Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:12, 3 May 2011

This talk page is only for discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands; any discussion of the islands—outside of material directly relating to the dispute—should be discussed at Talk:Senkaku Islands. Thank you for your cooperation.

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan: Geography & environment High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 03:08, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Taiwan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Re-formatted inline note

Perhaps this format will make it easier to discuss a disputed article in a reliable source? In this format, the MOFA web page is the core of the supporting citation; and redundant clarity or emphasis is provided by: restatement + and see + compare. --Tenmei (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The noun concatenation may help to describe this parsed format. --Tenmei (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, there is no "dispute". The translation is totally wrong and the claims based on that translation are also wrong. Yes, there were many Japanese sources that believed it, but so did many American Republican media believed Obama to be a Muslim.

The matter was beyond settled (and you were there when we discussed it) but it appeared User:Oda Mari and User:John Smith's loved the false information so much that they'd do anything to present it as truth.

If you would like to convince me of your good faith and editorial integrity, you can start by removing all contents and references associated with that Remin Ribao article. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- This may a good time to remind you of something you already know. The first paragraph at WP:V explains:

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING — which is a wiki-speak way of echoing what John Smith's meant when he suggested "put the spade down and stop digging" here.

Perhaps you might consider alternative approaches:

• No — these words are poking

• Oda Mari and John Smith's "loved the false information so much that they'd do anything to present it as truth"
• Tenmei ... "to convince me of your good faith and editorial integrity, you can start by removing"

• Better — these words encourage collaborative editing

• Reliable source citations which contradict or rebut the explicit and verifiable support for one sentence about a January 8, 1953 article in People's Daily include ....

Bobthefish2 -- your recent edits and your future choices are paired with unsurprising consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, I don't like your "concatenated" form of citation because (1) it makes unable to reuse the citation for other part as you experienced this time. (2) it decrease the readability. However if you accept my modification to the citation, I accept your format only in this case. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The concatenated citation format was removed here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert

This edit here restored text that Bobthefish2 blanked out. Bobthefish2 -- Please "stop digging".Bobthefish2 -- Please re-think your confrontational strategy; and please reconsider how your recent edits and your future choices are paired with unsurprising consequences. --Tenmei 17:52, 30 January 2011

Next step towards agreement

• WP:MULTI

The "Good practices" sub-section at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines suggests:

• Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why.

It is probably best to leave our archives undisturbed; and instead, relevant excerpts are consolidated in a collapsed format below:

• WP:EXHAUST

The "Good practices" sub-section at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines suggests

• Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion.

No agreement about an article in the People's Daily has been achieved — see above.

The Wikisource text helps us move beyond this exhausting distraction.

• Chinese Wikisource: 琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争
• Japanese Wikisource: 琉球群島人民による反米闘争
• English Wikisource: Senkaku Islands 1953

External links

• 《人民日报》1953年、台湾《联合报》1968年关于钓鱼岛的报道（簡体字）
• 琉球群島人民反對美國佔領的鬥爭 《人民日報》1953年1月8日4頁（繁体字）

This "new" information confirms the verified reliable source citations which are already incorporated in the article text.

In the absence of credible support for refutation or counterargument, no reasonable cause for continued disagreement exists. --Tenmei (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Overload! Look, I fully accept that Bobthefish2 thinks the translation is wrong. Heck, I even believe that it's very likely that it's wrong. I believe him (and another editor, I think San9663?) about six and a half thousand times more than I believe Google Translate. In fact, Google translate is essentially useless for anything other than a very broad picture, and we're dealing here with the exact translation of a few very specific words. There's a reason why human translators still make a lot of money despite the existence of (terrible) free translation software and (slightly better than terrible) non-free translation software. So your addition there doesn't help settle the issue (btw, could you collapse the Chinese text and translations? They don't really help us understand the right way forward).

The problem is, (as Bobthefish2 and I have been discussing on his talk page, is that we have reliable sources that say otherwise. The biggest problem is that one of those reliable sources is from a University Press, which is near the top tier of Misplaced Pages sources. We can "dismiss" the Japanese sources, as they're obviously partisan--at best, they tell us what the Japanese government thinks the article meant. However, I do have a question about the book--does anyone have a copy or can anyone get a copy? That section has a citation/footnote, but it's not in the free Google download of the book. I'm interested to see if they author directly cites Remin Ribao directly, or if the author cites one of the Japanese translations (as this could effect the reliability of that claim).

The other thing is, is there anyone who has any reliable source (i.e., not another Misplaced Pages editor) which states that the Japanese translation is wrong? If so, I think we can easily solve the problem by saying "Some sources, such as researcher X and the Japanese government, claim that a 1953 Remin Ribao article indicated that... (ref ref ref); however, source Y says that that interpretation is a mistranslation of the original text, which actually meant...(ref)." That would perfectly contextualize the issue--the point is, we show that Japan has made a certain claim, and that that claim may be incorrect. That's kind-of the point behind having a dispute article--that we don't just include the "evidence" from the different sides that's "right", but we provide a wide selection of different evidence. We're trying to describe the "dispute", not the underlying issue of who really does "own" the islands.

Or, in other words, what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I took long to join the discussion. I have to admit I didn't check this thread. It's so long and if I miss or misunderstand something, please point it out. Bobthefish2 wrote "The translation is totally wrong and the claims based on that translation are also wrong". Bobthefish2, would you please specify what part is wrongly translated? I mean one by one on sentence basis? I'm afraid your claim is too vague to understand/accept. I saw Phoenix7777 added a ref. to the article, I don't read it yet though. But can you accept it, Bobthefish2? Oda Mari (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a reliable source that backs the translation is totally wrong. Then Bobthefish2 can add that refutation in "Arguments from PRC and ROC" section without removing the well sourced contents. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread is too long because

Bobthefish2 argues in a way that persuades Qwyrxian. More important, it is too long because Qwyrxian is trying to foster collaborative editing by suggesting extraordinary and extreme AGF. Okay? --Tenmei (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the point:

Bobthefish2 -- Now is the time to put your money where your mouth is or to put up or shut up. IMO, you MUST answer Oda Mari's questions here:

Bobthefish2, would you please specify what part is wrongly translated?

In fact, this all around the mulberry bush is about

• one sentence only in Senkaku Islands dispute, okay?
• one sentence only in the People's Daily article, okay?
• one part of the first sentence in the January 1953 article, okay?
• 包括尖閣諸島 ... is translated "including the Senkaku Islands", okay?

Let's work through this and move on. If you don't answer, what are we to think? --Tenmei (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment added later/out of sequence: Bobthefish2 reminded me here of the unanswered question above. He paraphrased a Latin maxim -- "He who is silent appears to consent" (Qui tacet consentire videtur). In our unique talk page venue, the maxim is shown to be rejected by Bobthefish2's subsequent edits.

Bobthefish2 demonstrates a belief that strategic goals are achieved by the refusal to respond; and this tactic is endorsed by Qwyrxian. --Tenmei (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of context accusations are not very helpful. Your requests were ignored because they had been addressed multiple times in the page and elsewhere. This is evidenced by the discussions in this page and in the RfC.

