Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 28 November 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Senkaku Islands.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Senkaku Islands. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Discussion Analysis

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

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

Direct quote? I'm not sure I understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words,

I am only one, but I am one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a few general comments are appropriate at this point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change of Chinese name

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

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

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

2010 Collision incident section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Validity of Chinese name about Senkaku Islands

2channel and Futaba channel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China is invading Senkaku Islands of Japan

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

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

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

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

Territorial dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, John Smith's -- point taken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand,

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

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

The Senkaku Islands dispute article is structured in two parts:

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

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

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

I "accepted {nowiki></nowiki> premise" because his premise was based upon WP:MOS, as well as the standard layout for articles across Misplaced Pages. When there is a sub article, the main article should contain only a bare bones account of whatever that sub article contains. Otherwise, why even bother to have a sub article? In any event, I hear a clear consensus (i.e. 4 editors agreeing, some of whom cite policy and precedent) to keep that section as short as possible. Until I hear a cogent argument, I'm taking that sub-section out. Furthermore, I'm reverting all of your additions. I apologize, but I have to be blunt--this is not a graduate level political science textbook. Neither is at a journal article in a maritime disputes academic journal. Your (Tenmei's) phrasing is somewhere between confusing and deliberately obtuse. It's no different than the phrasing you use on these talk pages, that we have discussed before is unhelpful. The goal of these articles is not to place everything into some broad philosophical or geo-political framework. I know based on your comments before that you think it is, but that is simply not how encyclopedias work. They frame events in discrete, fragmented ways, pretending that concepts and ideas are overlapping but distinct. I personally disagree with this worldview, but I also understand that it the worldview required by the project. The reason for this is very simple: the point behind the existence of this article is for someone who sees "Senkaku/Diaoyu/whatever" in the news, and says, "What's that?" and then comes her and searches for a concrete, discrete answer. The purpose of the dispute article is to lay out, in a historical and political but not theoretical context, why there's a disagreement here, and what the arguments in the disagreement are. So I'm reverting to the factual summary (I think I'm even going to take out my final line), and removing your extra words putting this into a theoretical context, and reverting the switch to "boundaries". I'll raise that boundary issue in a separate section if you want, but it's part and parcel of the above: calling it a boundary dispute is fundamentally confusing to the average reader. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if his elaborate summary (which I didn't take a look at yet) is good, then maybe we can graft some of it onto the dispute page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that may be the case, as long as it goes into a separate section, is very carefully monitored for WP:DUE, and does not replace clear factual claims. I'd say that article has other problems right now that are more pressing, but, in any event, the info definitely doesn't belong here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- In response to speculative comments here, one of Bobthefish2's phrases seems on-point :

In other words, your all-or-nothing deletions illustrate right/wrong, black/white, yes/no binary logic which is misplaced, especially in the context of this article about the Senkaku Islands.

Again, I can do no better than to offer an idiomatic expression as a concise refutation of edits which effectively throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There is no adequate justification for deleting of sentences which are supported by clear citations from reliable sources. As a separate matter, these edit summaries raise arguable issues, but neither can be construed as sufficient explanation for deleting inline citations or the sentences which are verified in this way:

• diff 10:21, 12 November 2010 Qwyrxian (25,659 bytes) (Boundary is not the right word here--the issue is who owns the islands: determination of the ownership of the islands comes first; that one book used the term does not override the majority of sources pointing to the islands as the defining issue)
• diff 00:31, 13 November 2010 Qwyrxian (24,024 bytes) (per talk--Tenmei's alternate version was entirely the wrong tone for an encyclopedia article)

This sentence is apples and oranges:

I "accepted {nowiki></nowiki> premise" because his premise was based upon WP:MOS ...

