--anything else flies in the face of common sense. As for which title it should have... Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of Qwyrxian in this diff --Tenmei (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Also known as the x dispute"

I couldn't find any major newsoutlet - or indeed any notable sites - that use the terminology "Pinnacle Islands dispute", so I removed it. People can read on the alternative name for the islands on its main page. Also, is the dispute commonly known as the "Diaoyutai Islands dispute" in many places? John Smith's (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If people want to keep the alternate names, the sensible thing is to refer to the title of the article, link to the islands page and then have the alternative names in brackets. I've tried to impliment this. John Smith's (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith's in this diff --Tenmei (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No, since this is a controversial entry and the names are part of the controversy. They should be displayed side by side. Pushing for one name and hiding the other names are POV. Indeed, it is known by "Diaoyutai dispute" or even Diaoyudao dispute in many places. Even in NYT and CNN the names are listed side by side or with a slash. San9663 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, it is a thinly-veiled act of POV pushing for favouring the naming of one side -> WP:WRW. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The article previously said "also known as the ......... dispute". I could not find any news outlets that used the terminology "Pinnacle Islands dispute". Whether you like the name "senkaku" or not is irrelevant. You can't invent terms like "pinnacle islands dispute" if it's not in common use. John Smith's (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I said. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to revolve the "title/principal name controversy"

There has always been controversy as to whether this entry (and the related geography entry, where I also posted this note tosolocit feedback) should be named senkaku or diaoyu or pinnacles, or senkaku/diaoyu or diaoyutai/senkaku, etc. One way to resolve the controversy is to rely on some external and neutral verdict. Unfortunately there is no ICJ ruling yet, while many editors here pointed to google.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_590598.html Recently, there is a dispute filed on google earth, and the verdict is not out yet (link above). Can we agree to use whatever name google will finally decide on? i.e. if it will drop the "diaoyu" name and call it "senkaku" alone that is what this entry will be named, and if it decides to call it senkaku/diaoyu then this entry should be named so.

None of us knows how google will decide at this moment, so if we could agree on this before the verdict is out, this should be NPOV decision. San9663 (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion over on the other page (Senkaku Islands), otherwise we'll have to respond in both places. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dubious addition

I removed this edit by Bobthefish2. Becasue the images used in ref pages are not relevant to the 10/02 protest. For instance, the third image is cleary not the 10/02 protest. You can see the sign says "天皇制もヤスクニもいらない". It means "We don't need the Imperial system nor Yasukuni". The name of the right wing group is "義進？？会". See the third image. They are not the conservative groups joined in the 10/02 protest. There's no signs which say "Senkaku" or "anti-China" in any of the images in ref. pages. All images look like a different protest. Four of the ref. pages the user used are in Chinese. And this one has nothing to do with Senkaku. The user's addition consisted of several pieces of information with dubious ref. pages and misleading. Please do not use Chinese news as source when there are sources in English. I also reverted this edit. Because Okinawa is is considered a synonym of Ryukyu. See Ryukyu Islands. Oda Mari (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to first discuss your disagreements before reverting someone else's work. I often do that before I delete other people's work and I expect the same from you. Now, I've reverted your reverts and I'd like the contents to stay until we've talked this through.
Now, here are some points:
(1) The date I put in my entry was October, 2010 and not October 2, 2010.
(2) There are many Japanese protests regarding this matter since the start of October, 2010.
(3) The reference pages are news reports and the images posted are presumably snapshots of the events. It is not necessary for photos with "Senkaku Islands" as a slogan to be included. If you happen to question the authenticities of the photos, then that's a different matter for a different discussion.
(4) If you happen to think any of the protesting groups are not right-winged at all, then we can change their labels to... say "political groups"
(5) If you happen to think some of the slogans in the figures are significant but not included, then they can be added
(6) Chinese news sources are often more informative in East Asian matters and thus equivalents are not necessarily existent in say... Globe and Mail, BBC, or other Western media.
(7) The article about nuclear weapon referenced Okinawa, which it is what the Japanese considered as the prefecture that encompassed "Senkaku Islands". You can delude yourself into thinking it is independent of the events relating to the islands.
(8) The Remin Ribao article talked about Ryukyu Islands (琉球諸島) and not Okinawa Prefecture (沖縄県). And of course, here's a quote from the Ryukyu Islands: "The islands are administratively divided into the Satsunan Islands to the north, belonging to Kagoshima Prefecture, and Ryūkyū Shotō to the south, belonging to Okinawa Prefecture, Japan".
Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit again, on principle. Please read WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. If another editor reverts your edit, do not make the edit again without getting consensus. Otherwise you are edit warring and may be blocked. Please discuss the issue with other editors until there is agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't really care if you cite WP:BRD and WP:BOLD. They aren't required procedures and aren't the only ways of keeping things in order. However, if you feel that strongly about leaving my content deleted until the end of discussion - fine, I'll be a gentleman and leave it this way for now... Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the description itself is unnecessary even if it is properly cited. (Although I agree with Oda Mari) There is already a description about the anti-Chinese protest. "2 October 2010: Large scale anti-Chinese protests occurred in Tokyo and six other cities in Japan". The addition is only intended to make a bad impressions of Japanese by bringing up nazi-era swastika irrelevant to this dispute. Historical events section is already cluttered with so many trivial events. There is no reason to further clutter this section with the trivial event.
As for the Ryukyu and Okinawa issue, please see the source.
"To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan."
It unambiguously states Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) twice. Please refrain from insisting the original research. Even if Ryukyu Islands include a part of Kagoshima, it depends on the context of the story. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
These events are relevant to this dispute because they constitute the reaction of certain population groups towards the dispute at one point. If they portray the Japanese in a negative way, then it is not intended, as the sources I cited are legitimate and were simply reporting observations. Again, if you have any concerns about their reliability, then that's a different matter and I would expect some good research to be done to defend such allegations.
Your other point ties directly to one of the reverts you've done in which you've failed to justify. To reiterate, the Japanese source cited is definitely mis-interpreting the Remin Ribao article because this is what the Remin Ribao article said:
"琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛."
which translates to:
"Ryukyu Islands are distributed between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛."
For the rest of the article, Okinawa was only mentioned as Okinawa Islands (which is different to Okinawa Prefecture). Since you are Japanese and thus are familiar with Chinese characters, I trust you can validate that yourself. If not, then you can ask Chinese editors like Winstonlighter or San9663 to confirm.
In the future, I'd appreciate it if you would get to know the context of an argument before butting your head in. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm the literal translation is correct. To be more precise, literally, it reads, ""Ryukyu Islands are scattered on the sea between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's Kyushu's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛."". To reach a compromise, maybe one solution is to quote the exact lines printed and let the readers to interpret? San9663 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think two of those islands are not even a part of Okinawa. The paper, if you've seen the complete, original edition, was referring to the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands and why the native population (formerly the Ryuku Kingdom, which also spans more than Okinawa) was protesting against U.S. military operations. We probably have an academic author who couldn't read his primary source and didn't check with English sources either. Sigh.99.99.146.104 (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese news source was clearly forged by the Chinese media. As Oda Mari pointed out, the placards in this picture say "We need neither the Imperial system nor Yasukuni" and "demolish Yasukuni" in front of Mizuho Bank Kudan branch[1] near the Yasukuni Shrine. This picture was taken in front of ニュー九段ビル (New Kudan Building)[2] near the Yasukuni Shrine. The demonstration is held by the left-wing organization "Yasukuni Shrine Demolition Enterprise" on August 15 every year. The extreme right-wing activists were not participating in the demonstration but protesting it. This picture shows the policemen are surrounding the activist to prevent him assault the demonstration.