In addition, I did not automatically assume your refusal to respond to be a sign of surrender. What I did was to simply ask if I could make an assumption (which is a way to prompt a response from you). I hope you can appreciate there is a great distinction between the two circumstances. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cumulative vs redundant reliable sources?

←I just reverted the new source Phoneix777 added, since it doesn't add any new support. That source explicitly states that its information is from the Japanese newspaper (if I understood it correctly), thus it's not really adding any new verification beyond the Japanese news articles already referenced there. Unless the source independently verified the Chinese source, I don't see any need in having yet one more. To be honest, I think that even some of the sources that are already there should be taken out (like that Q&A news article), but I didn't want to address that issue until we get a better handle on what's going on with the source overall. 11:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

←Qwyrxian, You don't have any privilege to remove a reliable source unless it is proved to be against WP:RS. Whether it adds any new fact isn't the reason to remove the reference. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

←Um, no. If that's what you think, you badly misunderstand both WP:RS and WP:V. Policies absolutely do not state that "all reliable sources must be added to articles." That would mean that every time anyone adds any reliable source to an article, it must stay forever. That's not only wrong, it's nonsensical. Are you saying I could go the library, and find 100 citations to encyclopedias or articles that state the exact latitude and longitude of the Senkaku Islands, and that once I add them all, they all stay? In fact, WP:RS and WP:V are exclusionary, not inclusionary. That is, they exist to define what may not be in an article, not to define what must be in an article. There are dozens of reasons to remove reliable sources from articles; one of them is that we don't need to duplicate information already in the article. Now, you're welcome to disagree with my revert, but, per standard BRD, it's up to you now to get consensus here on the talk page, not re-insert. I recommend starting a new section at the end of this page to discuss whether or not that reference belongs in the article. I'm going to remove it now until you get consensus to restore it. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

←I am afraid that your action here impairs your reputation established around the wikipedia. If you actually think you have a privilege to remove a reference because it adds nothing new, please educate me with a guideline or a policy. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

←That's impossible--you're asking me to prove a negative, because there is no policy that says, "All reliably sourced info must stay." Look at the wording on WP:V and WP:OR, which are the policies to which WP:RS relates. WP:V says, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." That is, paraphrasing, "we may only include information which is verified." It does not say, "All verifiable information must be included." Similarly, WP:OR states, "This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." It does not state, "All material which is attributable to a reliable published source must appear in an article."

Furthermore, I can find all sorts of information about situations in which it is acceptable to remove information found in a reliable source. WP:UNDUE, for instance, says that we don't include opinions from a reliable source if doing so would give them more prominence than the opinion deserves. WP:BLP restricts all sorts of reliable sources, if there is a violation of the presumption of privacy (for instance, we don't usually include the names of children of BLPs, even if we can reliably source them). We don't provide any of the myriad types of information found in WP:NOT, even if it can be reliably sourced.

Again, think of my example above: are you telling me that I can add 100 citations to all different encyclopedias about any given fact in an article, and, so long as they are all reliable? Obviously that's not our goal, so it must be plausible to cut reliable sources based on editorial judgment. Think about any article which uses news articles for sources; based on the way newspapers, particularly online ones, repeat the same based information over and over again, we could end up with several hundred citations on every fact on a historical article. Mind you, it would be wrong to cut the only source supporting something, or two sources which verify different aspects of a sentence/point, but we don't have to have all sorts of references that all say the same thing.

If you still really doubt me, we can take the question to either WP:RSN, or to the talk page of a relevant policy, like WP:V. I have seen editors far more experienced and with better "reputation" than I state essentially the same thing as I'm stating here. I would be happy to go find some if you don't believe all of my rationale here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

←Sorry, one follow-up clarification: I said in an edit summary I'm 100% certain of my stance. I want to clarify that I'm not 100% certain that this specific RS shouldn't be in the article. What I am certain of is that the decision to keep the source is an editorial decision, that will require consensus; that is, I'm certain that is it not policy that once an RS is added to an article, it automatically gets to stay and policy says it can't be removed. All I want is for us to have a discussion about that source (obviously, I believe it doesn't belong), not just to have Phoenix7777 re-add it under the grounds that policy says I can't delete an RS. Finally, once we resolve this, I will happily collapse it (or we can just refactor it to a new section now, if Phoenix7777 agrees), since I know this isn't directly related to the topic of this seciton. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not heard of any policy that states RS' cannot be removed for any reasons. After all, RS' can be wrong and can be outdated. The only thing that's special about RS is that it is easier to be trusted and will not be automatically viewed as dubious.

In contrast to what User:Phoenix7777 suggested, I don't see how User:Qwyrxian is hurting his reputation by second guessing this RS of his. After all, anyone could've done the same, including myself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This sub-thread is too long because
Qwyrxian is trying to foster collaborative editing by suggesting extraordinary consideration and extreme AGF. Okay?

We are bending over backwards in the attempt to work with Qwyrxian. Multiple verified, reliable source citations are rejected by Bobthefish2 + Qwyrxian.

In other words, unsupported, non-specific allegations about mistakes in translation are hypothetically treated as if there were some valid reason for them -- extreme benefit of the doubt.

In another article, this would be insufficient. The fact that not one citation is added to support refutation or counterargument would resolve the dispute -- but not here.

Okay?

Phoenix7777 adds citations which explicitly rebuts the groundless argument which has been put forward.

In the unique context Bobthefish2 + Qwyrxian alone are responsible for creating, these citations must stay because the explicitly respond to the contrived argument about something wrong in translation. Okay? --Tenmei (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I found the sentence I've been looking for, from WP:NOT: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." Then WP:NOT lists a bunch of specifics, but also explicitly says that the list is not exhaustive. In other words, just because something is reliable, doesn't mean it goes in. No response to Tenmei here (we can tackle it in another section), because xe's missing the point of the discussion between me and Phoenix7777. P7 says that I can't delete it because it is against policy to delete RS. I dispute this, and am 100% certain he is wrong. In fact, the points you (Tenmei) raise are exactly the ones I want to discuss. But, per BRD, I want to discuss them first before Phoenix re-adds the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , please don't bring irrelevant essay WP:NOT. It is not intended for citations but contents. For citations, WP:RS says RS should stay and unRS shouldn't. WP:V says an irrelevant source should be removed, in other words, a relevant source shouldn't be removed. If you proposing a new criteria "If the source is RS and relevant but adds no value, it should be removed", please discuss at WP talk:RS and gain consensus there. Moreover, the source I added adds value because (1) The author is not Japanese while all others are Japanese. (2) It shows the claim was published in as old as 1996, while other source published recently. (3) because this sentence is disputed over its translation or wording, So the wording (probably by author not sankei shimbun) "Senkaku Islands as one of the subgroups of islands that constituted the Ryukyu Islands" adds new value to the sentence.
I am puzzled why you oppose the inclusion of the source ignoring the existent almost duplicated sources from Japanese government.

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3. "In addition, an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands."; retrieved 29 Jan 2011.
• Representative Office of Japan to PNA, Newsletter #2, November 2010; see Item 3; "... an article in the People’s Daily dated January 8, 1953, under the title of “Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation”, made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands"; accord Embassy of Japan in Israel, Newsletter #2, October 2010 see Item 4.