Please explain again in different words. Could it be that substance and style have been mistakenly conflated? Would it be reasonable to reconsider your thinking in the context established by articles like Content (media) and Style guide? --Tenmei (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- -- In response to the opinions expressed here, please consider this maxim:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"

Please help me to parse the distinctions between opinion and fact in your diff. It might help if you could restate this slurry of opinions in different words? --Tenmei (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

maritime border -- delete or move to sub-entry "dispute"

I am of similar opinion as qwyrxian, that this whole new section of maritime border, apart from the problems in narratives, does not belong here. it either belongs to the 'dispute' sub-tab or 'east china sea'. please move them away first, then we can work to fix this entry. maritime border by definition is not EEZ, it is simply 3-12 nautical miles, although one does not have to claim all 12 nm -- e.g. in certain straits between the main islands of japan where only 3 nm was claimed. San9663 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I read the full description, along with a few of the citations, I, at least, understand better. It does seem like a valid addition to Misplaced Pages, as it shows how Japan is attempting to re-frame the dispute, by essentially saying there is no dispute. However, I strongly believe that the information belongs in the dispute article, not this one. Personally, after moving it over, I would delete the last two paragraphs, as they seem to not be directly related to this issue, but I can imagine others disagreeing, so it should be discussed in full. But I am nearly certain it doesn't belong here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei has not only listened to the requests of 4 different editors to pull back on the included info, but is continuing to add more to a section that most of us don't believe belongs in this article. Tenmei, please understand we're not saying this info doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. What we are saying is that it does not belong in this article. As I just explained on Tenmei's talk page, this article should be about very neutral, factual things: location of the islands, any relevant info on animal life, any indisputable history, etc. Plus, of course, it should contain a short, simple, factual summary of the political dispute--but I think all of us (save for Tenmei) agree that it should be at most a paragraph or two (I think BtF2 has argued for even shorter than that). I see a strong consensus here that this section is expanding far beyond the bounds of what it should be. As such, I am now going to go remove everything from the article except for the summary paragraphs I had added a few days ago. I would not normally be so aggressive and remove such a large section of well-sourced info, but I believe that consensus on this is clear. If anyone believes I have misread consensus, please undo my removal of the info and know that I will not object or revert. But this article is already contentious enough that I do not believe that one editor should be significantly expanding without first gaining at least something resembling consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- I think I understand your rationale. Your analysis is flawed; but your blanket deletions do not invoke the need for an urgent response.

In other contexts, it would be provocative to ask if you actually read what you deleted before you deleted it? In this instance, we don't have to ask because you've already provided the answer here.

This small disagreement provides an unexpected illustration of cognitive dissonance confirmation bias.

Your own words are compelling. I don't understand why they don't cause you to feel embarrassed, but there you have it -- a question without an obvious answer:

• Now that I read the full description, along with a few of the citations, I, at least, understand better ....
• ... as it shows how Japan is attempting to re-frame the dispute, by essentially saying there is no dispute.

Note that Tenmei highlighted Qwyrxian's words in blue by linking them to the archived diff. This makes it easier to find the context Qwyrxian created. If anyone objects to this trivial change in Qwyrxian's edit, please feel free to remove the hyperlink .

Qwyrxian -- you will have to wait now because I will respond slowly ... and this will involve re-visiting the development of this thread. It will take time. This is a needless conflict which you alone contrive.

Propositions

A. Qwyrxian was wrong to delete a citation-supported section of this article.

B. Qwyrxian was wrong in failing to respond to the diffs in this thread which invite discussion.

C. If Qwyrxian is not wrong in "A" and "B", then Tenmei needs to understand why.

Wouldn't it be better to restore each of the citation-supported sentences in the deleted section? --Tenmei (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it would not be better, because that section does not belong in this article. It belongs in Senkaku Islands dispute. I'm going to try to explain by analogy. Let's imagine that I were to add 3 or 4 paragraphs about the life cycle of a plant that lived on one of the Senkaku islands. Assume, furthermore, that it was well-sourced, and that the plant only lived on that island. Would that justify me keeping it in this article? Wouldn't it be better to have just one or two sentences about this unique plant here, and then put all of the biological details into the article about the plant itself? That's what I (and, I think, others) are trying to say--that this information, regardless of whether or not it belongs somewhere in Misplaced Pages, does not belong here. Simply because a section is well-sourced doesn't inherently protect it--it must be in the right article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand Tenmei probably put a lot of time writing these paragraphs. But they just should not be here, otherwise everyone would create something in the dispute tab over to here. So I would suggest Tenmei to put these on the discussion page of "dispute" entry, to make things easier it may help to put them one paragraph at a time.San9663 (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Tenmei, I'd point out that he may want to do something like World_war_2#Aftermath where a concise but representative summary is given in addition to a link to a more detailed page. Personally, if he's able to do a good multi-paragraph summary of the dispute page, I'd be fine with it. However, the trouble is that it is something very hard to do and what belongs within can vary depending on opinion. As a result, I believe sticking to one sentence or two is a more preferable alternative. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And the added info isn't a "summary" of what's at the dispute page--it's wholly new work. If all of that was at the dispute page, then perhaps a sentence or two could be added hear to include that "part" of the dispute page. But my understanding of subsections that refer to a Main other article is that they work basically like the lead of an article--they shouldn't contain information that isn't covered in the target article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the last paragraph of the "dispute section", it talked about the EEZ dispute. There are two problems. (1) As per Qwyrxian's comment above, the detailed discussion should be in the dispute tab and only a summary here. This is the whole point of splitting the entries and locking the others. Otherwise, this entry would become political and "disputable" again. (2) The EEZ dispute regarding the East China Sea sounds fine. However, again, it DOES NOT APPLY here. For the section near these islands, the 200nm / median line /continental shelf boundary differs little. I think we could still mention this (mainly at the East China Sea tab), and perhaps at here we should refer this to the "East China Sea" tab and expand over there. For these islands, the proper description should be first the dispute over the islands, then the dispute over whether the islands can be baseline of EEZ and finally the dispute about which EEZ demarcation rule applies.San9663 (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This revert here removed a Straw man. In other words, a straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man") ....