How does the demonstration holding the placards saying "We need neither the Imperial system nor Yasukuni" and "demolish Yasukuni" near the Yasukuni Shrine become the anti-Chinese demonstration? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We saw these pictures in a few places (the guys in blue 'uniform' with nazi emblem on the right arm and Japanese flag on the left) in Chinese media recently, but not in Main Stream Media as I can recall. If they are indeed from another protest at another time, I suggest you guys (or someone) document them and put the analysis in some website or blog, e.g. annotate each picture with its actual location to show that they were indeed taken on the same day (of another protest). IMHO (if you guys are right) rumours like these do not help the peace between the two countries or understanding between the two people. （this site has a lot more pictures -- http://www.maoflag.net/?action-viewthread-tid-1469202） San9663 (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I also did a detective work. This ref. Bobthefish2 used says "According to...BBC in Chinese..." and this is the BBC page. BBC doesn't use the images of men in dark blue uniform. BBC images are similar to those of the WSJ and CNN used. Where are the images of men in dark blue uniform from? I found out where two of the images were taken. See the third image. You can see "MIZUHO みずほ銀行". The name of the building is Kudan Fuji Building (九段富士ビル). See[3] and [4]. See the second image. You can see "ニュー九段ビル" at the top right. It's the name of the building. See [5], [6] and [7]. See also the map that there are a bridge and an elevated express way. Kudan is the place where Yasukuni shrine lies and Shibuya is not a neighboring area. The images used by Chinese media indicate Kudan and Yasukuni. They are definitely not the images of the 10/02 protest at Shibuya, Aoyama, and Harajyuku. They were probably taken on August 15. Because I found an image of one of the right wing men. See the third image. I phoned Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department Public Security Bureau and was told the Shibuya protest was the only one rally in Tokyo on October 2 and there was no protests at Kudan on that day. The Chinese news Bobthefish2 used as the ref. are clealy a good example of fabricated anti-Japan propaganda news reports. Bobthefish2, why did you use them as the sources, instead of using BBC? Please answer my question. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If you can prove beyond a doubt that these are definitely not pictures of protests that occurred in October 2010, then I will agree that the swastika part and associated references can be taken off.
I am also a bit puzzled that the source cited BBC, but then it also didn't say the pictures had to come from BBC. According to a few other pictures I've seen elsewhere, there are people with similar uniforms in protest pictures from other sources. Whether or not they are of the same group is not something I can verify. The pictures that you alleged to be forged can be found everywhere on the internet. Even a few major Chinese news outlet (i.e. TVB) used them in their reports.
By the way, you still have not replied to the rest of the issues I've pointed out. I know you are angry about the pictures (whether they be real or not), but they are only one of the contested issues. If you have such a conviction to call your local police department, then certainly you can applied the same for other disputed elements... say whether or not you've erred in the choice of your own sources regarding the Remin Ribao article. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Oda San, It is no use pointing fingers. We saw mis-use of photos from CNN in the past. Exaggeration and wrong photos have been seen in many main stream media. Someone told me that they saw these photos from certain major TV stations in Hong Kong. So I do think Bobthefish actually believed what he read. The fault should be with the reporter or the manager of that website if what you said is true. We still do not have a clear cut conclusion yet. What we need to establish is whether this is indeed fabricated. I think the more useful evidence, if you can find, should be the report where these photos were originally published, Aug 15 near Yasukuni you said? There must be reports then. It should not be too difficult to locate if you search the .jp domains? since some of you have suggested the date and occasion. (BTW, They seem to be wearing a lot considering the temperature in August) San9663 (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we even saw much worse forms of reference misuse by him and company in this very page. But now, he suddenly thinks its a sin when another editor innocently cited sources that he alleged to be dubious. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Answers to Bobthefish2's points.
(1) This Chinese source clearly says, "...日本幾個右翼組織周六（10月2日）在全國多個城市發起了一個叫作“譴責中國侵略尖閣諸島全國國民統一行動”的示威。", it's October 2.
(2) Yes, but the main topic of the news was the 10/02 protest at Shibuya in the Chinese source. There's no details about other protests regarding Senkaku from October 1.
(3) This article is about Senkaku. Images of Yasukuni protesters and that right-winged group are inappropriate. I don't understand why China news review use irrelevant images in the protest at Shibuya. As for cnwest, the article says "...东京有约有800人参加集会，他们手持日本国旗...", but nobody holds up the flag of Japan in the images. The problem is the images are irrelevant to the protest at Shibuya article.
(4) I do not know exactly who they are. A right-winged group, maybe. But they are not protesting Senkaku.
(5) I don't understand what you mean. They are not the Senkaku protest images.
(6) I don't think so. Western media is more neutral and more reliable on this kind of news.
(7) Ishihara is a talkative old man. He is a governor and he doesn't take part in the conduct of State affairs. And he talks about national defense. It's a trivia.
(8) See this. Page 82 and 154.
I'm not angry. I am laughing at the Chinese propaganda. And I'm not pointing fingers. I created this thread and wrote why I thought the sources were dubious, but Bobthefish2 didn't post his claims before restoring his edit. So I was curious and wondered why did he think the sources were reliable. If anyone of you thinks the Chinese sources and their images are reliable, please refute my points and prove the sources are telling the truth. Oda Mari (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
(1) Alright, if it is October 2, then can you tell me what "在全國多個城市" means? I am willing to give you the benefit of doubting the authenticity of these images, but can you prove to me that these pictures do not belong to any of the protests in those 多個城市? If my memory serves, some articles claimed there are more than 10 cities that had protests.
(2) I don't see any contradictions.
(3) Considering the size of these articles, I highly doubt it is necessary to have images accompanied with each and every sentence. Now, let's see...
This article wrote "东京有约有800人参加集会". Picture showing all 800 people? No.
This article wrote "除了東京以外，周六在名古屋也有集會". Picture of 名古屋's 集會? No.
This article wrote "這次行動是由「加油日本、全國行動委員會」、「草莽全國地方議員會」、「日本李登輝之友會」、「台灣研究論壇」四個組織合作主辦". Picture of 「加油日本、全國行動委員會」、「草莽全國地方議員會」、「日本李登輝之友會」、「台灣研究論壇」? No.
Now, let's take a look at BBC's article...
This article wrote "东京有约有800人参加集会". Picture showing all 800 people? No.
This article wrote "除了東京以外，周六在名古屋也有集會". Picture of 名古屋's 集會? No.
This article wrote "這次行動是由「加油日本、全國行動委員會」、「草莽全國地方議員會」、「日本李登輝之友會」、「台灣研究論壇」四個組織合作主辦". Picture of 「加油日本、全國行動委員會」、「草莽全國地方議員會」、「日本李登輝之友會」、「台灣研究論壇」? No.
(4) Again, you'll have to prove your point. I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, but you know how these things work right?
(5) Again, you'll have to prove your point. I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, but you know how these things work right?
(6) This, you are definitely wrong, especially when it comes to news that involve countries that the West do not like.
(7) It doesn't change what he said.
(8) Your persistence on this matter escapes my comprehension, since this matter has little room for further disagreement. But since you still somehow are unable to understand the issue, here's a very very simple summary:
Remin Ribao figure said the disputed land was part of Ryukyu islands
Remin Ribao figure did not say the disputed land was part of Okinawa islands
Ryukyu islands != Okinawa Prefecture
I hope I don't need the repeat myself further.
Now, as to your link... I hope you can realize that whatever it said would not change the contents of the Remin Ribao article.
At the same time, if you want to reinforce your argument with the Remin Ribao article based on the interpretation of the contents of that link, then you are engaging in a different form of activity... namely committing this horrible sin of WP:SYN that you so adamantly wanted me to educate myself about. However, to respond to this irrelevant point of your's, my comment would be to look up the date of Ryukyu Island's annexation and the end of the first Sino-Japanese War.
To respond to your last comment, I'd remind you that contents of these reports are widely distributed. I saw very similar things on TVB and a few other relatively prominent Chinese news outlet. If you provide good evidence to prove that they are fake, then I will agree with you (as stated earlier). After all, I am a reasonable and fair person who doesn't selectively turn off my sense of logic for the sake of winning an argument.
With that said, I hope you will not forget that the swastika phrase is only a small part of what you've deleted. This is what you've removed:
A rise of extreme right sentiment was reported following the release of the Chinese boat captain. Disaffected Japanese citizens were spotted assaulting the Chinese consulate in Japan with smoke bombs, intimidating Chinese tourists, shouting xenophobic slogans, and wearing nazi-era swastika. Right-wing Japanese politicians also called for the development of nuclear weapons as a defense against China. Thus far, you haven't convinced me that the rest of these known matters warrant deletion. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In view of the challenges regarding the photos of the swatiska sign, for the moment can we change it to this -- "A rise of extreme right sentiment (better called irredentism in the right wing?) was reported following the release of the Chinese boat captain. Disaffected Japanese citizens were spotted assaulting the Chinese consulate in Japan with smoke bombs, intimidating Chinese tourists, shouting xenophobic slogans. Right-wing Japanese politicians SUCH AS ISHIHARA also called for the development of nuclear weapons as a defense against China". If needed, can also add that the Japanese government has tried to maintain order and this is by no means the act of the majority of the people in Japan or something to that effect. San9663 (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. If the swastika photos are indeed artifacts, then we can simply remove the phrase "wearing nazi-era swastikas" and keep everything else. However, your proposed last sentence should not be added, since "by no means the act of the majority" violated WP:SYN unless a newspaper article explicitly said that and "government tried to maintain order" is basically a given. On the other hand, "orderly protests" can be used since it was already mentioned in some articles. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason that Chinese sources are unreliable and inappropriate and should not be used is simply because they use irrelevant images in their article. The men in dark blue uniform with swastika do not protest China, but they protest and obstruct the left-winged people's demonstration against the emperor system and Yasukuni. I think I proved it in my past posts above. I do not know about other cities' protest. If you have doubts about the images, it's you to prove they are not the images of Shibuya as I did to the images used by Chinese sources. The assault of the Chinese consulate and the obstruction to buses with Chinese tourists are facts. But they are separate protests. If you wanted to put them into the article, you should have treated them separately with separate entries. But IMHO, this is not an article about Senkaku protests and Wikipedia is not a news story. Putting all the protests in the events is not appropriate. It would make the events list endlessly long. So the consulate and the bus incidents should not be included. "Right-wing Japanese politicians" ? Who? I cannot find other politicians' name in the source. Please do not modify the content of the source. Again, this is a trivia. Japanese government do not think and talk about having atomic bombs. The images the WSJ, CNN, and BBC are similar. Why do you you think the Chinese sources use images of different kind? I still don't know why you choose China Review News over BBC. The article body is the same, CRN omitted the last paragraph of BBC article though. The difference between two articles is the headline and the images. CRN's headline is "Japanese right-wing's anti-China demonstrators showed the Nazi symbol". As I wrote above, the men in uniform are not anti-China demonstrators. The headline is totally wrong. Western sources are reliable third party sources regarding the 10/02 Shibuya protest. China is not. If you think those Western sources are not reliable, you prove first they are not. And this is en Wikipedia. Sources in English is more preferable. The comments above are the answers to your questions regarding the Chinese sources. As for Okinawa, I simply thought your remove was meaningless. That's all. If you cannot accept my points, ask other editors whether the Chinese sources are reliable or not at here. Oda Mari (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'd necessarily contest your belief on the photos, but that still doesn't convincingly argue that the images did not take place in one of the protests. Repeating yourself over and over again on things other have already suggested is unproductive and makes things circular. I respect your devotion to your people, but we need evidence. As San9663 and I suggested, go find instances of those images that occur before October 2010. If you managed to locate one instance of that, then that's convincing evidence.
To reply to your second point, disputes and reactions are commonly occur in the same page. Try to look up pages on other disputes. There's a reason that these things are found together...
Whether or not protests and reactions should be included in the historical events section is up for debate. These elements definitely belong to this page but they can also be relocated to "Japanese Reaction" and "Chinese Reaction". On the other hand, if we relocate these mentionings to separate categories, we lose the benefit of listing them together in a single time-line.
The atomic-weapon article mentioned one politician. I guess you'd want that to be changed to singular? That's fine.
I didn't say Western sources are necessarily unreliable, but I named examples to show you that they (i.e. CNN, BBC) are known to doctor images in their articles occasionally. And of course, this is simply in response to your generalization that Western media are more reliable than Asian media. It's a simple point that's very easy to understand.
I deleted the reference to the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa because it was non-existent in the reference figure. I don't see why it is meaningless... except in the sense that you may pretend you didn't see my points and proceed to re-introduce the reference to Okinawa again (which, sadly, seems to be quite plausible).
Anyhow, there's a purpose for me to suddenly add in a paragraph that contains contents that are obviously do not portray the Japanese in a positive light. While whatever I added are not necessarily wrong or unfounded, this does allow an opportunity to observe how certain editors would react. Would they assess the contents objectively or would they ferociously contest certain issues while utilizing a lazy standard of logic for others? From the numerous exchanges that have already occurred, the results of this is clear. While I certainly do not expect pro-Japanese editors to share my sentiment (especially given what I saw), I do hope there are others (especially those whose attempts of achieving neutrality were frequently frustrated by reverts/edits that border on vandalism quality) that can clearly see the degree of double standards being applied. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've only followed this in passing, but if the Chinese article uses pictures that do not match the event, then the source is not reliable. We can't engage in OR in the article, but we can use OR to determine if a source is reliable or not--in fact, that's what we do all the time. When we say "That paper isn't reliable because they routinely print biased content without regard to facts" or "That website isn't reliable because there is no fact checking and any "reporter" can write anything they want," well, that's OR. We don't need a source to prove that something is not reliable--we need an editorial judgment. I don't understand how a source that takes a picture from one event and attributes it to can be considered a reliable source. But it seems like Bobthefish2 is confusing what OR means--our work in judging what goes into an article isn't OR; it's the things in the article itself can't be OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, I recommend you to re-read my comments. There are numerous elements that Oda Mari contested and the photos are only one of them. I referenced OR for the Remin Ribao issue and not the photos issue. 'This discussion will not go anywhere if one group of people decide to consistently ignore and misread contents that do not serve their POV. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is not a textbook of mathematics and the sentence is not a mathematical equation. An author has a privilege to insert his/her own interpretation in the parenthesis. If Okinawa is important in the context (actually it is) and Kagoshima is not, then the author will ignore Kagoshima and insert Okinawa inside the parenthesis. See all these books using "Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa)". [8][9][10][11][12][13]
May I add these books as a references to the sentence?
Insisting the "exactly the same definition" is your original research and a nonsense. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't make a difference at all. Here, let me copy and paste what I said some posts ago:
Remin Ribao figure said the disputed land was part of Ryukyu islands
Remin Ribao figure did not say the disputed land was part of Okinawa islands
Ryukyu islands != Okinawa Prefecture
Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the nazi sign photos, I tried to search with key words such as "right wing, japan, nazi" in Chinese websites for dates prior to Sep 30 2010 and found nothing. So it is quite likely these pictures are authentic, and are not borrowed from some previous events -- unless someone took those pictures in the past and have been hiding them, and waited till October this year to release. San9663 (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Introductory section controlled and administered by Japan since 1895??