These quotes are exactly the same because they come from the official Japanese translation. If you oppose inclusion of either of the source, I would compromise to change the citation as follows.

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3. "In addition, an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands."; retrieved 29 Jan 2011.
  • See also Representative Office of Japan to PNA, Newsletter #2, November 2010; see Item 3. Embassy of Japan in Israel, Newsletter #2, October 2010 see Item 4.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My dear Phoenix7777, there appears to be something very wrong with your reasoning. In the above post, you wrote:

WP:V says an irrelevant source should be removed, in other words, a relevant source shouldn't be removed.

This is a common logical fallacy that people commit, particular those not versed in areas of science, mathematics, and logic. Basically, you confused a material conditional with a logical biconditional. To put it in simpler terms, the fates of "relevant" sources and "irrelevant sources" are not required to be polar opposites of each other (i.e. stay vs. remove). Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Boobthefish2 is right (another way of saying it is mistaking necessity for sufficiency; or "going backwards across the arrow", or whatever you want to call it). Phoenix7777, can you please quote from me or point to the section of WP:RS that says that every reliable source should remain in the article? I promise you, you can't find it, because it's not there, because such a requirement wouldn't make sense. However, I will absolutely eat all of my words if you can show me anywhere in any policy anything that says "everything that is verified should stay" or "every reliable source should stay." Remember, your interpretation of policy would mean that I could add 100 sources to every single fact, so long as I could find them and prove they're reliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you are right in your general discussion. However this discussion is whether my citation should stay or not. Are you sure you could gain consensus to remove that particular citation here? It is quite difficult to persuade others to remove a citation unless there is a quite obvious reason. I suggest you to consult an expert in appropriate places like WP:CITE, WP:RS or WP:V. Moreover the removal of the citation does nothing to improve the article. If you insist to discuss here, it is a waste of time. So I wouldn't respond your post unless you gain consensus at the above mentioned talk pages. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You should consider reading other people's posts carefully. I believe Qwyrxian had stated a couple of times that the source your added is not contributing anything new to the article. His argument was that a source A already exists and you added a source B that directly reports what source A said.

At the same time, you should realize that reliable sources are not sacred artifacts. They do get changed or removed from articles. If each modification and removal merits an RfC or consensus vote, then I don't think anyone can do anything in Misplaced Pages.

By the way, before you decide to waste more time on this, I should remind you that your precious RS is still going to be gone once I decide to press the issue on the Remin Ribao article. Just give it up. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you need consensus to add the citation. It wasn't there a few days ago, and you added it. That's great, and perfect editing. I reverted it, arguing that it isn't necessary. It's now up to you to explain why you think it is necessary. However, Btf2 has a point--not specifically that the Remin Ribao article has to come out, necessarily, but that we need to decide whether or not it needs to come out. For my part, I need to go back and read everything that's been said about it so far; I deliberately didn't follow the discussion before (I never intended to edit this article on a regular basis, but, such is life...), so I guess i need to see. I think we need a new section below. Once we work out what this sentence is doing in the article, and how to phrase it, we can choose which of the citations best support that statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

NO CAUSE for locking this article

Nihonjoe wrongly locked this article in order to avert an anticipated edit war; but there was no just cause at this time. At the time the page was locked, I was preparing the table below in answer to a reasonable question asked by Oda Mari. A secondary purpose in making this table was to rebut Qwyrxian wrongful deletion of a properly cited and relevant source.

The most relevant factor is that Bobthefish2 is supported by Qwyrxian in an impossible-to-defend claim with zero citation in support.

I don't understand how zero citation support trumps WP:V+WP:RS, but I do understand that Phoenix777 posted an arguably responsive citation which specifically addressed what I presume he thought was the core issue. Summarizing: In the cited article, the Foreign Minister of Japan explicitly "translated" key phrases of the People's Daily article which Bobthefish2 insists is mistranslated.

Phoenix777 created a crystal clear choice: WP:V+WP:RS vs. mere opinion. Nihonjoe's action effectively turns things upside down.

In effect, Nihonjoe's action announces that someehow Phoenix777 was very wrong, so wrong that drastic action is needed.

In the archived threads, we see in earlier diffs posted by Bobthefish2 and San9663 that translation is a red herring; nevertheless, in the spirit of collaborative editing, Phoenix777 was bending over backwards to help us all move forward. The purpose of the added citation deserves applause, not criticism.

Bottom line: Phoenix7777 edit was consistent with WP:Five Pillars In other words, Nihonjoe's judgment was not consistent with good policy nor was it in the best interests of our collaborative editing project.

IMO, Phoenix7777 edit and the table below are constructive responses to a unique situation. Qwyrxian argued:

"... in other words, what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2011

Phoenix7777's diff was a measured response to the proposed status quo Qwyrxian sought to contrive; and indeed, I join Phoenix7777 in believing that WP:V+WP:RS must trump empty words.

I am glad to witness User:Tenmei writing more and more in the form of standard English. This renders it somewhat easier to convince myself to read his comments instead of ignoring them. *Thumbs up*

Anyhow, I don't see anything wrong with what User:Nihonjoe did. User:Qwyrxian found a cause to raise skepticism towards User:Phoenix7777's additions and requested WP:BRD. But for some reason, User:Phoenix7777 decided to ignore and persisted in re-adding the reference(s) in question. Even though he didn't break the 3R rule, he was basically edit-warring in spirit (not to mention the tag-teaming you guys did when I tried to remove something that we agreed on).

As for the references involved and the translation issue, it's pretty obvious. Even User:Oda Mari himself agreed that the reference to Okinawa was a red-herring. If you even pay attention to the University of Hawaii Press article which you guys cited, the logical fallacy involved is obvious (i.e. Ryukyu Islands != Okinawa and Okinawa Prefecture did not exist in 1953). The four of you can tell whatever lies you like about it and come up with any number of references that tell the same lie, but it doesn't change anything.

Shessh, I hate repeating myself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see anywhere on this "translation table" of User:Tenmei's that support the notion of the Remin Ribao referring the disputed islands as part of Japan or part of the Okinawa Prefecture -> This is the meat of the dispute. In case everyone's memory fell a bit short, this is what the University of Hawaii Press article said:

To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Remin Ribao , the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party criticized the occupation of the Ryukyu 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 Diaoyu (J: Senkaku Islands) were a part of the Liuqiu Islands (Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan..