The edit history of this article is instructive.

Those who hope for consensus going-forward are compelled to reject the unstated premises of San9663's proposal here. --Tenmei (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Geography

Why do we have "arguments" in the geography section? I thought that section should be purely for describing the geograpahy of the islands. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The format of this rhetorical question is flawed. A better place to begin is with the term "geography" + WP:RS + WP:V. Those who hope for consensus going-forward are compelled to reject the unstated premises of Bobthefish2 proposal here.

As context, compare

• the 1st sentence of "Geography" section as of 04:25, 14 November 2010.
• the 2nd paragraph of "The islands group" as of 11:58, 21 July 2007.

Sometimes, less is more, but not in this article. The edit history of this article is instructive. --Tenmei (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should've been more direct with my rhetorical question - It has been agreed that any content dealing with disputes would occur in the dispute page. While I have not expressed a strong position on this matter, I believe Qwyrxian and others have already communicated their objections to your contents. I'd advise you to try to reach an understanding with them before proceeding any further. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Did you mistakenly think that I was responsible for what San9663's wrote here? --Tenmei (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Were you unaware that the first sentence in the "Geography" section was a Chinese-biased frame which feigned to be non-controversial?

The islands sit on the edge of the continental shelf of mainland Asia, and are separated from the Ryukyu Islands by the Okinawina Trough.

My question is not a rhetorical one. Did you recognize the embedded problem in this sentence? If so, why? If not, why not?

Fact: My modest edits deleted the non-neutral gambit and substituted neutral edit equivalents.

Fact: The new edits are the result of research.

Fact: Each new sentence is cited and linked to work published by a well-regarded Chinese academic; and, by the way, the research which informed Ji Guoxing's writing was supported by US Institute of Peace and published by the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.

Fact: There is not acknowledgment of the wiki-appropriate way I redressed an argumentative flaw in the "Geography" section.

Fact: There is complaint.

In other words, is this maxim on-point in the context this complaint creates?

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"

At this point, I mimic Qwyrxian's model here. I decline to pursue further discussion about a this complaint. What matters is that a misleading sentence has been corrected. This small problem would have been distracting if left unchallenged.

I will continue to do what I can to help ensure the academic credibility of this article and other articles in our Misplaced Pages project. I remain open to suggestions about how I might contribute more effectively. --Tenmei (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. If there is a pro-Chinese bias in that particular sentence, can you not simply remove it instead of adding new content? Since I have not followed your debates on the issue with Qwyrxian and San9663 closely, this is just an advice based on an impression that they may not find your choice of edit to be agreeable. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei, the last 2 bullets just shouldn't be in geography section, not even in this entry. I tried to refrain from doing too much changes, but I think sooner or later someone will change it. Frankly, I have difficulty understanding most of your edits and reverts, and I do not think you were using qwyrxian's model, but I will leave that for him to comment.San9663 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

San9663 -- The edit history of this article is instructive. The ultimate purpose of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute was put into simple words by DXDanl who suggested a salutary goal:

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

My edits to the Geography section enhance the usefulness of our article because they help readers better understand. --Tenmei (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)