This isn't quite right, is it? Between 1945 and 1972 it was not. San9663 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase which was questioned is now re-worded. Also, please note that inline citations from a reliable source are restored. An overview published by the Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS) is useful in establishing context. These few sentences are intended to anchor the introductory section as a neutral, non-controversial context. The inline hyperlinks offer balanced restatements of contrasting points of view. --Tenmei (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Further edits by San9663 introduced controversial statements in the scrupulously neutral introduction. These edits were mitigated somewhat by Qwyrxian here; and I endorse the moderate views expressed in that edit summary.

There is no objection to the citation supported sentences which San9663 added -- only to their positioning in this crucial section?

My tentative strategy is to emphasize a neutral exposition in this section while re-locating any and all controversial sentences within the context of an identified non-neutral argumentative section?

Does this seem likely to help us move towards consensus? If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I tagged them because the actual sources are primary--first-hand letters authored by Japanese and Chinese government representatives. They were compiled by the U.N. and later the NILOS publisher, but they're still primary sources and shouldn't be used for synthesis.DXDanl (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
DXDanl -- I don't understand; or perhaps I disagree in this context only. If I am wrong, please help me discover what I have misunderstood.

In this introduction section, the disputants are identified with links to non-neutral, overview statements (or arguments) by each government. As a starting point for examining the dispute which has evolved over the course of decades, these explicit sources would seem best -- not disfavored as they might be in another context?

Yes? If not, why not?--Tenmei (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I had no opinion regarding the current intro. Maybe I should have added my comment elsewhere ... but I just wanted to explain why I tagged reference number 1 and 3, in case anyone was wondering; I'm not sure who removed those tags. I looked the sources up, and all I know for now is that they're primary sources. Using them usually constitutes original research. There are probably equivalent, if not better, secondary sources, perhaps even a few in the main article on the islands? Otherwise, please continue with your original discussion.DXDanl (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Clarification per Tenmei's request I don't remember how the article looked when I placed the tags. It simply felt strange that primary sources were used when there should be secondary sources readily available serving the same purposes. Primary sources are under greater scrutiny lest editors make original research out of them. Sometimes they might be okay. But were they preferred to secondary sources for any particular reasons?DXDanl (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this section should try to be neutral. So let's start with something we can all agreed to. In the original description it seems to be biased to the Japanese POV. i.e. "the world started in 1885 or 1895". So either we defer everything which may be POV-related to the dispute section, or just list all the "facts" side by side -- which means start with the general acknowledged facts since 1500s or 1600s. Or qualify claims with the word "claim" -- which was what I tried to do. I think either way would work. San9663 (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It now said that, "Japan asserts that, notwithstanding the years of American oversight, these small islands are effectively controlled and administered as part of Japan." I know there is some source, and I usually have no objection as long as one is clear in identifying 'assert/claim' from 'agreed facts'. but it must be an extremely controversial assertion. How can it be "effectively controlled and administered by Japan" if it is at the same time "effectively controlled and administered by US" and we know there has not been shared administration. The NLOS source is entirely a letter from the Japanese Representative to the UN. I would move this to Japan's argument. San9663 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "neutral"?

We cannot accept the set of nested premises in San9663 diffs here and here.

San9663 agrees "that this section should try to be neutral"; however, the related edits in the article are over-reaching.

The timely comments in this thread do help to explain the rationale which informed San9663's decision-making.

One sentence is pivotal — San9663 proposes, "So let's start with something we can all agree to."

This definition of "neutral" needs tweaking. San9663 version here offers only a Chinese restatement of this dispute, and it is supported only by Chinese published statements. The bold revision is unbalanced.

The restored four sentences may not be best, but they are defensible.

A. Several non-argumentatives or declarative sentences explain the dispute from the perspective of each of the disputants. In other words, the neutral goal is to simply state:

(a) this is the PRC point of view as explained by the PRC + citation support = NILOS appendix, PRC summary presented to UN
(b) this is the ROC position as defined by the ROC + citation support = IBRU text citing ROC official record
Sentence #1: The Senkaku Islands dispute, also known as the Diaoyutai Islands dispute or the Pinnacle Islands dispute concerns a group of uninhabited islands which have been claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) since 1971.
(c) this is the Japanese analysis as presented by Japan + citation support = NILOS appendix, Japanese summary presented to UN
Sentence #3: Japan asserts that, notwithstanding the years of American oversight, these small islands are effectively controlled and administered as part of Japan.

B. The quibble about the years of American occupation is a non-issue or a red herring, but acknowledging others who may similarly fixate on this aspect of the 20th century history of the islands, a short sentence is included + [citation needed]

Sentence #2: The United States occupied the Senkaku islands from 1945 to 1972.

C. In light of some of the simplistic claims which are encompassed in the chronology which was imported from Senkaku Islands, a mild overview sentence summarizes the complexities in the history, issues and consequences as sketched in a presumptively neutral reliable source + citation support = recent New York Times news story

Sentence #4: The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.

Is this detail of explanation necessary? --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I inserted the phrase "controlled by Japan" and claimed by PRC/ROC. So that the current situation is well described and factual. But you reverted it and made the paragraph contain only PRC/ROC claim! If you want to include the controversial Japanese assertion that it controlled the islands in 1945-1972, which is just beyond any logic, there are many assertions such as the PRC claims that it controlled it all those time before 1895. Otherwise, NILOS view should just say, PRC claims it and Japan also claims it. This would be neutral. San9663 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Parsing argument content — acknowledging categories of constructive comments:
* Refuting the Central Point
* Refutation
* Counterargument
____________
Identifying remarks which are unhelpful:
* Contradiction
* Responding to Tone
* Ad Hominem
San9663's edit here was reverted because it is non-neutral. In other words,
This "undo" edit is consistent with the very explicit explanation above. San9663's diff above was primarily contradiction. It is non-responsive; as was the reverted edit. In other words,
The graphic chart at the right informs and illustrates my thinking in this context.
For redundant emphasis, this very narrowly drawn thread focuses exclusively on the content of the initial section -- not the broader and more prickly subject of this article. I construe this thread to be addressing four related sentences. --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Tenmei, I will file a complain if you keep reverting even reasonable edits. This is the last warning. (1) IF you are proposing this is Japn POV, it should belong to the Japan POV section. (2) The beginning introdcution should be only objective mention of a list of facts. San9663 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Please try again. Your sentences are only premises or propositions without supporting follow-up. They comprise a set of undemonstrated hypotheticals. In other words,
There are only four sentences in the introduction. Perhaps it will help if you re-visit these elements of the introduction collectively and then serially? --Tenmei (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the analysis is good. Here are a few points that I agree or disagree:
- Neutrality != something that everyones agrees with. A correct term for that would be consensus.
- The PRC and ROC claim seems misleading in this summary sentence. The sentence The Senkaku Islands dispute, also known as the Diaoyutai Islands dispute or the Pinnacle Islands dispute concerns a group of uninhabited islands which have been claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) since 1971. can be interpreted as "the islands never belonged to China but PRC and ROC decided to claim it starting at 1971". Since the "1971 issue" is already addressed in the Japanese arguments section and that the Chinese have their own disagreements with the Japanese arguments in their own arguments section, I'd say "since 1971" should be deleted. This is as per the rationale of some of the Japanese editors who removed some of San9663's other edits. On the other hand, we can also make this more fair and have the "1971" reference for both the Chinese and Japanese... like The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a group of uninhabited islands, the Senkaku Islands (also known as the "Diaoyutai" and "Pinnacle" Islands), controlled and administered by Japan since 1971 and claimed by both the People's Republic of China[1] and the Republic of China (Taiwan) since 1971. I think that's also a very fair solution.
- The phrase Japan asserts that, notwithstanding the years of American oversight, these small islands are effectively controlled and administered as part of Japan. appears to be rather awkward because it is definitely a Japanese argument but the introduction is devoid of any Chinese argument. Since you said "(San9663's) definition of "neutral" needs tweaking. San9663 version here offers only a Chinese restatement of this dispute, and it is supported only by Chinese published statements.", I'd assume the existence of this phrase in the introduction also suffers from the same issue.
- "The quibble about the years of American occupation" is not a non-issue because its end led to this dispute. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 -- IMO, this diff is a constructive, helpful, thought-provoking.