Note the text I bolded. Bobthefish2

Just to be comprehensive, I've quoted the content I found to be fraudulent on Senkaku Islands dispute:

The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953. (Arguments from Japan section)

An article published by the Renmin Ribao in 1953. It listed "Senkaku Islands" as part of the (then) U.S.-occupied Ryuku Islands (Okinawa). (Figure caption)

It's kind of sad that I have to spell everything out over and over again (since October 2010), but somehow I doubt this will be the last. However, I hope this will convince at least Qwyrxian that he doesn't need to AGF to believe I am right. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't an "anticipated" edit war, it was one that was already in progress. This is a very controversial topic and everyone involved here is well aware of that fact. Constantly reverting each other because you don't agree with each other is NOT the way to go about things here on this hot topic. Also, locking the article in a particular state does not in any way endorse that state as somehow more correct than any other state. If you read the protection policy, you'll see that clearly spelled out there. Once you can come to a consensus on what needs to be done to the article, we can discuss unprotecting it. If you can't find a way to come to that consensus, then the article will remain protected indefinitely. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...I wasn't keen on this article being locked, and I actually don't think it was an edit war: it was an Addition, revert, re-add, revert, re-add... That's really just 2 reverts each side...but, I can understand Nihonjoe's thinking given the history here. No real damage is done by having the article locked. I'd ask that everyone look to my new section at the bottom, because I think our ability to discuss things here has broken down and we need mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Remin Ribao statement

First, to clarify, this is the one sentence we're dealing with, right?

"The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953.+ 7 refs"

Of those refs, 2 are from the government of Japan (32 & 33), 2 are from books published by US university presses (34 & 35), two are from Japanese newspapers (36 & 38), and one is from some Japanese book whose source/quality I can't determine (37).

Now, the claim, in general, from Bobthefish2 and (previously) San9663, is that the Remin Ribao article which all of those references are talking about has been consistently and regularly mistranslated by the Japanese and US sources. However, as far as I know, neither of them has produced any reliable sources which support the claim that the translations are wrong. However, Btf2 claims that it's obvious to any reader of Chinese, that this issue is unambiguous, and that we therefore shouldn't be including "obviously wrong" information. Further, he claims that, at least at one point, Oda Mari agreed with him that the translation is wrong, and had agreed to take out the information, but that later he reneged on that agreement. As far as I know, Tenmei argues that the translation is correct, and further that Tenmei, Phoenix7777, and, to a lesser degree, myself, believe that it doesn't really matter what any of us think, because WP:V tells us we don't get to decide what's true, and have to rely on reliable sources to tell us what's true.

Am I right so far? I have 2 follow-up comments, but I want to make sure I have the gist of the discussion first. Did I miss anything? Are there, in fact RS that show that this translation is wrong? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two parts where the article was mistranslated. First, the tokens "Ryukyu Islands" should not be accompanied with a (Okinawa Prefecture)/(Okinawa), because the two entites are not the same. Second, semantics of the article was twisted based on this previous point (i.e. PRC listed the Senkaku Islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands and not as part of Okinawa or the Okinawa Prefecture).

User:Oda Mari agreed with the first point (after much effort) and somehow failed to comprehend the incorrectness of the second. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- No. This new thread is off on the wrong foot, again. The so-called "gist" is fatally flawed because it it is incompatible with effectively legitimizes and encourages "original research", which is a specifically defined wiki-term and concept, i.e.,

Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

The problems in this restatement are overwhelming; and see EXAMPLE A above. --Tenmei (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- No. You are barking up the wrong tree; and see EXAMPLE A above. --Tenmei (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go back and read WP:NOR again? After all, it can be a bit humiliating if you cite WP policies without knowing how it actually applies. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, I'm not arguing that Bobthefish2 is right about Oda Mari, I'm simply trying to summarize the situation. One of my followup points is that it doesn't really matter what Oda Mari did or didn't agree to, because consensus is more than 2 people, consensus can change, and, most importantly, consensus cannot override policy. I just wanted to make sure I understand the position of the two sides. I needed to confirm, here, on this thread, that Bobthefish2 does not have any reliable sources to support his position. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- Yes

WP:Five Pillars is indispensible, not optional in this talk page venue no less than anywhere else The formulation of a "gist" above is incompatible with the fine distinction we all agree to make between facts and factoids. In other words, the "gist" mis-serves the larger goals of Misplaced Pages by wrongly ascribing credibility -- arguendo -- to the unverifiable theories and factoids of Bobthefish2. This scrupulously even-handed mediation strategy is demonstrably useful in the real world; but in our venue, it only encourages what should have been discouraged. This is among the lessons learned the hard way over the past few months; and see EXAMPLE A above. --Tenmei (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're mis-speaking, or if you don't understand, but the Five Pillars actually don't apply to talk page discussions, except for WP:CIVIL. People can and do regularly summarize arguments, analyze the claims of others, and comment non-neutrally, and this is all perfectly acceptable. Only our articles need to be neutral and contain no OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- Yes, of course.

In Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, the array of factoids have been pressed at such length and with such vigor that any conceptual Chinese walls become an impediment, not a useful rhetorical feature of our talk page threads.

In the alternative, are you insisting that we must throw out the baby with the bath water? Is this another of those instances in which form is elevated over function; and if so, to what end? --Tenmei (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- If citing WP:NOR becomes a distraction in this thread, the words can be struck out.

Your so-called "gist" is of part of a sequence of tactics which marginalize Oda Mari's diff here and my endorsement here.

In other words, in this instance

(a) more than one editor says "widgets are white" (verified with 7 reliable source citations); and

(b) more than one editor says "no, the widgets are not white" but this is unverified with not one reliable source citation in support.

Therefore, the only way for the conflicting assertions to be sorted out is is for a source to be produced. --Tenmei (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, Tenmei. Next time, please do make sure you are familiar with a policy before citing it. Otherwise, it can cause unnecessary confusion. I will leave the rest of your post to Qwyrxian. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have read through the opening paragraph, and I'm going to carefully read through the whole People's Daily article later. On first reading, the assertion appears to be suspect; what's more, it lacks attribution although several sources are apposed. Knowing how tightly controlled the People's Daily is, I see such a statement as highly improbable. What I do see is a number of partisan sources attempting to draw inferences that the PD tacitly admitted Japanese sovereignty merely based on an opening paragraph – a geographical description of the Senkaku Islands and their location – saying they were part of the larger Ryukyu Islands archipelago group. Just from looking at the article and its sources, I feel that the statement currently in the article, that the People's Daily said... is misattributed and pointed, for the PD in fact said nothing of the sort, AFAICT. A more neutral way of putting this is that "Japanese and sources point to a People's Daily article which said that 'Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands', based upon which they inferred that Senkaku islands was the part of Japanese territory". --Ohconfucius 02:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What you said was very thoroughly pointed out, but I am glad you agreed. However, I'd say even putting "Japanese and sources point to a People's Daily article which said that 'Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands', based upon which they inferred that Senkaku islands was the part of Japanese territory" is a bit inaccurate. A more precise statement would be to say something like "various Japanese sources argued that by equating Ryukyu Islands with the Okinawa Prefecture". However, this is still problematic because the Okinawa Prefecture does not exist in 1953. So, this makes the whole thing quite fishy and something we are much better off to do without. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Aiming to be neutral, we should also avoid revisionism, except to report on it when supported by reliable sources. --Ohconfucius 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would further state my view that the accuracy of the translation is not material, and I believe the formulation suggested above, or similar, will get us around this problem which has been hotly debated here for so long. Those sources apposed to the assertion about what the PD said were making inferences based on a wrong interpretation, and completely out of line with the article itself – and it seems to be confirmed by rereading the brief quotes thereto – so it's not a translation issue at all. We are never likely going to have a repudiation of the specific point as to its interpretation in the PD article from the Communist Party, who have consistently asserted their sovereignty claim over Senkaku – another fact that is not in dispute. Mention of the Okinawa Prefecture, to me, is also a red herring. --Ohconfucius 04:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It still can be viewed as a translation issue in that they equated Okinawa Prefecture with Ryukyu Islands. At the same time, some of the sources probably even skipped that and simply said something like "... listed Senkaku Islands as part of Okinawa". But you are right, it is unlikely that we'd have any serious references that deal with something so obviously wrong and stupid (just as most legit media ignore anything Fox News says). Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone still needs any sort of rebuttal of the 'bad translation', mentioning as I suggested above that China has consistently assert sovereignty claims over the 'Diaoyu Islands' would work quite well as a follow-on sentence, suitably cited, of course – it won't be difficult. --Ohconfucius 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that violates WP:SYN. Besides, I believe there's a way to eliminate something dubious like this (remember, WP:SYN can be used in choosing content but not in writing content). The reason why this is not going through is due to persistence on the part of four editors from Japan and not due to details not being worked out. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, you missed two important points.

