Talk:Senkaku Islands

Maps not in English

San9663 points out a problem here.

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

Unhelpful words, unsuccessful format

The verifying citations include embedded links which show maps in Japanese and Chinese. These are problematic for a number of reasons. As an alternative or as a supplement, Google maps may not be preferred in our context, but I don't know of a better option. At present, the islands can be located using either Chinese or Japanese names. A better option would be consistent with WP:Use English; but I don't have any specific proposals. Diaoyu Dao (釣魚島) Uotsuri Jima (魚釣島) Huangwei Yu (黃尾嶼) Kuba Jima (久場島) Chiwei Yu (赤尾嶼) Taishō Jima (大正島) Nan Xiaodao(南小島) Minami Kojima (南小島) Bei Xiaodao(北小島) Kita Kojima (北小島) Da Bei Xiaodao (大北小島/北岩) Okino Kitaiwa (沖ノ北岩) Da Nan Xiaodao (大南小島/南岩) Okino Minami-iwa (沖ノ南岩) Fei Jiao Yan(飛礁岩/飛岩) Tobise (飛瀬)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick poll of involved users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Analysis

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

Talking past each other 2

WP:Straw poll proposiions	Qwyrxian yes?/no? no response?	Tenmei yes?/no? no response?	San9663 yes?/no? no response?	Bobthefish2 yes?/no? no response?	John Smith's yes?/no? no response?	Other2 yes?/no? no response?
Context: Qwyrxian's analysis here, e.g., WP:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles which links to WP:Neutral point of view#Naming which explains that "if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."	Yes	Yes	No response	Yes
Context: 1. Policy says neutrality has to be balanced by clarity.	Yes	Yes	No response	Yes
Context: 2. Policy says we base our decision not on what is "morally or politically right," but only based on what name is widely used.	Yes	Yes	No response	Yes
Context: 3a. Policy says we really really really shouldn't use Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa.	Yes	Yes	No response	Yes	Yes
Context: 3b. Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?	No Response	No	No Response	Yes	No
Context: 4. Policy gives us a number of steps we can take to determine the widely used name.	Yes	Yes	No response	Yes
The article title should be changed	No response	No	Yes	Yes	No
This table correctly summarizes Qwyrxian's discussion with Bobthefish2 and San9663	No response	No	No response	No. This table is extremely biased.	N/A	N/A

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

Direct quote? I'm not sure I understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words,

I am only one, but I am one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a few general comments are appropriate at this point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change of Chinese name

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

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

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

2010 Collision incident section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Validity of Chinese name about Senkaku Islands

This is now done. We are not allowed to use this as a forum. Please find a more appropriate website for political debate