Please edit your counterargument bullets by adding "A+B+C+D" or "1+2+3+4". Can you see how this helps focus responsive engagement with your several points? --Tenmei (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

saying "A asserts B" belongs to the "POV" section which we have later on. That is what this section is for. IN the introduction, only facts (undisputed) should be presented. Please revert or re-edit. Otherwise it will be done by someone else, and you will try to revert again. I could have done so but I really want to avoid an edit war. Just something that does not require the "assert" word. E.g. a simple list of what happened in 1600-1895, then 1895-1945, 1945-1972, 1972-today, in cold, NPOV narrative. San9663 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I find the structure unnecessary. Anyhow, I've made my arguments. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 -- Thank you for presenting four thoughtful arguments. The first bullet requires an extended response because of its implications and consequences in disputes which have not yet arisen in the development of this article. As for the other bulleted points you address:
¶2 -- Yes. I endorse your neutral analysis and proposed resolution.
¶3 -- No, but this can wait.
¶4 -- No, but this can wait.
Thank you for demonstrating a useful model of effective refutation and counterargument. --Tenmei (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Parsing neutrality and consensus

Representing Neutrality=Consensus in three intersecting spheres?
Blue shows
  POV of ROC?
Green shows
  POV of PRC?
Red shows
  POV of Japan?

Bobthefish2's four-part analysis provides a helpful framework. The beginning is a non-confrontational wiki-mantra:

"Neutrality != something that everyones agrees with. A correct term for that would be consensus."

In other words, Neutrality=Consensus. In general, this restatement presents a good rule of thumb, and I interpret serial statements posted by San9663 as suggesting a similar point-of view. My guess is that this rule of thumb may be construed as equally applicable at Senkaku Islands and at Senkaku Islands dispute. However, the objective purpose of these two related articles is necessarily different.

In the period before these articles were split, DXDanl suggested a salutary goal:

"... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not."

In the service of this objective, the introduction of the dispute article takes on a unique role — explaining what is being disputed. That role necessarily requires three quite different restaments:

Independently, any one of these would be inconsistent with Bobthefish2's formulation of equivalence in Neutrality=Consensus; however, taken together serially in the context established by some kind of overview (consistent with WP:V), no one of these is inappropriate or dispensable in the introduction to Senkaku Islands dispute — rather, each is essential for establishing a foundation for the further development of the article [4]

In other words, neutrality in the context of an introduction to an article about a dispute requires each disputant's POV to be presented as an introduction. --Tenmei (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

the introduction line "The controversial diplomatic issues....l considerations and consequences"

"The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences".

Someone put this line there, I removed it with a note but someone reverted it again without discussing.

Does anyone understand what this line really mean? To me it seems there is really no information added, a string of abstract words and of course we know any dispute is complex and political/diplomatic/economic, and the topic of the source is not even about the islands. In the source, there is nowhere to find this line. So it is also unverifiable.San9663 (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the island. The Chinese have never landed the island. Hence, the Japanese built some facilities before and other histrical facts show that there is no doubt about the island belong to Japan. The discovery of oil changed Chinese attitude towards this small island. That's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.30.18.218 (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, ignoring the soapboxing from the IP...I do understand the line, and I think you do to, because you have the gist of it in your response. As for whether or not it should be in the article...I don't see in the history easily where you took it out; where was it? If it was in the lead, it could stay, as lead statements don't need to be explicitly referenced as long as the rest of the article explains the idea, and I think this article quite clearly shows that the ownership of the islands is complex and has lots of consequences. But, on the other hand, it's not really necessary, so I don't (personally) mind it staying out, either. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
It is the 3rd sentence from the beginning of this entry. I did not touch it, in case someone is working hard in reverting everything I did, even for things like this which clearly has no POV twist. :) It is still there. So if you agree that it should go or the source should go, please go ahead and do it. I touched it once a few days ago and I am not going to do it again myself. San9663 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
1. The creation of this new section here is a disingenuous strategy -- not a mistake. It attempts to contrive a straw man and a red herring.
2. The diff here is dishonest -- that is, its core is false, known to be false, and presented with the intention of convincing the reader that the premise or propositions or hypotheticals are not false. The hortatory encouragement in WP:AGF does not require pretense in the setting which San9663 initiates.
2.1. Fact: The core of this sentence was supported by an inline citation when it was posted as part of the earliest draft of this dispute article
The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex range of political considerations and consequences.<:ref>Wong, Edward. "China Focuses on Territorial Issues as It Equates Tibet to U.S. Civil War," New York Times. November 13, 2009.</ref> -- see New York Times text excerpt:
"Part of the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party lies in the notion, rightly or wrongly held, that it ousted foreign influence from the country and has tried to reunite fragments of China to return the boundaries of the modern nation to roughly those of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) at its height ....
"In most respects, the People’s Republic of China, of course, inherits the fixed boundaries of its predecessor nation-state, the Republic of China, which declared as its territorial boundaries what had been mostly the messy frontiers of the Qing empire ....
"'Messy' is the operative word here. In the age of empires, there were no hard and fast borders ..., [t]he seat of empire had its sphere of influence, radiating outward, with tributary states occupying the borderlands but rarely being governed in the same way as regions within a modern nation today.
"Trying to define national borders along the contours of an old empire is a daunting task ....
"... in dealing with its neighbors on territorial issues, China has in the recent past generally sought to settle conflicts through negotiation, scholars say.
"Since 1949, it has resolved 17 of 23 border disputes, offering concessions in 15 of those instances and, over all, receiving less than half of the contested territory ....
"China’s maritime disputes have proven harder to settle than those on land. In the resource-rich seas to its east and south, China is trying to assert control of various islands — most notably the Spratly, Paracel and Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands — that are also claimed in whole or in part by other Asian countries ...."
2.2. Fact: On the next day after the article stub was created, the economic aspect of the array of complex issues was made explicit here.
2.3. Fact: The intended purpose of this sentence in the introduction was expressly presented in a non-confrontational context which invited further inquiry and discussion here at What is "neutral"?
"... In light of some of the simplistic claims which are encompassed in the chronology which was imported from Senkaku Islands, a mild overview sentence summarizes the complexities in the history, issues and consequences as sketched in a presumptively neutral reliable source + citation support = recent New York Times news story ...."
2.4. Fraud What euphemism would be better in this instance? San9663 posted, "Someone put this line there, I removed it with a note but someone reverted it again without discussing." The edit history is inconsistent with this false statement:
2.4.1. San9663 removes sentence here, 17:19, 13 October 2010 with edit summary: This line is very generic and doesn't tell us anything about the dispute at all.
2.4.2. Tenmei restores text here, 19:32, 13 October 2010 with edit summary: reverting to version of 06:04, 13 October 2010 -- see talk page "What is neutral?"
Restatement re-copied from here as an invitation to work collaboratively:
San9663 -- Please try again. Your sentences are only premises or propositions without supporting follow-up. They comprise a set of undemonstrated hypotheticals. In other words,
There are only four sentences in the introduction. Perhaps it will help if you re-visit these elements of the introduction collectively and then serially?
Summarizing: This is no mistake, mis-statement, misunderstanding. In this section, the initial strategy and the diff are rejected, refuted by explicit facts. The subsequent diff here signals cause for assuming good faith going forward. --Tenmei (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei, I think that you believe that the above is either more clear or more persuasive than writing in normal prose, but I have to say it's not. It appears to be a formal method of arguing, perhaps out of philosophy or a religious methodology, and it doesn't really make sense to me (and I assume others) coming from outside of whatever tradition/methodology you're using. I actually can't tell if you're criticizing San9663 for his argument in this section, or for some change in the article, or both. I completely understand that you think you're being completely clear, but I don't think it's helping. Mind you, if other people find Tenmei's method clear, feel free to just ignore me... Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is relatively common in mathematics and algorithmic proof of correctness, but the way he is doing it is weird. If we are to formalize a debate, I'd advocate using a Claim - Argument - Evidence type of structure, but even that can be cumbersome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 -- Yes, thank you. Yes, this attempt to respond to the problems of this section is awkward. Yes, I acknowledge that my response it is weird, cumbersome and undesirable. Yes, this was the best I could do in the context San9663 has created.
Please allow me to try again to nip it in the bud. --Tenmei (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 -- I do not want to make this worse. I want to be helpful. I hope to be part of a solution rather than part of a problem. I am trying to be clear using different words.
FIRST
  1. San9663 created this section.
  2. San9663 writes: "Someone put this line there, I removed it with a note but someone reverted it again without discussing."
  3. This section and the sentence contrive a focus on a straw man issue.
  4. Qwyrxian legitimizes this tactic by accepting the allegations at face value and then responding.
  5. The story of the sentence is false, and it creates a red herring which confuses and distracts.
  6. A review of the edit history contradicts this false story.
SECOND
  1. San9663 asks a question: "Does anyone understand what this line really mean?"
  2. San9663 pretends there is no context, no verifying citation, no proffered explanation, no evidence of any attempt at collaborative editing
  3. This section and the sentence contrive a focus on a straw man issue.
  4. Qwyrxian validates this tactic by accepting the inquiry at face value and then responding.
  5. The story of the sentence is false, and it creates a red herring which confuses and distracts.
  6. A review of the edit history reveals a different story.
  7. The sentence has a context in the introduction; and it has inline citation support which amplifies and clarifies. In addition, a talk page explanation was offered in response to the deletion of the sentence San9663
  8. The context was ignored, the inline citation was ignored, the talk page explanation was ignored by San9663
  9. Qwyrxian's acceptance elevates these tactic as successful strategy.
Variants of this straw man tactic are likely to recur in contexts which are more complicated than in this single sentence. The anticipated harm is likely to be more significant than here.

An arguably constructive response is this: Nip it in the bud.

Summary: This is no mistake, mis-statement, or misunderstanding. In this section, the strategy and the first diff of San9663 are rejected and refuted. I did not initiate this section; and I don't want to see another like it.