1. You are misunderstanding the fact that Chinese government never argued over the islands since the incorporation to Japan in 1895 until the first Chinese government's protest in 1971 and "China never consistently assert sovereignty claims over the islands" during that period.
2. This section is "Arguments from Japan". NPOV is unnecessary. Moreover even a" stupid POV claim" viewed from Chinese can be added as long as the sources support. Your own "NPOV" interpretation of the People's Daily article is entirely inappropriate. What you can do in this situation is to add a refutation of Chinese to the "Arguments from PRC and ROC" section with a reliable source. You can see the corresponding Chinese article refutes the claim saying that it is a citation of a Japanese source citing a People's Daily article if my Google translation is correct. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you should go read WP:NPOV again before asserting that there are parts of WP where it doesn't apply. After all, there is a difference between WP:NPOV and narrating a person's POV using WP:NPOV. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a good time to re-assert something we all already know. That is, the goal of our collaborative editing is to develop an article about the Senkaku Islands dispute. We all agree that the article needs to be perceived as having a neutral point of view.

With WP:Five Pillars as a commonly understood foundation, we all should be willing and able to acknowledge with the following:

This is non-controversial. We do agree, don't we? --Tenmei 17:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rinmin Ribao is a primary source

Can we all agree on a few facts?

• FACT: This thread is about one sentence only.
• FACT: This thread is about a sentence which cites an article which apppeared in Rinmin Ribao in 1953.
• FACT: This thread is about "Struggle of the people of the Ryukyu Islands against U.S. occupation" (琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争), People's Daily (人民日報), January 8, 1953.
• FACT: This thread is about one or more sentences in "Struggle of the people of the Ryukyu Islands against U.S. occupation" (琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争).

Each of the above are valid; and each are non-controversial sentences which say almost the same thing in different ways.

The People's Daily online archive includes the January 8, 1953 edition. The digitized version of the published text can be found in the middle of the page on the left side of page 4. A clickable hyperlink to this archived text was posted above at Next step towards agreement; and it is re-posted below:

琉球群島人民反對美國佔領的鬥爭 《人民日報》1953年1月8日4頁（繁体字）

At this point, those who don't read Chinese simply can not know what this article says. The archived People's Daily issue from 1953 is a primary source; however, there is no official English translation. Our decisions about what to do next can be informed by WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources

Although there are claims that this primary source was mistranslated, we have no secondary source citations which confirm this opinion. In the current version of our locked article, what we know as "facts" are confirmed by bundled citations which ensure text-source integrity.

In other words, our only facts are what the cited secondary sources collectively confirm about (a) our sentence and (b) the article which is mentioned in our sentence. Anything else is only a "factoid" which wiki-speak defines as "original research". The word "factoid" is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".

One of the goals of this thread is to parse distinctions between "facts" and "factoids". --Tenmei (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears you need to read WP:NOR again. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Yes, I did re-read WP:NOR. We agree, do we not that "original research", is a specifically defined wiki-term and concept, i.e., The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

Mirroring the explicit wording which is copied from WP:NOR:

• Please provide secondary source citations which show that what appeared to be "original research" was "already published by reliable sources".
• Please identify what you assert to be examples of primary source mistranslation which "served to advance a position not advanced by" the 1953 Rinmin Ribao article.

These requests are reasonable, aren't they? --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No they aren't, because your first point doesn't make sense (i.e. rephrase) and the second point was already addressed multiple times. Also, it appears you don't really get how WP:NOR fits into all this. You should look up what User:Qwyrxian said about it if you still are confused. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rinmin Ribao translation

Will a Chinese-English translation of the 1953 Rinmin Ribao article be welcome? Could it be rejected? Can it be ignored?

How shall we go about determining the consensus opinion about this? --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:

  As I have expressed to Tenmei in an e-mail, I am willing to help with the translation provided that there is consensus that a translation will be helpful to resolving the dispute here or will be helpful to the improvement of the article. As I have also expressed, I believe that the current translation of the first sentence is accurate and not "fraudulent" (as some have accused it to be); indeed, I see no reasonable argument that the translation is not accurate. (I asked Tenmei to open a discussion on the issue, which he has, and I appreciate that.)

  But I have personal doubts to the relevance of the article to the subject matter at large (as I also expressed to Tenmei in the e-mail):

  1. This is one article from one newspaper (albeit the PRC's official newspaper) written by one author. Its value as the supposed PRC concession of the sovereignty issue to Japan is extremely questionable in my opinion; this was not an official communique (although as an aside, the letter from the ROC government is also something that I would find to be of questionable value as the main topic of the letter was clearly not about who owns the islands but the expression of gratitude for assistance).
  2. Even if it were minimally relevant, its probative value on the issue is highly limited given that the article was written clearly as anti-American propaganda. Propaganda pieces' own credibility are suspect.

  For this reason, I myself see no particular use for the translation of the article in its entirety — or, for that matter, the necessity of (over-)analyzing the People's Daily article in the article as a whole, other than the one sentence acknowledging the Japanese argument that the article was an implicit concession. (The argument's own persuasiveness can be left to the reader to decide, as Misplaced Pages is not a place to tell the readers what to think about the value of the source.) But as someone who does not endorse the Japanese position, I hope that, if there is a consensus that a translation is helpful, I would be willing to attempt a neutral and accurate translation, to help resolve the dispute. I don't believe I will express my position beyond this, other than to observe that I hope that all editors on all sides of this issue will calm down and try to work with each other rather than to throw accusations back and forth. --Nlu (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, I am curious you suddenly keep silence. you have an obligation to respond to above User:Nlu's comment. If you do not respond, you are construed as to admit you lied that the translation is "fraudulent". I usually overlook a loser of discussion. However I am not so tolerant in this case. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2011

ENDORSE the blunt, direct reasoning of Phoenix7777, except for the use of a bold verb instead of a euphemism or a less confrontational, more diplomatic word choice. --Tenmei (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "fraudulent" is a provocative word. This adjective has been repeated widely and often by Bobthefish2.