Please speak international evidence about Chinese name of Senkaku Islands. When evidence doesn't exist, Chinese name of Senkaku Islands should be deleted.HighSpeed-X (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Do a google News search for "Diaoyu Islands" you will find over a thousand current results, and more if you do an archive search. Similar results can be found by doing a Scholar search and a Web search. This indicates that the name is used in some cases in English. In many cases, the name Diaoyu is used alongside Senkaku. Please note that this is what is necessary in order to list the names here on Wikipedia. Note that this is not a judgment about who owns the islands--it is simply a recognition that some English sources use the name, and a recognition that there is a dispute about who owns the islands. Some editors (see the discussion above) in fact believe that the Diaoyu name is used approximately equally with Senkaku islands, and thus even the title of this article is incorrect; however, that issue has not yet been resolved, I think. Finally, please note that neither the article nor this talk page may be used to argue in favor of either country owning the island, so please do not begin to do so here. Our only question is what reliable sources say about the Islands; since reliable sources report that they are disputed, we must do so here (and at Senkaku Islands dispute). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Please present International Law that records Chinese name of Senkaku Islands. HighSpeed-X (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC) We don't have to. Wikipedia doesn't care what International Law is (to be honest, there is no such thing as international law, by the way--just treaties and accords and conventions that nations enter into; not that this matters). All Wikipedia cares is what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say the islands are in dispute, so we must report that. We cannot say who is right, although we are required to analyze the level of importance of each argument, and include the opinions in due weight to their representation in the real world. This is fundamentally what Wikipedia does--collect information from other sources, summarize it, and report it in encyclopedic format. We do not make judgments about who is right or wrong. Since it seems like you don't understand how Wikipedia works, I recommend you read three of our key policies, as they may help you understand: WP:V, which is the policy that requires that all information be verified, WP:NOR, which is is the policy that requires that we present only what others say and do not include our own original research, and WP:NPOV, which requires that we report the information neutrally, without giving inappropriate bias to one side or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Qwyrxian cannot show grounds. Please publish Chinese name about Senkaku Islands only in Chinese version wikipedia. HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC) You are wasting your time with this guy. My guess on his response to your big paragraph of writing: "Please present International Law that records Chinese name of Senkaku Islands." Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC) The name without international grounds cannot be published. HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Seems like I've missed a party. The "Senkaku Islands" have a Chinese name because numerous sources (with a few being Japanese) have unambiguously shown they were part of China's area of influence at a time prior to the Sino-Japanese war. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Please post the law name. HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC) The name of Koba island had been named before being legally enacted. It was named the Hoapins island in the chart of the Europe. It follows International Law neither of them. There are no legal grounds each name of an old Japanese name, a Chinese name, and Europe name.HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Just ignore him - don't feed the trolls. John Smith's (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC) This is not your blog.HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC) (ec)Um, I just want to clarify that there is nothing unambiguous about this issue, and that we very much do not want to get into such a discussion. I'm trying to explain to Highspeed-X that he is fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose and function of Wikipedia; your comment only encourages him/her to make more POV arguments. For that matter, your comment itself comes right to the edge of making a claim about the facts, rather than a claim about what other sources claim. I only bring this up because if anyone on either side starts trying to transform this talk page or the article into a place to debate the subject, both I and I'm sure others are going to start erasing the comments per WP:NOTFORUM. We cannot allow this page to devolve into a discussion about international law, what "person" "owns" the islands, or whatever... Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC) (ec) And at John Smith--dangit, xe's not a troll. He's a POV pusher, and xe doesn't yet understand how Wikipedia works, and xe may never...but that doesn't make him/her a troll. Yesterday, HighSpeed-X got in trouble for blatantly edit-warring and not discussing, so xe got blocked, and we told him/her to come and discuss the issue on the talk page. Lo and behold, 31 hours later, xe did. We can't very well then just ignore him/her. That's downright uncivil on our parts. As a newcomer, we are required, both ethically and by policy, to try to help HighSpeed-X understand how we work here, what the purpose of WP is, and what we do or don't care about in terms of "evidence." If xe demonstrates an inability/unwillingness to work within our rules, then fine, we'll take the appropriate steps. Until such a time, our rules also require we give him/her the benefit of the doubt. I know that when I first came to Wikipedia 2 years ago I thought it didn't make any sense the way they were ignoring what was "obvious" to someone in the field (different subject from this one, but a similar problem). We cannot forget that what we do here is so fundamentally different than what is done basically everywhere else on the internet that it really is strange for new people. tl;dr: Don't bite the newcomers. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC) ec*4: @ Highspeed-X: and it's not yours. Please read up on the rules I pointed out to you that we all need to follow. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Qwyrxian speech is needless. There are no legal grounds in the Yokonkoba island, the Koba island, and Hoapins island. Chinese name is also the same. Please speak international evidence about Chinese name of Senkaku Islands.HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Last chance: Legal grounds have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Cease this line of discussion, or you may be in trouble for violating our rules on WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOXING. I already gave you international evidence in the form of reliable news articles and scholarly publications. That's what constitutes evidence for WP. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I'd like to clarify that "legality" does not really exist in this instance of international dispute. There is no governing body in this world that dictates which belongs to who. Russia has sided with China and the West largely stayed neutral. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC) It is only Chinese that says like that. Then, please publish Yokonkoba island, the Koba island, and and Hoapins island. Endemism exists in Senkaku Islands. Those habitats are registered internationally as Senkaku Islands. HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I was unaware that CNN and BBC, both of whom use Diaoyu and Senkaku, are Chinese; many (although, I believe, not a majority) use both. Do you have a source that uses the names you mentioned? If so, and if the sources using those names are reliable and of sufficient weight, then they can be added to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Qwyrxian Thesis is needless. Please describe legal grounds.HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC) File:1953renminribao.GIF An article published by the Renmin Ribao in 1953. It listed "Senkaku Islands" as part of the (then) U.S.-occupied Ryuku Islands (Okinawa). People's Daily said "Senkaku Island". HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Chinese does not seem to have the way of thinking of legal grounds. Because China does not still have democratic election. HighSpeed-X (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) It is of no use to reference this figure because we've already decided the caption is wrong and the article did not in fact say anything about the islands being part of Okinawa or Japan. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

2channel and Futaba channel

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

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

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

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

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

On 2chan, pages immediately HTTP 404 once no one bumps them and they fall beyond page 10, or if they are deleted by janitors (in the event that a post is in violation of Japanese Law). You can't really have a solid URL link to a 2chan discussion as they appear and disappear every now and then. Also, mods on such boards seem to be in line with "freedom of speech, as long it isn't against Japanese Law" (and by that I mean certain types of pornography) - most don't really care about Wikipedia, it's not their job, and they don't fix what ain't broken to them. Going onto 2channel and making such a request would probably end up with multiple sages and a "not your personal army" reply. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

China is invading Senkaku Islands of Japan

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

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

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

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

Islands names amd table

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

There's also the issue of the ordering of the names in the table, but I haven't played around with this as it involves a bit of care that I don't have time for now. John Smith's (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Territorial dispute

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

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