The second diff of San9663 here signals cause for assuming good faith going forward. --Tenmei (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I might take a look at this a few days later, but it appears you still have not replied to my response in the neutrality section. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Re- Qwyrxian, I have no idea what Tenmei' list means. I thought the issues were fairly simple and my points were very clear. To me this is not such a big deal as to waste so much time to get involved into such a long string of text, even though I saw my handle listed many times. You guys enjoy the polemics San9663 (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not mere polemics. My words respond explicitly to the two diffs San9663 posted in this one section. --Tenmei (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I repeat this, trying in "plain English". (1) I do not think the line shed much light for the reader, but I do not have strong objection to such a description. (2) The use of this source to prove this line is far fetched, convoluted, and not verifiable. The source is also marginally relevant to this whole dispute in question. Remember most readers of wiki are not going to talk or read like Tenmei. BTW, I shortened the section title as the quote was just too long.San9663 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think, or perhaps I guess, that I understand Tenmei's concern--that San9663's method for criticizing that sentence were problematic. Well, maybe, maybe not. To be honest, my concern was/is simply whether or not that sentence should remain. I will say that the quotation Tenmei does not at all support that statement. Let me clarify--an academic researcher (which Tenmei seems to be), might easily argue that the claim is supported by the citation, but it isn't supported in a Wikipedia sense, because it requires a lot of analysis, some of which might be wrong, to support that sentence. I recommend removing that citation. Nonetheless, the sentence itself can stay, as long as consensus agrees, because sentences in the lead which summarize elements in the text (as I believe this sentence does) do not need to be cited--see WP:LEAD. Furthermore, I don't really think the sentence is at all contentious--I mean, is there any one of us who thinks this isn't a contentious issue? That thinks this isn't complex? Or that thinks there aren't significant ramifications? But, again, I really don't care one way or the other--if consensus says keep it, keep it. If not, then take it out. Either way, I am going to go in and take out the citation, because it does not support the statement given. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I am fine with this. I think wiki is somewhere we try to reach a compromise, not pushing for one way or another. Now my second concern is related to the second paragraph, which is clearly a POV/argument form one side. As I stated earlier, there is a special section devoted to the POV of each side. That line just does not belong there. Again, I am raising my concern because someone keep reverting to the POV line, and I am keeping my hands off to avoid an edit war.San9663 (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In this narrow context, lessons learned the hard way are demonstrated.
Summarizing: This thread was a successful demonstration of the value of counterargument in developing wiki-consensus. In this section, a vigorously disputed strategy is endorsed. --Tenmei (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead

I'm following up on what San9663 said above, and making it its own section. I agree that the second paragraph of the lead is not appropriate. I believe earlier that there was a drive to get down to basics, to see what is widely agreed about. I think we can certainly all agree with this:

  • 2 (or 3, depending on how you count Taiwan) different countries/entities dispute the ownership of this group of islands.

I believe that most of us agree with this:

  • It's complicated. Really. And it has consequences. Like, a lot.

I believe less of us agree with:

  • Japan currently controls and administers the islands.

I think we would all agree with

  • Japan claims that it currently controls and administers the islands.

But we should only include that if we also add a single sentence summarizing China/Taiwan's claims.

Finally, I think most of us agree that the U.S.'s involvement, while important for the article, is not so central to the topic that it belongs in the lead.

So, my recommendation is that we remove the second paragraph from the lead. All of the information can/should be covered elsewhere in the article. Given the fact that this has provoked edit wars, is there anyway that I could get a simple, clear, easy to understand refutation of this? Or, if no one has one, can I just go ahead and take it out of the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral representation of Senkaku Islands dispute in graphic terms?
Red shows
  POV of Japan?
Blue shows
  POV of ROC?
Green shows
  POV of PRC?
Qwyrxian -- Your proposal ignores the analysis presented above in What is "neutral"? and in Parsing neutrality and consensus? Why?
In the service of hortatory goals, your proposal contrives a priori elements which are non-neutral. A graphic representation of the Senkaku Islands dispute is posted in this section; but it is not a mirror of the one posted above at Parsing neutrality and consensus? Why?
Please notice that I have avoided disputes except in terms of the four elements of the introduction. You may not understand yet; and my skills in rhetoric may be cumbersome. However, no one can dispute that my writing is informed by research and thought; and my arguments are in the service of WP:NPOV and other core values. Is this for naught?
Summarizing: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." This phrase turned on the lightbulb which flashed over my head when I read DXDanl's phrase:
"... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not."
This begs a question: Cui bono? --Tenmei (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't meet your arguments above, because I don't think I need to, because your style of arguing is simply so far beyond what we need to do to make this article useful, that I find it distracting from our task. But, to be nice, I'm going to first, in a collapse, explain why I don't think that method of analysis is helpful, then try to meet you at your level and address your concerns
Explanation for why that style of analysis doesn't help

Frankly...yes, your arguments are for naught, because I barely understand them. You're using philosophical, debating, or mathematical (or all 3, I don't know), which is not how debates are conducted on Wikipedia, because to do so would mean only people trained in your particular discourse patterns would be able to carry on the debate. To borrow something from my own field (rhetoric/composition studies), by defining the context of the argument to be within the community of practice of formal analysis, you remove the right to speak (marginalize, silence) those who do not have competent access to your community's ways of being. Or, to use an analogy, all of your analysis--and, more importantly, your request that we meet you on your own terms--sounds just like a Church Father of 500 years ago stating that he cannot and will not debate the interpretation of Biblical Scripture except in Latin. But the truth is the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, even highly contentious ones, get by without nearly so formal analysis. In fact, the formal analysis often gets in the way of progress, because people who don't understand it are put off and feel like they're being left out of the discussion. I praise your attempt to try to clarify matters, but have to say that the effect of your clarification (both the formal outline as well as the reliance on difficult to parse terminology) is probably the opposite of what you hope. If I have to go to 3 other Wikipages to understand the terms you use because they're in Latin, or to get to your basic point I have to process not only 5 different diffs but the way that 3 different ways people talked about those diffs, well...I'm probably not going to do that. Instead, I'm just going to forge on ahead and keep picking away at the article the same way we always do on Wikipedia.

Having said that, here's why I think your analysis isn't relevant, even on it's own terms. If I understand what you're saying correctly, you're claiming that this is actually a three way dispute, not a two way dispute as has been previously characterized. Well, maybe, but that's not even a correct analysis, and itself presupposes the idea that Taiwan has an equal voice in this debate (a point which PRC would disagree about). Thus, your shifting to a tripartite structure is no more neutral than standing at a two part structure. Furthermore, your division into triples fails to recognize that one of the parties isn't arguing from the same level of rhetorical or political authority. What I mean is, I can imagine waking up tomorrow and hearing that the Russian ambassador has endorsed Japan's claims on the island. I can similarly imagine waking up tomorrow and hearing that the Russian ambassador has endorsed PRC's claims on the island. But I cannot imagine any situation in which tomorrow Russia suddenly endorses Taiwan's claims to the island, simply because Taiwan doesn't have the geopolitical influence to get such a declaration. So if we really want to be "neutral," we'd have to include further complex analysis about the underlying dispute between Taiwan and China over whether or not Taiwan is even allowed to take an independent position on the islands, and suddenly to create our lead to this article we have to replicate half of the Political status of Taiwan and Legal status of Taiwan articles.
But it doesn't really matter, because I'm arguing that we should have a zero-part structure for the lead! I'm saying, the lead is not the place to try to work out all of the subtle details of the debate. Specifically, the lead is the place to summarize, in very broad strokes, the topic of the article. This article's topic is a dispute about who owns a group of (currently) uninhabited islands, along with the resource rights that go along with ownership of the islands. We have to list the participants in the dispute (Japan, PRC, ROC) and we have to name and identify what it is they are disputing (Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands, and the corresponding resources). Optionally, we can add some things, like basic frames, but I think that the less we say (for now), the better. Everything we add to the lead will be contentious. I hold that we can't even state that Japan currently controls the islands, given that, for example, right now, Chinese boats regularly fish there, while Japanese boats are forbidden from doing so. Maybe, over time, once the article body itself is more stable, we can expand the lead. But, on an article of this length, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a one to two paragraph lead. As always, we need to strive to get as much into the article as we can, focusing on the core points, then worry about the remaining difficulties on the edge that we find still find to be unbalanced. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with Qwyrxian's reasoning or suggestion. I do not think (maybe I failed to comprehend) Tenmei's argument regarding neutrality conflicts with Qwyrxian's. i.e. either one presents the "assertion" of everybody, or moves all "assertion" from the lead section to the POV section. San9663 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian's analysis is clear and persuasive. This example of refutation and counterargument makes several mutually-reinforcing arguments which are reduced to a handful of adjectives — distracting, unhelpful and irrelevant.

Three sentences may be useful in other contexts as well. Qwyrxian explains:

"But it doesn't really matter, because I'm arguing that we should have a zero-part structure for the lead! I'm saying, the lead is not the place to try to work out all of the subtle details of the debate. Specifically, the lead is the place to summarize, in very broad strokes, the topic of the article."
I acknowledge the adjective "distracting" in Qwyrxian's opinion. This is consistent with "cumbersome", which is how Bobthefish2 assessed my writing here. I take in this constructive criticism in the same spirit in which it is offered.

In response, I promise to re-visit this straw poll thread in future, hoping that I can figure out how to do better. The time invested was not entirely mis-spent because of this.

I will continue to ponder how to contribute effectively in a process of resolving problems like this one. --Tenmei (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you a mathematician or logician? If so, you can consider following the structure of a formal proof. I believe there are several well-established structures that one can follow. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I plan to step back from an exclusive focus on the introduction section. I want to be an effective Wikipedian; and this requires re-thinking how to be effective in a talk page context. Constructive criticisms were proposed by Qwyrxian; and among the most persuasive was this:
"... [B]y defining the context of the argument to be within the community of practice of formal analysis, you remove the right to speak (marginalize, silence) those who do not have competent access to your community's ways of being .... But the truth is the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, even highly contentious ones, get by without nearly so formal analysis. In fact, the formal analysis often gets in the way of progress, because people who don't understand it are put off and feel like they're being left out of the discussion."
In other words, if the argument manages inadvertently to exclude or marginalize, it is missing the broader point that Wikipedia is a collaborative venture.
An idiomatic expression is almost applicable (but not exactly): Do you know what I mean when I say that I construe Qwyrxian to be advising me not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Tenmei (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Tenmei, we disagree on a lot of issues, and I have find it very hard to understand your reasoning. But I have to say I like your colorful graphic. :) and I also agree with this quote - "... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not." That is why I advocate to separate the POV lines from the lead. i.e. I think the lead should be white, then there is a section for R/B/G each below. Cheers! San9663 (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Double bracket links and 'additional description' of sources

There are actually 2 questions here. I would like to seek comments from the more experienced wiki editors on what the wiki practice should be

  1. When should we add a double bracket (for link to another wiki item). My understanding is "wherever possible", since it helps the reader to click through while reading, and it does not change the POV or content itself by a single letter. i.e. should cause no POV controversy. More information for readers to judge by themselves without elongating the wiki text. I raise the question because it seems some other people do not agree with me.
  2. Relating to the links, for the more common "words" where we could link to another wiki entry, e.g. People's Daily, or Washington Times, to show one example from each extreme, I believe a double bracket link is important. Because it helps reader to follow the link to understand the background of these media. In fact, providing the links should save us from having to provide addition descriptions to "qualify" these media sources, which itself could be contentious. There are more experts to discuss how to best describe (and discuss about the controvery relating to) these media sources when one follows the links. For a contentious entry like this one, delegating some of the unnecessary controversies elsewhere should make works here a lot easier. San9663 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The guidelines are at WP:MOSLINK, although the exact details are still debated across all sorts of places. For example, it used to be practice among many authors to link all dates and all places; dates were officially de-linked as part of (what I have read) was a very ugly and contentious debate held in many different forums. For places, the debate is still ongoing. The two basic stances are "Wikipedia should be linked as heavily as possible, making it truly easy to find any given information," to "A field of blue simply overloads the reader, and makes it impossible for them to process the singular message in front of them." Actual practice tends to be somewhere in the middle (although the "every word is wikilinked" was explicitly ruled unacceptable quite early on). As for media sources, I would say that we should wikilink them, although in some cases I think a short phrase to explain may help as well (as an example, if we quoted from Stars and Stripes, we would definitely need to state that the newspaper is published by the U.S. government). We also should be explicit if a particular article that we are referencing is/has been controversial. Better yet, we should avoid using any sources that are themselves disputed (as above in the article with the misattributed photographs), or do so only in context. I guess what I'm saying is the very unhelpful, "It depends." sigh...sorry about that long history lesson that doesn't really answer your question definitively. Maybe you have a specific example in mind that we could look at? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Specific examples? (1) e.g. Washington Times, which often have people confused with its competitor of 10x higher circulation Washington Post (I did when I first heard of it), sort of the more obscure version of Sankei, except that Sankei is a lot "better" and more professional than Washington Times IMO. (2) In the lead section, I think terms like "Diaoyu" deserves the square brackets, but certain people keep reverting them. I presume these people think giving the square bracket to 'diaoyu' maybe imply these are legitimate wiki entries (they are indeed), but for a reader with no knowledge of this subject he will want to click through to see "what the hell is Diaoyu?". Those who removed the brackets seems to assume that every uninformed reader knows would automatically do the 'redirect' himself, or maybe there are other "more honorable" motivation. P.S. I agree that year and dates do not need the wikilinks. the rule of thumb is probably if the link goes to somewhere 'relevant', even if marginally. San9663 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think terms like "Diaoyu" deserves the square brackets As I said in the edit summary, you do not wikilink to re-directs. John Smith's (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
John Smith is right, in that we do not wikilink to re-directs. Furthermore, no one could possibly read "The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, the Senkaku Islands (also known as the "Diaoyutai Islands" in Chinese)" and then ask "What the heck are Diaoyutai", given that that sentence itself explains what it is.
As for the Times, we can use a wikilink, I think. We should not be giving context about the relative size of the newspaper. If the Wikilink there helps people be less confused, I have no problem with it.
To above (signature seems missing), is there some official policy of no link to "re-direct"? I am not suggesting of showing details such as circulation here, it should be taken care by the wikilink, that is the point of my original question. San9663 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean and what you want, San9663. Please click Diaoyu, Diaoyutai Islands, and Pinnacle Islands and see what happens. And this is the guideline. Oda Mari (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your link. However, the section your link points to is about "self redirect". Here I am talking about linking (from the dispute) to a different page (the island). But a bit above it talks about "reasons to delete" and "reasons for not deleting". in particular, see #5 of "reasons for not deleting".San9663 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean that you want to use a piped link like this? Diaoyutai Islands. If this is what you want, you have to edit [[Senkaku Islands|Diaoyutai Islands]]. What is the target page you want to link? But we do not have an article called the "Diaoyutai Islands" and what you did here was self-redirect. I still don't know what you want to do. Oda Mari (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, this is the first time I heard of "Piped link", I am saying to put the double brackets in Diaoyu in the "dispute" entry, to link back to the "island" entry. One reason being, the re-direct may change. when it changes, one does not need to re-edit the links. Other reason is, simply, "symmetry" and looks nicer, and that one may want to click into it.San9663 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. Oda Mari (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am confused too. A guess would be a scenario where the Senkaku Island page is renamed to say... Diaoyu/Senkaku Island. Then it will be symmetric to see both Senkaku and Diaoyu to have links attached. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Images, splitting, et. al

There are a few VOA images at ja:尖閣諸島問題 that can be used within the article, where necessary. Also, there are the zh:中国渔船与日本巡逻船钓鱼岛相撞事件 and ja:尖閣諸島中国漁船衝突事件 articles on the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias that deal exclusively with the 2010 incident itself - should we follow suit here as well? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan investigating reported China-Japan deal on disputed islands

Once the protection comes off, add:

  1. Taiwan is concerned about a possible secret deal between China and Japan to prevent Chinese activists from sparking new disputes over the Tiaoyutai Islands.[5] Hcobb (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. oct 23 - Ethnically-Chinese Jpop group Angel girl support Diaoyu islands return to China becomes popular [14]
  3. oct 23 - Also add sichuan anti-Japanese protest [15]
  4. oct 24 - And shaanxi gansu anti-Japanese protest [16] Benjwong (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There are few place missing~ in this dispute~!

There are few place missing in this dispute, more likely this dispute are standing on behalf of Japan~! This leads public misunderstand certain important fact, or misleading the viewer to believe how Author are presenting Senkaku/Diaoyu islands are belonging to Japan are right. It doesn't seem to be fair on any argument place in this to stand Japan has Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands ownership.

The following point are missing which believe is important. Potsdam Declaration (completely missing)and Cairo Declaration (completely missing) did not state that Senkaku/Diaoyu should be part of Japan territories and both declaration mention clearly Senkaku/Diaoyu islands should belong to china. San francisco peace (misleading) Here is a good source that come across from net, please review~ http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk/resources/docs/senkaku.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzone025 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we're discussing both of those changes in teh section above. My concern with either declaration is that reading either one, there is no "common sense"/"obvious" interpretation of whether or not they apply to these islands. However, I do think we can include reliable, secondary sources that interpret those primary documents. As for your recommended site, that's nothing more than a self-published, personal interpretation of the issue, and so can't be used as a source, nor is there any reason to believe it's a neutral analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, FYI the website is from Durham University, UK. Durham is one of the top university in UK. The author Dzurek has written a number of books and papersin maritime legal issues. I am pretty sure whatever written on that site is a summary of something in his book and published/peer reviewed papers. However, I am not sure which exact line in the articles is not covered yet and Xzone wants to include. San9663 (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, in that case, the site itself could fall under the "well-respected expert" exemption on self-published sources, although, of course, it would be better to use the sources referenced in the paper or other published sources. I just read over the page, and it does have a lot of information, presented fairly clearly. I think our page covers a lot of that already, although I didn't do a point by point comparison. As you (San96663) say, we need to know if there are specific point Xzone (or anyone else) was thinking are missing. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what should be included as well. Making a political statement and linking to a very short extract of something isn't exactly helpful. John Smith's (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor is posting a comment like the one you just committed. Maybe you should help this new participant out by telling him how to contribute more effectively? Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Summarizing per WP:V and WP:RS: This discussion thread seems to be about a case study excerpt from the International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University in the United Kingdom.
A review of the "External links" section of Senkaku Islands dispute reveals that this reliable source was already listed prior to the article split.

At Senkaku Islands, this webpage citation was re-located to the "Further reading" section here after the research institute hosting site was verified. Compare revised citation formats:

References
  • Lee, Seokwoo, Shelagh Furness and Clive Schofield. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands. Durham: University of Durham, International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU). 10-ISBN 1897643500/13-ISBN 9781897643501; OCLC 249501645
External links
I have created an IBRU stub article. I hope this can be a step towards mitigating further storms in a teacup. I also created a stub article about Daniel Dzurek, who was formerly the Chief of the Spatial, Environmental and Boundary Analysis Division of the United States Department of State. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct Note No.75

Note No.75 should link to this page: http://the-diplomat.com/tokyo-notes/2010/10/16/japans-google-gripe/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.173.149 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up some old issues

Here are some unresolved issues from this thread. It will be great if we can resolve them once and for all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Still under construction. Will finish the rest bit by bit over the next few days. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue Supporting Argument Opposing Argument Proposed Action
Whether or not Remin Ribao article has said Senkaku Islands belong to Okinawa. This is related to an edit that removes a reference to Okinawa in the figure caption of the article.
  • "... Okinawa is is considered a synonym of Ryukyu. See Ryukyu Islands." -- Oda Mari (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "... please see the [secondary] source.

"To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan." It unambiguously states Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) twice. Please refrain from insisting the original research. Even if Ryukyu Islands include a part of Kagoshima, it depends on the context of the story." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

  • "This article is not a textbook of mathematics and the sentence is not a mathematical equation. An author has a privilege to insert his/her own interpretation in the parenthesis. If Okinawa is important in the context (actually it is) and Kagoshima is not, then the author will ignore Kagoshima and insert Okinawa inside the parenthesis. See all these books using "Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa)". [17][18][19][20][21][22]"

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "Japanese [secondary] source cited is definitely mis-interpreting the Remin Ribao article because this is what the Remin Ribao article said:

"琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛." which translates to: "Ryukyu Islands are distributed between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛." For the rest of the article, Okinawa was only mentioned as Okinawa Islands (which is different to Okinawa Prefecture)" --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "Remin Ribao figure said the disputed land was part of Ryukyu islands

Remin Ribao figure did not say the disputed land was part of Okinawa islands

Ryukyu islands != Okinawa Prefecture" -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "... whatever [a secondary source] said would not change the contents of the Remin Ribao article ...". -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Restore the edit since Ryukyu Islands is not the same as Okinawa and the article only said Senkaku Islands is a constituent of Ryukyu Islands and not the Japanese province of Okinawa.
Not restoring Swastika-wearing Japanese photos that are allegedly taken during October 2010 protests. This is related to contested materials on October 2010 protests.
  • "I also did a detective work. This ref. Bobthefish2 used says "According to...BBC in Chinese..." and this is the BBC page. BBC doesn't use the images of men in dark blue uniform. BBC images are similar to those of the WSJ and CNN used. Where are the images of men in dark blue uniform from? I found out where two of the images were taken. See the third image. You can see "MIZUHO みずほ銀行". The name of the building is Kudan Fuji Building (九段富士ビル). See[3] and [4]. See the second image. You can see "ニュー九段ビル" at the top right. It's the name of the building. See [5], [6] and [7]. See also the map that there are a bridge and an elevated express way. Kudan is the place where Yasukuni shrine lies and Shibuya is not a neighboring area. The images used by Chinese media indicate Kudan and Yasukuni. They are definitely not the images of the 10/02 protest at Shibuya, Aoyama, and Harajyuku. They were probably taken on August 15. Because I found an image of one of the right wing men. See the third image. I phoned Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department Public Security Bureau and was told the Shibuya protest was the only one rally in Tokyo on October 2 and there was no protests at Kudan on that day."

-- Oda Mari (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "The Chinese news source was clearly forged by the Chinese media. As Oda Mari pointed out, the placards in this picture say "We need neither the Imperial system nor Yasukuni" and "demolish Yasukuni" in front of Mizuho Bank Kudan branch[1] near the Yasukuni Shrine. This picture was taken in front of ニュー九段ビル (New Kudan Building)[2] near the Yasukuni Shrine. The demonstration is held by the left-wing organization "Yasukuni Shrine Demolition Enterprise" on August 15 every year. The extreme right-wing activists were not participating in the demonstration but protesting it. This picture shows the policemen are surrounding the activist to prevent him assault the demonstration. How does the demonstration holding the placards saying "We need neither the Imperial system nor Yasukuni" and "demolish Yasukuni" near the Yasukuni Shrine become the anti-Chinese demonstration?"

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "We still do not have a clear cut conclusion yet. What we need to establish is whether this is indeed fabricated. I think the more useful evidence, if you can find, should be the report where these photos were originally published, Aug 15 near Yasukuni you said? There must be reports then. It should not be too difficult to locate if you search the .jp domains? since some of you have suggested the date and occasion. (BTW, They seem to be wearing a lot considering the temperature in August)"

-- San9663 (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "As San9663 and I suggested, go find instances of those images that occur before October 2010. If you managed to locate one instance of that, then that's convincing evidence."

-- Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • While no one ultimately bothered to verify whether or not these pictures were unrelated to the October 2010 protests, the pictures also don't appear on most of the prominent Chinese and English media. So, it's best to leave them out.
Not restoring October 2010 protest content (barring swastika pictures). This is related to contested materials on October 2010 protests
  • "Wikipedia is not a news story. Putting all the protests in the events is not appropriate. It would make the events list endlessly long. So the consulate and the bus incidents should not be included. "Right-wing Japanese politicians" ? Who? I cannot find other politicians' name in the source. Please do not modify the content of the source."

-- Oda Mari (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "... disputes and reactions are commonly occur in the same page. Try to look up pages on other disputes. There's a reason that these things are found together... Whether or not protests and reactions should be included in the historical events section is up for debate. These elements definitely belong to this page but they can also be relocated to "Japanese Reaction" and "Chinese Reaction". On the other hand, if we relocate these mentionings to separate categories, we lose the benefit of listing them together in a single time-line. The atomic-weapon article mentioned one politician. I guess you'd want that to be changed to singular? That's fine."

-- Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Since there isn't an a good reason to leave the non-swastika contents out, then they should be restored.

Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I've commented on any of the above before, so pardon while I weigh in my opinions: 1) I have no opinon about the Remin Ribao article and its translation--there seems to be no solution to me. Basically, what I see is the supporting side quoting a reliable source about the translation of the Chinese document, and the opposing side saying that the reliable source got the translation wrong. In general, I usually prefer going with the reliable source, but when we're talking about a translation issue, I'm somehow more hesitant...an ideal would be if we had an English language reliable source that said the opposite of the Japanese secondary source; then we could include both interpretations of the Remin Ribao article. Without such a source, I really don't know what to do. 2) For me there's no doubt here--the pictures are not of the relevant protest, and it is wrong to place the burden on the side opposed to the pictures to instead demonstrate what source they came from. As I recently saw on a noticeboard, no source is wholly reliable, and thus we don't have to include the picture just because one sometimes reliable source included them, especially when, as BtF2 points out, numerous other RS don't include them 3) I oppose including a list of every single protest, especially given that they are now occurring on a minimum of a weekly basis, and often on a daily basis. Furthermore, the farther away we get from the fisherman/ramming/capture incident, the harder it is to link any given protest specifically with the Senkaku Islands instead of with the more general Chinese government fomented anti-Japanese protests. BtF2 mentioned other dispute pages. For example, look to Liancourt Rocks dispute--there's actually very little mention of protests. Or look to LGBT rights opposition, which also lists very few. Instead, we should summarize the overall number and character of protests, and mention one or two that were unambiguously linked to Senkaku Islands if those individual ones gathered significant international news coverage. This article should focus on the dispute; it should discuss the public reaction to that dispute, but not focus on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with a number of your points. First of all, numerous editors noted the Japanese secondary sources were wrong. If we are to throw away swastika pictures due to suspicion raised by editors, then we should also throw away dubious secondary sources and their references if numerous editors agreed that their translations of a primary source are blatantly wrong! In fact, it's not even just an issue of translation. The secondary sources have cited content that was not even said by the Remin Ribao article. If this doesn't warrant deletion, then one can use the same line of reasoning to do some POV-pushing by citing bad English review articles of foreign language primary sources.
I agree that the protest section should not be focused on, but what was added was only 3 sentences worth of summary for the October 2010 protests. Originally, I planned to replace all the old entries for the individual October protests, but that was cut short when two Japanese editors jumped in and vetoed the content. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
On the translations, other editors stated that the translations were blatantly correct. Thus, we have a dispute about translations between editors. Again, I don't know what to do here...On the protests, I definitely I agree with you that we should include some. I can easily see more than 3 sentences. We just want avoid the "On October 3 in Beijing...On October 5 in Tokyo...etc..." I haven't done any looking for sources, but I can imagine a section/sub-section saying something like "The arrest of the Chinese fisherman sparked a number of protests in Beijing. Over the following months, these protests escalated and became directed more broadly at Japanese occupation of Senkaku as well as encompassing more generalized anti-Japanese sentiment. In some cases, those protests have become violent, with protesters inflicting severe damage on Japanese owned businesses. Protests occurred in Japan as well, although on a smaller scale than in China." Now, please note, that's all horribly written, and done off the top of my head without looking for any sources. It's just a vague guess about what we want to say, and should in no way be taken as advocating an actual recommended edit to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a matter of common sense. Several Chinese editors already agreed with me about the translation. The counter-arguments made by the Japanese editors didn't even contradict what we said. Rather, one cited numerous flawed secondary sources and another claimed Okinawa = Ryukyu Islands (which is obviously wrong). If you insist, we can always call for an RfC, but it's a complete waste of time for something this trivial and obvious.
What you said about the protests section is kind of what I have in mind. We can change it to have it this way once the page unlocks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the issues. But for the Renmin Ribao issue, I think if there is doubt in translation, we should attach the original language in bracket. then maybe a note explaining/listing the difference in interpretation)? For the protests, yes, I think it is not practical to list every single protest. A compromise may be just one line to list the dates and identify the cities. Regarding the controversial pictures, also, show the link and state there is controversy. I think this should be fair. wiki will be a collection of links to external reports but wiki will just direct readers to these links to judge for themselves. BTW, i still think there is really no point in uploading the Washington Times map to wiki, I think it is better to show the link instead. It is as controversial as those pictures and the source is really dubious. San9663 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Bobthefish2, The first paragraph of the second page of this article says "還有不少婦女和看起來像是知識分子的參加者旁聽，現場氣氛冷靜，但從喝彩和掌聲中可以感覺到日本社會對中國不滿的情緒。中國政府日前已提醒訪日旅遊的國民小心、香港也傳出一些取消訪日預定的新聞。 " Will you please translate it into English for the editors who don't understand Chinese? Why did you choose that Chinese news article over the BBC article? Please answer the question. Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Accusative tones are such a norm to your posts. Angry much?
The BBC article was not deliberately ignored. If you wanted it to be used as well, that's fine. The Chinese passage you cited translates to "There are lots of women and apparent educated elites among the participants. The atmosphere of the scene was calm, but frustration of the Japanese society towards China can be felt through the cheers and applause. Days ago, the Chinese government reminded its citizens to be careful when travelling in Japan. Rumour also has it that there are cancellations of reservations to Japan in Hong Kong."
Now, here's a little something I want you to translate into English for the editors who don't understand Chinese
"琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛屿，总计共有五十个以上有名称的岛屿和四百多个无名小岛，全部陆地面积为四千六百七十平方公里。群岛中最大的岛是冲绳诸岛中的冲绳岛（即大琉球岛）". In fact, it would be decent if you can translate this
"美国在一九四五年六月占领了琉球群岛后，就着手在该岛建筑军事基地。"
and that
"美国侵略者竟不顾“开罗宣言”、“波茨坦公告”等各项国际协议中都没有规定托管琉球群岛的决定，也不顾苏联政府和中华人民共和国政府的一再声明，更不顾一百万琉球人民的坚决反对，竟勾结日本吉田政府，擅自在它片面制订的对日“和约”中规定：“日本对于美国向联合国提出将北纬二十九度以南的琉球群岛……置于联合国托管制度之下，而以美国为唯一管理当局的任何提议，将予同意。"
as well. These are all passages from the Remin Ribao article. If you have trouble doing that, then maybe you can ask User:San9663 or User:John Smith's to lend you a hand.
By the way, don't forget to address the other issues because you were the primary objector of my edits. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I cannot translate Chinese into English. I can only read kanji and guess the meaning using dictionaries and machine translations. That is why I asked you to translate as you seem to be a native Chinese speaker. I also wanted know if I read the paragraph correctly. I was not totally sure the meaning of the paragraph. I have no idea why you thought my tone accusative. I didn't mean that way. Oda Mari (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting... and yet you are arguing with us on how to interpret articles written in Chinese. Here's my translation of the three Chinese paragraphs I listed. They are all texts located within the Remin Ribao article:
Chinese Text: 琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛屿，总计共有五十个以上有名称的岛屿和四百多个无名小岛，全部陆地面积为四千六百七十平方公里。群岛中最大的岛是冲绳诸岛中的冲绳岛（即大琉球岛"
English Translation (except for some of the location names): Ryukyu Islands are scattered at a region that is north east to our nation's Taiwan and south west to Japan's 九洲岛. They are seven island groups composed of Senkaku Islands, 先岛诸岛, 大东诸岛, Okinawa Islands, 大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛. Each group of islands have lots of large and small islands. There are more than 50 islands with names and around 400 small islands without names. The total land surface area is 4670 square kilometers. The largest island of all islands is Okinawa Island's Okinawa Island (which is the Large Ryukyu Island).
Chinese Text: 美国在一九四五年六月占领了琉球群岛后，就着手在该岛建筑军事基地。
English Translation: After annexing the Ryukyu Islands on June 1945, America has built military base on the islands.
Chinese Text: 美国侵略者竟不顾“开罗宣言”、“波茨坦公告”等各项国际协议中都没有规定托管琉球群岛的决定，也不顾苏联政府和中华人民共和国政府的一再声明，更不顾一百万琉球人民的坚决反对，竟勾结日本吉田政府，擅自在它片面制订的对日“和约”中规定：“日本对于美国向联合国提出将北纬二十九度以南的琉球群岛……置于联合国托管制度之下，而以美国为唯一管理当局的任何提议，将予同意。
English Translation: America the invader disregarded Potsdam declaration and associated international treaties which did not decide on governorship of Ryukyu Islands. They also did not care about the words of the People's Republic of China or the opposition of a million Ryukyu natives. Instead, they conspired with the Japanese government and decided by themselves to insert their own rule in the Japanese peace treaty: "Japan will agree to America's suggestion to the U.N. regarding to have the Ryukyu Islands located 29 degrees south of the north latitude.... transfer to U.N. supervision where America is the sole controller."
Your tone sounds accusative because it heavily implies that (1) I am purposely not using BBC references for some seemingly POV-pushing purpose and (2) I am avoiding your questions because they sound inconvenient. Since I haven't done either of those things, it is within reason for me to take exception along with your earlier recommendation for me to "educate myself". Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean this was not good enough? What else do you want me to do? Oda Mari (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I was simply taking note of some of your choice words and attitudes. While you don't need to do anything, you may want to know that some editors generally back their positions with appropriate reasoning (unlike certain other editors). So... on the occasion that they are unjustifiably accused of the contrary, some might have very bad impressions of their accusers' sense of objectivity and logic. Since you are an avid wiki-editor, I'd presume you want people to have confidence in your standards.
With this said, I hope we can get back to topic. This dispute is started by your act of reverting an edit of mine. I would like it to be resolved. I decided to concede on the issue of the swastika photos because you convinced me it is controversial (albeit without proving their actually instances of mis-used) and I don't feel strongly about getting entangled in another messy argument. On the other hand, I felt I am right on issues 1 & 3 and thus the corresponding contents should be re-instated. Since there are no strong counter-arguments opposing my positions on these matters, I believe it will be a waste of time if you persist in vetoing those contents. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
1)It's OK to remove Okinawa as they were occupied by the U.S. and there was not Okinawa prefecture in Japan at that time. 3) I personally and basically disagree to include each and every protest and protest-related incident. As I wrote before, it makes the list endlessly long and WP:NOT#NEWS. They did not change the situation at all so far. Protests are current events and their significance in the dispute is not yet known. I think they can wait. But IMO, if they'd be included, a summary like the one Qwyrxian proposed above would be appropriate. Oda Mari (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think we've agreed on condensing the protests into one block. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I do not totally agree. The matter is what to include in the block and what not. I think the information should be significant enough. I suggest the standard would be if the information was reported by more than one press agency, newspaper or TV station in English, excluding the Chinese and Japanese media. In other words, if it was reported as a piece of international news worldwide, especially in English speaking countries. Oda Mari (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
That won't work--there's just too many. And many of the English news reports aren't reporting on specific protests, but more on the general problem of ongoing, repeated protests. Again, if we take the long view (which WP:NOTNEWS asks us to do), we have to wonder how important it will be for the long-term issue that there was a protest on 11 October, then again on 13 October, then again on 15 October (I'm just making those dates up, btw, that's not based on research). I think a few good, well sources sentences that explains that the weeks and months following the fisherman/boat collision incident, with an idea about overall numbers, should be sufficient for the long-view. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
And, I forgot to add, we should also mention in general the problems it caused in the relationship--the cancellation of events and cultural exchanges, a "chilling" of the atmosphere, etc. In other words, I mean to say that the protests are part of a larger change (albeit probably not a permanent one), and should be contextualized thus. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's the general idea. It is unnecessary to mention every single protest specifically. And yes, English media is generally not sufficiently comprehensive in terms of covering the specifics of the conflict. The chilling of atmosphere and cancellation of events/exchanges have not been discussed before because we've been at disagreement on this particular section of the page since long before those things took place.
If you guys don't mind, we can start writing up a draft over the near future and reach an agreement on it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.179.195.36, 24 October 2010

{{edit protected}}

  1. The Potsdam Declaration stated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", and "we" referred to the victors of WWII who met at Potsdam, the USA, UK and Sowjetunion.

85.179.195.36 ([[Us</ref>er talk:85.179.195.36|talk]]) 05:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Recommend this not be done: according to Potsdam Declaration, the Soviet Union was not at Potsdam, but RoC was. Unless IP has some further explanation, this change would not be factual. Furthermore, it sounds like an issue that needs to be pursued at Potsdam Declaration first. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Did a quick Google search. Found this. Would be nice if someone can verify whether or not the follow line is really found in Posterdam " The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.". Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The wording is verified by the National Diet Library webpage: Potsdam Declaration; excerpt of "Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender Issued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945," paragraph 8. "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

There are doubtless many other equally reliable sources. --Tenmei (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice if there is an original text to look at. Another quote of interest is "As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests". Not sure if this is synthesis or not. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Googling this explicit wording suggests its non-neutral provenance -- Hu Fiyue. "Friendly advice to Japan," China Daily, September 23, 2010. In contrast, compare Cairo Press Release, December 1, 1943 and other context-creating reliable sources. --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

On the Potsdam Declaration, we conceivably could include it, but I don't see exactly how it's relevant since it includes the phrase "and such minor islands as we determine", which, of course, may include Senkaku/Diaoyu, or may not. But, I have no objection to including it in the right context. On the Cairo Declaration, the quote BtF2 mentioned does not appear in the actual declaration. Instead, it says the following: "It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has sezed or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914, and that all territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formaosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Epublicof China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid Three Great Powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent." Again, we could conceivably include this, but it's still ambiguous with regards Diaoyu/Senkaku.

In fact, after typing both of those out, I'm quite hesitant to include either primary source. Instead, I'd rather see a secondary source interpreting the declarations. I can see that going either of two ways: one, is to put a Chinese source interpretting those declarations to indicate China should have possession of the islands, possibly with a Japanese source objecting to that intepretation; or, two, an independent, neutral, reliable, international interpretation (still attributed and sourced, but not needing to fall into the Chinese or Japanese camps). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to just have the original text cited and/or quoted so that the readers can decide for themselves. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Which, as far as I understand, is explicitly not what we do, per WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The whole "let the readers decide for themselves" is not actually what encyclopedias do. Instead, our job is to explain what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the world (including primary sources), in prominence relative to their importance. This is exactly the same reason we don't just report what primary science sources say about a phenomenon, but, instead, wait for secondary sources to tell us whether the primary research is actually valid, relevant, and supported by the field. In any event, you'd have to contextualize it--where would you put it in the article? What comes before and after it? You can't put the primary source into either Japan or China's arguments, because it doesn't, by itself, support either (i.e., putting it in either section violate NPOV). You can't put it by itself unless you provide a context. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2010
You are right. I still occasionally confuse wiki-standards with academic-standards. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Endorse clarifying policy analysis of Qwyrxian in this diff above. --Tenmei (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Potsdam is relevant because it is in the center of the dispute. Without Potsdam China (ROC or PRC) would not have the nullification of Shimonoseki, and China cannot use the argument that the islands were part of the spoil of the war and hence should be returned. Regarding secondary source, I think the Korean scholar Lee Seokwoo book discussed about it when discussing China's argument. San9663 (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
One sentence from the Cairo Declaration become relevant in refutation of an aspect of San9663's minor line of argument here. Setting aside reasonable questions about original research or synthesis, we can not avoid noticing that one very specific date is cited:
It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914 ....
In whatever manner San9663 construes "nullification of Shimononoseki", this explicit 1914 date is a stumbling block. --Tenmei (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you finish reading your sentence, Tenmei? It said, ".....since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, 'and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.' " Anyway, Potsdam is published in 1944 (cairo in 1943), and the Japan's surrender stated it accepted Potsdam, not Cairo San9663 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the crucial date is 1914. Yes, the words in bold font are readily verified by using the hyperlinks I provided in the text above here and here; and yes, I also read the sentence about Korea.

Thank you for emphasizing points of agreement. --Tenmei (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, then Japan's Surrender Document --- Potsdam --- Cairo means that Taiwan is to be returned, and China's claims that Diaoyu/Senkaku is part of it is very relevant to this dispute. Without such there will not be dispute. Moreover, Taiwan/Formosa was "stolen" in 1895 before 1914 if you know a bit of the history. I am not saying China would win the ICJ legal battle, I am just saying that it is a relevant enough issue to be disucssed and highlighted to the potential wiki reader who wants to know the causes of this dispute. San9663 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If 1914 is the crucial year, then Japan owns the island -and Taiwan. But Taiwan was returned. So we should consider 1895 to be the crucial year. But were the islands part of China taken by Japan in 1895? Taiwan claims so. If the Allies agreed with this claim, why didn't they return them after the war? Why was it returned to Japan? I have suspicions that:
1. the allies (USA) either didn't find conclusive evidence that the islands belong to Taiwan/China, or
2. ignored the evidence because Okinawa was ruled by US until 1972 thus,
3. when Okinawa was returned, Senkaku (I use the Japanes name because Japan administers the islands now) was returned too. Or
4. neither Japan nor China had exclusive claim over the islands before 1895, their claims overlapped. Thus,
5. when Japan won in 1895 considers Senkaku hers and attached it to Okinawa.
Personally I I think points 4&5 are correct. Rad vsovereign (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS). (2000). International Organizations and the Law of the Sea, p. 107., p. 107, at Google Books
  2. ^ Lee, Seokwoo et al. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands, pp. 11-12., p. 11, at Google Books
  3. ^ NILOS. p. 108., p. 108, at Google Books
  4. ^ Wong, Edward. "China Focuses on Territorial Issues as It Equates Tibet to U.S. Civil War," New York Times. November 13, 2009.
  5. ^ Taiwan investigating reported China-Japan deal on disputed islands
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute/Archive_1&oldid=1137179815"