For example, when Bobthefish2 asks Elen of the Roads to lock our article here, he emphasizes a so-called "fraudulent claim":

Bobthefish2 complains:

"Justification: Even after 6 months of participation, some of the most basic changes/corrections I requested are still not committed due to relentless filibustering by User:Oda Mari, User:Phoenix7777, and User:John Smith's. An example (in the summary linked below, search for Remin Ribao) would be some fraudulent claims based on mis-translations of a Chinese article where the errors were explicitly verified. Even now, two of the aforementioned editors still persisted in preserving the associated misinformation and inaccurate references ...."

In the excerpt above, Bobthefish2 mentions a linked summary here, which mirrors the same argument using the adjective "fraudulent":

Bobthefish2 complains:

"In general, the main issues of debate are really on edits that promote a pro-Japanese tilt ....

• "Obvious mis-uses of an Remin Ribao article and citations Japanese references that (intentionally or not) mis-translated the this Chinese article .... I brought up the issue with Remin Ribao article because it was well-agreed, in ages back, that all the statements made regarding it was based on fraudulent translations ...."

The cumulative effect of our threads has seemed to foster a status quo based on "original research" and factoids rather than WP:V + WP:RS. For example, in response to questioning by Qwyrxian,

Bobthefish2 complains:

"I doubt there is any reliable sources that refute the fraudulent translations because these are obscure arguments that are generally disregarded .... Besides, I believe WP:SYN is allowed when it comes to deciding what content to add/change/remove."

Yes, the non-response means something and it is noteworthy.

Now Bobthefish2 writes nothing. Why? --Tenmei (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have already outlined my arguments a number of times and I don't feel obliged at all to reply to everyone who choose not to read them carefully. But If you insist... Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- The issues here are specific, not general. An "outline" of arguments is by definition "general".

In the diff above, you mention an "outline". This is worrisome.

An overview is by definition "general"; and a projected restatement of an overview is likely fail to address the "specifics" which are inextricable from the word "fraudulent" -- see Google search for "fraudulent definition in Canada"

To be very, very clear: Do we agree that the phrase "fraudulent translation" is construed in English usage -- nothing in common with classical Chinese dialogues like When a white horse is not a horse? --Tenmei (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have trouble understanding the term "fraudulent", here's something to assist you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is moved from my talk page; I hope Bobthefish2 does not mind: --Nlu (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi User:Nlu, it appears some individuals are desperate to have me to discuss with you on our disagreement on the semantics of the Remin Ribao article.

The issue I find problematic is your assertion that there is one sentence acknowledging the Japanese argument in the Remin Ribao article. My assumption is that you were refering to that first sentence and my caveat for you is that the author of the article listed the Senkaku Islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands. If you are not particularly familiar with East Asian geopolitics, the Ryukyu Islands did not belong to Japan at that time and is not the same entity as Okinawa. Although the current Okinawa district encompassed most of the Ryukyu Islands, it also did not exist until some 20 years after the article was published. I hope you notice the distinction.

Since I wasn't sure if you are going to check the Senkaku Islands dispute page, I wrote this piece on your talk page. For future responses, you should direct them to the thread you started. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, it appears that you are misunderstanding my position. Let me start with the "there is one sentence acknowledging the Japanese argument in the Ribao article." That is not what I wrote. What I wrote above is that, in my opinion, the one-sentence translation is not "fraudulent"; it is accurate.

What I am advocating is that the Senkaku Islands dispute article should contain one sentence, no more, no less, that acknowledges that the Japanese government uses the article to advocate its position, without advocating that the argument is valid or invalid. (As I explained, I consider the argument extremely tenuous, but Misplaced Pages is not commentary or advocacy.) I am not displaying an agreement with the Japanese position. Further, it is not my position that the article substantially supports the Japanese governmental position.

But again, what is clear is that the Japanese government did not manufacture the article (and neither did the editors here). Therefore, it is incorrect and improper to call the article "fraudulent." Again, I think that article should be taken for what it is; one article in one newspaper written by one author as an anti-American propaganda piece.

I personally have no position on whether the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are a part of Ryukyu, or whether they are part of Japan, ROC, or PRC. But I believe that we need to pay each other some courtesy here, and calling a translation to be "fraudulent" when it clearly is not is improper. Bobthefish2, I hope you can distinguish between the issues of "does the article make sense?", "does the article support the Japanese position?" and "was the article translated correctly?" All I was speaking on is the latter; that first sentence was translated correctly.

Again, I am more than willing to help translate the remaining parts of the article but only if there is consensus that the translation will be helpful to resolve the dispute or to improve the Misplaced Pages article. My own opinion is that it does not — because the article's own probative value is minimal. But if consensus is otherwise, I'm willing to help. I am not advocating for the validity of the Japanese position or for the argument that the article constituted an official PRC acknowledgement of the validity of the Japanese position. --Nlu (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears we might be in agreement but somehow are confused with each other's wording. The specifics of which I consider as fraudulent were:

• The supposed equivalence between Ryukyu Islands and the District of Okinawa. For examples, in some translations, the Ryukyu Islands were accompanied with "(Okinawa Prefecture"). I consider that to be an inaccurate element.
• That the Remin Ribao article even referred the islands in disputes as part of Japan

In that sense, I stand corrected in saying the article was incorrectly translated at a semantic level. You might find it to be more precise to say the semantics of the articles were intentionally twisted and misused, but I found my description of the problem to be sufficient.

Now, as for the rest.

• I consider the Remin Ribao article to be a legitimate primary source and not fraudulent
• I don't consider the article to be supportive of the Japanese position nor any arguments associated with it to be of any worth (after all, they were based purely on twisting facts in an obvious manner)

Anyway, let me know if you disagree with any of the things I've said. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it helpful to re-visit brief excerpts from sequential diffs:

1. Bobthefish wrote: Tenmei, there is no "dispute". The translation is totally wrong and the claims based on that translation are also wrong ...."
2. Oda Mari responded to Bobthefish2: "Bobthefish2 wrote "The translation is totally wrong and the claims based on that translation are also wrong". Bobthefish2, would you please specify what part is wrongly translated? I mean one by one on sentence basis? I'm afraid your claim is too vague to understand/accept."
3. Phoenix777 wrote: "I would prefer a reliable source that backs the translation is totally wrong. Then Bobthefish2 can add that refutation in "Arguments from PRC and ROC" section without removing the well sourced contents."
4. Tenmei responded to Oda Mari: "At the time the page was locked, I was preparing the table below in answer to a reasonable question asked by Oda Mari ...."; and see here

Does the momentum of these diffs suggest a possible next step? --Tenmei (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, "fraudulent," according to Webster's Online Dictionary, means, "characterized by, based on, or done by fraud"; a synonym given was "deceitful." "Fraud" means "intentional perversion of the truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right" No editor here is doing that. For that matter, the Japanese government isn't doing that; it knows that, assuming that arguing based on the article is "intentional perversion of the truth" (which it might be), it wasn't going to convince the PRC (or the ROC) to "part with something of value or to surrender a legal right." --Nlu (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me also add this observation; another editor (whom I won't name since he hasn't been a part of this discussion here) has expressed the sentiment that he wishes that somebody would just blow the islands up so that the countries don't fight over them. I don't know if I share that sentiment, but this issue shouldn't cause editors here to throw unsupported charges against each other. Bobthefish2, I will say that the continued claims of "fraud" is, in the very least, close to (if not outright) a WP:CIV violation. Please refrain from doing it. --Nlu (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you aren't making a fuss about my use of the term fraudulent simply because User:Tenmei was crying hard about it (which he is). Now, I don't consider it a WP:CIV violation if I decide to call a reference deceitful especially if there are strong reasons to believe it intentionally twisted facts to support whatever views it liked. And of course, there's little reason to argue that I was directing this criticism towards any person in here especially given that none of us are actually authors to those articles. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be upset if I made an edit and someone deleted it and called it fraudulent. I hope you can at least understand why you shouldn't throw that kind of an accusation around. --Nlu (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that, User:Nlu, this issue was discussed long before I deleted it. Whatever you and User talk:Ohconfucius said in this discussion was already mentioned 3-4 months ago. There were long threads and in the end nobody objected that the article was grossly misused (ask User:Qwyrxian if you don't believe me). Now, I do hope you at least understand what I did was quite within reason. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Whether the translation itself was accurate is not relevant. I also agree that it may not be entirely appropriate to include mention of the Chinese assertions in this section, as it deals solely with the Japanese claims. The important fact is that there appear to be disputes over its translation which we can write about in an objective manner, by including who is disputing it – and again not necessarily in the Japanese claims section, unless its Japanese who dispute other Japanese. I have mentioned how I thought the current text is inappropriate because it is inaccurate and lacks attribution. Correcting this can be done easily and should be done immediately, and I believe by doing so will put paid to much of the current debate. --Ohconfucius 02:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have been trying to do the same thing. The trouble is that there are editors who apparently will stop at nothing to keep the content. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm checking in late--I've been ill. I think that Ohconfucius and Nlu have made some very good points that I think I agree with. That is, 1) the information should stay in the article, but 2) should be better attributed. I get what Phoenix7777 said above about how this is in the "Japanese arguments" section, but it still isn't clear that the contents of the translation itself is a Japanese argument. To be honest, I think that this whole problem could be solved if we reorganized the article properly, but I'll explain that in a separate section. As long as the section is ordered the way it is, I think that sentence should be changed to say something like "The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in The People's Daily, a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Rykuyu Islands, and that this further implied that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory." This, I think, would show clearly that this is an opinion, not a "fact", clearly attributed (although I still think we don't need 6 citations for a single sentence). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm going to hold of on suggesting a re-org right now, because it's not a simple matter and I don't want to overburden the discussion at the moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to head off to this approach, I'd recommend changing it to something like The Japanese government and numerous Japanese researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in "The People's Daily", a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japan. This argument was made on the grounds that the article listed the Senkaku Islands as a constituent of the Ryukyu Islands and that the Ryukyu Islands is the same as the Okinawa Prefecture of Japan. .

Even though it is still a crappy argument, the Remin Ribao misuse is gone and readers will no longer be misled. We'd also want to consider deleting the figure, since it is no longer relevant. The citation to the Remin Ribao article can still stay. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As Nlu said above, I think we don't have to translate the PD article. We can use the translation of the Ministry of Foreign affairs of Japan page as a quote. I think I said what I had to say about this problem at here.
I said "I don't think the Mediation is needed. I think the current problem started at this removal. The edit summary says " Deleted a fraudulant claim + references regarding Remin Ribao article..." . Bobthefish2 wrote " Again removed fraudulent references/content based on misinformation" when he restored his removal. See . I think the answer to the current problem is this. It is a hard fact the Japanese government says "...an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands." See . Even if the Japanese argument is based on wrong translation/misinformation, the information should be included in the article because it is a fact. It is not WP editors' role to judge if it's a false/wrong argument. If Bobthefish2 thinks the claim of the Japanese government is a fraudulent claim + references regarding Remin Ribao article, all he had/has to do is add the Chinese government's refutation with RS to the article. The removal was inappropriate because Bobthefish2's claim was merely a personal thought as he has not provided any RSs supporting his claim so far. If I missed something, please point it out as I haven't been watchful on threads above. "
I support Qwyrxian's suggestion and his "The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed ...".
Although it's my personal thought, it's a big mystery that the PB article didn't say the Senkaku islands were Chinese territory and the US administration was illegal. Oda Mari (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, we seem to be moving out of the circuitous discussion! --Ohconfucius 07:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all surprised that one of our regular Japanese editors level another accusation at me. The text I've deleted was:

The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953.

... which said nothing about an argument by the Japanese government. Instead, it was an obviously incorrect interpretation of a primary source that was stated as fact for whatever reason (as agreed by others except for User:Tenmei and User:Phoenix7777). While I didn't cite any RS to support my view, it was all basically WP:COMMONSENSE. Since I was deleting instead of introducing content, the original research I did was not a violation of WP:SYN.

In response to User:Oda Mari's question about PB not proclaiming Senkaku Islands as Chinese territory, the answer lies in the geopolitics of East Asia during the 1950's. Even though the Ryukyu Islands are now part of Japan, they were historically a tributary state of China. After Japan's defeat in WWII, China had plans to reintegrate the Ryukyu Islands back into its sphere of influence. At the time of the article's writing, the Chinese probably thought they still had a reasonable chance of reasserting control over the Ryukyu Islands (and thus didn't feel a need to single out the Senkaku Islands). This turned out to be wrong of course, since the Americans had other plans. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I saw a fair bit of common ground, and got the impression that we were beginning to bridge the apparent gap. I suggest that we look to the common ground now, rather than revisit the disputes and the accusations as a way out of the quagmire. --Ohconfucius 09:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though this issue is taking a lot of efforts to work out, I hope you realize it is actually a minor matter with an almost non-existent degree of controversy. The fact that it could be dragged out in such an inefficient manner is something that may warrant some examination (i.e. whether or not certain editors were intentionally trying to be obstructive in the whole process). After all, I don't think we can actually accomplish much if every single matter at least this long to resolve.

I don't mean to be spiteful, but I hope you understand the practicality of my stance. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A way out of the quagmire

Ohconfucius proposes a conventionally attractive course of action:

"I suggest that we look to the common ground now, rather than revisit the disputes and the accusations as a way out of the quagmire."

At Talk:Senkaku Islands and in this talk page, this arguably constructive approach has proved unworkable. The impulse to "let it go" and to simply "move on" is compelling. The edit histories of our talk pages document our earlier efforts to "let it go" and "move on", and the unforeseen consequences have each time proved troublesome and costly. The same pattern is likely to recur in the future.

Collaborative editing is always a bit of an experiment, and we cannot afford to repeat the same unproductive experiments. --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Fraudulent translations"

Oda Mari asks a rhetorical question, "If I missed something, please point it out ...." Like Ohconfucius, she appears to be willing to gloss over at least three arguably significant issues:

1. Bobthefish2 is now admitting that there is no validity in the often repeated allegations of "fraudulent translation"

• WP:AGF going forward encompasses this lesson learned the hard way

2. Bobthefish2 is now acknowledging that there was no "fraudulent" conduct or writing by contributors at Talk:Senkaku Islands and on this talk page

• WP:AGF going forward encompasses this lesson learned the hard way

3. Bobthefish2 is now asserting that there is no need for translation of "Struggle of the people of the Ryukyu Islands against U.S. occupation" (琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争), People's Daily (人民日報), January 8, 1953

• WP:AGF going forward encompasses this lesson learned the hard way

TThe impulse to "let it go" and to simply "move on" is attractive, but unforeseen consequences have proved troublesome and are likely to recur in the future.. --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion, not fact

I cannot accept Qwyrxian's suggestion above. I explicitly reject the synthesis of the proposed text: "The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed ...." The context for my decision is Qwyrxian's skewed "original research" in one sentence:

"This, I think, would show clearly that this is an opinion, not a "fact", clearly attributed (although I still think we don't need 6 citations for a single sentence)."

Among the lessons learned the hard way is that the very, very explicit citation support for the sentence which discusses the People's Daily article is quite necessary, not superfluous. --Tenmei (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you've either mislinked or misunderstood WP:Synthesis. SYN is when a person takes facts from 2 different sources and lays them side by side, and then draws or implies a conclusion that neither sources independently verifies. The statement "The Japanese government and some U.S. researchers have claimed," is, in fact, the opposite of synthesis, since it explicitly calls out that it has 2 different sources. If we're really concerned though, what we can do is move the citations so that the explicitly align with the claims, like "The Japanese government and several U.S. researchers have claimed...". Personally, I have a stylistic preference for references at the end of sentences, but I have absolutely no problem if other editors think it would be clearer to move them so that which one goes with which person is more explicit, since both styles are allowed per the manual of style. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was already explained to User:Tenmei multiple times. I don't see how repeating the same explanation to him once more will somehow allow him to correct his gross misconceptions. Personally, I think it's best to simply ignore his protests on this subject until they escape circularity. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not observe any intent on your part in trying to engage in collaborative editing. I've given you a number of opportunities to do so but all you managed to do was to obstruct the process through repeated mis-use of WP policies and repeated attempts to discredit my position (either by accusing me of edit-warring or through other childish reasonings such as my initial disregard of User:Nlu's posts).

Now, if you would like to continue wasting time complaining about me, you are welcomed to do so. But do note that you haven't really done anything constructive throughout all this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Compare threads which considered the subject of this People's Daily article, e.g.,

• Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Dubious in 2008
• Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 4#Verifiability in September 2010
• Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 4#NPOV dispute in October 2010
• Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 4#References Removed for Another Attempt in October 2010
• Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#Comment on a recent revert of Phoenix7777 in October 2010

In other words, a mere straw poll conducted among a few active editors who demonstrate intensity of preference is not consensus and polling is not a substitute for discussion.

The edit history of Talk:Senkaku Islands is a compelling record, including many threads which address one or more sentences in "Struggle of the people of the Ryukyu Islands against U.S. occupation" (琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争), People's Daily (人民日報), January 8, 1953. --Tenmei (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Your concerns were addressed already. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Tenmei, but I see at least four solid, respectable editors in agreement on the suggested change. Furthermore, our recommendation is based on policy--WP:NPOV says we must attribute opinions, and the meaning of a text is an opinion. Finally, you haven't demonstrated anything wrong with the suggested change, other than to mis-cite WP:Synthesis, which has nothing to do with this discussion, to bring up a bunch of past disputes that have nothing to do with this issue. As a side note, just to clarify, I'm not going to fight about including the additional reference that Phoenix7777 added just before we were locked; I don't think it belongs, but its a minor issue, and my objection is closer to one of style than substance, so I see no need to argue about it further.

In the absence of any objection, I'm going to propose a final wording below, and then, assuming there's no objections other than Tenmei's make an edit request to have the material changed. Of course, if others provide policy-compliant objections, we can continue discussing the issue. While democracy (a straw poll) is no substitute for consensus, at the same time, a lone objector is not enough to prevent forward movement.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have taken a look at some of the archives linked to above. I can see plenty of discussion about the reliability of sources to back up claims and assertions. While this whole topic is polemic, the discussions referred to are probably over-broad in terms of the dispute that we are having over this one little paragraph; what rendered those above elements disputed there largely do not exist here, and I do not think that this invalidates the suggestion that the evidence should be laid out, and transparently and correctly attributed for the benefit of our readers. --Ohconfucius 04:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Common ground

This statement by Qwyrxian represents an arguably solid restatement of common ground we can all accept:

"... the point is, we show that Japan has made a certain claim, and that that claim may be incorrect. That's kind-of the point behind having a dispute article--that we don't just include the 'evidence' from the different sides that's 'right', but we provide a wide selection of different evidence. We're trying to describe the 'dispute', not the underlying issue of who really does 'own' the islands."

Yes, Oda Mari's arrow hits the target. Yes, Bobthefish2 ≠ WP:AGF. Yes, Bobthefish2 derision here is too much; it goes too far. The elephant in the room is the timid response of others who endorse, affirm and legitimize Bobthefish2's recurring tactic. The accumulating record of a toxic strategy is vexing; and the fact that this is validated by silence does not help. In the sorry context which has evolved, the good judgment of Oda Mari cannot be gainsaid. --Tenmei (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 is correct above; and also at the same time, the wording of the diff is imprecise in a small but very significant way.

Response to John Smith's question here and to Qwyrxian's questions here

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING WP:BAITING -- see context here + here which justifies zero tolerance. --Tenmei (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:Dispute resolution, a shared vocabulary is likely to be helpful. We need commonly understood terms in our process of developing a conceptual framework for future collaborative editing. It may also present an arguable organizational filter for re-formating the body our article about Senkaku Islands dispute.

Qwyrxian -- Paraphrasing the first two sentences of your diff above: (a) The comment you just made is exactly the reason mediation as you define it is a non-starter; and (b) I've been patient, but the truth is that you do not understand what you just said.

Qwyrxian -- In your diff here, three points are accepted and confirmed below; one clause is disputed.

With characteristic self-effacing modesty, Qwyrxian suggests, "My problem is most likely that I'm trying to act like a mediator without actually being one."

So, for a long time, this article has bothered me, both as a reader and as an editor. As a reader, it aggravates me that some claims in the article are repeated multiple times, and that it's really hard to see how all of the pieces fit together. As an editor, it bothers me that we're not following the instructions in WP:NPOV, which states,

This undesirable structure is clearly what we have going on here.

Lessons learned the hard way = avert what has already failed more than once. --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

STSC -- In the absence of talk page responses to reasonable questions, the POV headnote is unjustified. It has been removed pending the necessary engagement in discussion threads in this venue.

WP:DR also identifies argumentative strategies which are unhelpful:

In the very clear context WP:DR creates, we are compelled to recognize that your strategic and needlessly provocative addition of a POV-headnote was, in this instance, not justified, not reasonable and not constructive. It is only a variant form of contradiction without substantial explanation or verifiable foundation.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Japan-related articles
• High-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Start-Class Taiwan articles
• High-importance Taiwan articles
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• Start-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• Start-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles