Misplaced Pages

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:17, 11 October 2011 editLvhis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,621 editsm →Regarding A & B: ce← Previous edit Revision as of 07:52, 12 November 2011 edit undoEclecticology (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,056 edits →ROC name usage: new sectionNext edit →
Line 368: Line 368:
@Phoenix7777, whether some user will be banned or not is not decided by you, that is decided by uninvolved admin. A behavior of BREA can also risk a similar consequence. @Phoenix7777, whether some user will be banned or not is not decided by you, that is decided by uninvolved admin. A behavior of BREA can also risk a similar consequence.
Your explanation is nothing new, as I mentioned above on 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC) "we have discussed more than one or two times before". The key point is that you fear to face the fact supported by RSs that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name for these islands. It is you who "is trying to promote the non-real-world naming dispute by adding it to the real-world territorial dispute article". I will give some more detail later. --] (]) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Your explanation is nothing new, as I mentioned above on 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC) "we have discussed more than one or two times before". The key point is that you fear to face the fact supported by RSs that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name for these islands. It is you who "is trying to promote the non-real-world naming dispute by adding it to the real-world territorial dispute article". I will give some more detail later. --] (]) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

== ROC name usage ==

Rklawton was perfectly correct in using the format "Republic of China (Taiwan)" The reference page cited by Qwyrxian clearly says '''When identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC (e.g. "Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan).") In general, this only needs to be done once, subsequent references to the ROC need not include "(Taiwan)".''' "Taiwan" is clearly the popular name for the entity, and the sentence in question seeks to distinguish the two Chinese entities. Wiki-lawyering aside, the reference page is a guideline to be applied with flexibility and common sense. ] (]) 07:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:52, 12 November 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.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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.
WikiProject iconJapan: Geography & environment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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: 03:10, December 30, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTaiwan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconChina High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis 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 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Re Tenmei's reversion

Tenmei, your reversion was very non-constructive. Last time I asked you two straightforward questions but you was not able to answer them buy making such excuse "I don't know what to do." Now you reverted the version which has been undergone and sustained discussion in which questions and challenges had been discussed, answered, and clarified as shown in the section "Lead section". You complain that this version is with misinformation and synthesis (why did not you complain such before?). Now I list the two versions, one you reverted (let's call it version A), one you reverted to (version B), as below and compare them:

Version A :

The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, and known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese. These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 and holds a neutral stance on the dispute. The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.

Version B :

The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, the Senkaku Islands, which are also known as the Diaoyu or Diaoyutai Islands. These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 and holds a neutral stance on the dispute. The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.

So the only difference between version A and B is this part:

Version A:

..., known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, and known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese. ...

Version B:

..., the Senkaku Islands, which are also known as the Diaoyu or Diaoyutai Islands. ...

You disagree the version A with your so called reason "misinformation/synthesis". You must pinpoint which part and which word in version A is misinforming and made by synthesis. straightforward! --Lvhis (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for Tenmei (couldn't, if even I wanted to), but Version B is correct, so long as the article title(s) remain "Senkaku Islands (dispute)". Should that change in the future, then Version A will be correct. I don't know about synthesis, misinformation, or whatever, but it's just stylistically wrong. The title of the article is "Senkaku Islands dispute", so we don't need to phrase it as in A. Speaking of which...I suppose it's time for me to return to Talk:Senkaku Islands... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Stupid minor note: my last edit summary was incorrect; I meant that B is correct for now, just like the text says above. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I am very.. very glad you have recovered from your stress. "Senkaku Islands dispute" is "Senkaku Islands dispute" and not "Senkaku Islands (dispute)". The difference is that this page should technically not be a sub-category of "Senkaku Islands" but rather a page that details a dispute - a dispute which we gave some arbitrary name to (?), in fact. As a result, the stylistic issues you raised are not applicable. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fun and all, but you're twisting words. Currently, the working name for the islands on Misplaced Pages is Senkaku Islands. That's why that's the name of the article, not the other way around. For example, if there were an article "List of islands in the East China Sea", you couldn't call it Diaoyu there (this issue comes up, for instance, when people try to change the name of the islands from "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" to "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" in articles like Japan-Korea disputes. Things come in their proper order; the order here is determining Misplaced Pages's name of the place first. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not very sure what you mean by "twisting words". Nobody said we have to rename the island names in "Sea of Japan" at the moment. Rather, we are simply talking about how to introduce these islands in a page about a dispute that we currently called the "Senkaku Island dispute". I am not very sure why you are having problems with the issue of "proper order". As far as I can see, introduced the Japanese name first followed by the Chinese names. Are you very certain that I am "twisting words"? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- In view of the reasoning expressed in your edit here, will you join me in asking Feezo to mediate the persisting disagreement we have about the harm you caused with your contributions at Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972? --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that I understand the premise Lvhis puts forward in this thread. And yes, I think I understand the crisp analysis offered by Qwyrxian. I do not reject either when I describe both as premature untimely.
The new emphasis on BRD causes us to focus first on a "strategic" mis-statement by Lvhis: "All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified." This short sentence shows that Lvhis understands that there are significant "questions and challenges" which stand in line before the ones which are now urged. For example, among the diffs which are inconsistent with Lvhis' strategic assertion include:
  1. Oda Mari, I have given the reason at least 3 times above why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands. -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011
  2. Tenmei's post is out of focus or topic. --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011
  3. I treat this post of Tenmei as a one irrelevant to the discussion above "Lead section" as nothing related to the draft .... --Lvhis 19:44, 30 July 2011
To be very very clear: Questions and challenges raised from other editors are
  • not answered
  • not clarified
I am willing to wait patiently in line behind John Smith's, Phoenix7777 and Oda Mari. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
In an effort to appear cooperative, let me just point out that WP:Synthesis + WP:RS are on point in explaining the mismatch between the two columns below:
"A" FACTOIDS
"B" SOURCES
  1. Shaw, Han-yi. (1999). "The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC, and Japan," Contemporary Asian Studies.
  2. Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands," CNN World.
  3. Suganuma, Unryu. (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, pp. 89-92.
  4. Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS). (2000). International Organizations and the Law of the Sea, pp. 107-108.
  5. Lee, Seokwoo et al. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, Taiwan and China concerning the Senkaku Islands, pp. 11-12.
  6. Finney, John W. "Senate Endorses Okinawa Treaty; Votes 84 to 6 for Island's Return to Japan," New York Times. November 11, 1971.

Our conventional editing practices deprecate "synthesis." The extraordinary claims in "A" above are not supported by the list in "B" above. --Tenmei (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note that according to WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, extra caution is reasonable in specific instances, including:
This was explicitly referenced here in advance of the revert. --Tenmei (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Tenmei, for your comments of this one and the above one at 16:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC), regarding finishing the "D" of last cycle of BRD and current disagreemnt, just remind you to pay proper respect to admin Magog the Ogre, who is also a witness of the discusion here. --Lvhis (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion between Q and L

Qwyrxian, welcome back. Regarding your comments above, despite that you said "I'm not speaking for Tenmei", effectively you were. Sorry I don't think you have given enough specific justifications to support Tenmei's reverting version A back to version B. Let us start the questions that Tenmei was not able to answer in straightforward manner:

1) Is the "Senkaku Islands" the Japanese name for these Islands? "Yes" or "No"?

2) Is the "Pinnacle Islands" the real English name for these Islands? "Yes" or "No"?

3) Which part and which word (need to pinpoint) in version A is misinforming and made by synthesis?

For question 3) we can leave it to Tenmei. Please answer the 1) and 2), then we can go next step to clarify further. I hope we can calmly discuss this as we did there "Talk:Senkaku Islands#Pinnacle neutral?". Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, you know that my stance has always been that "Senkaku Islands" is the real English name for the islands (probably, almost certainly, but not 100% sure; it definitely was the English name 20 years ago, there's a small chance that in the last few years the name has changed, that's what we're trying to decide in DR), and that "尖閣諸島" is the name in Japanese (which is usually transliterated to "Senkaku-shotou" or "Senkaku-rettou"). So I guess my answer to questions 1 & 2 is "No". I didn't say that version A is synthesis (that was Tenmei's words, and, I believe, wrong); I did say that the current English name in Misplaced Pages is "Senkaku Islands", though, as always, y'all are hoping and arguing that will change (and may actually prevail...who can say for sure before the final RfC and/or Arbcom?). So long as we're saying SI is the name, then that's how it should be represented in each sentence, not just in the article titles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tenmei, I don't care what you said in a pile of words but only care whether you have answered those questions in straightforward manner. If you cannot answer, you fail. Also, now I want to discuss with Qwyrxian calmly first. Qwyrxian, I will reply you tomorrow, now it is too late. --Lvhis (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Qwyrxian, I knew your stance saying that "Senkaku Islands" was the English name, but after the unsuccessful mediation and our unfinished calm discussion in that "Pinnacle neutral?" section I thought you might changed a little bit. It was a sort of something beyond my expectation that you answered "No" for questions 1) and 2). Maybe something out-of-topic has made you change back. Okay, now as I asked for Tenmei before (see here), please provide direct RS for your answering "No" to "'Senkaku Islands' is the Japanese name for these Islands" and "'Pinnacle Islands' is the real English name for these Islands", or for your "Yes" to "'Senkaku Islands' is the real English name for the Islands". I think you understand that I emphasized "direct" here. You are also very clear that Misplaced Pages cannot accept "OR". For answering "Yes" to the two questions mentioned, the RSs in version A gave direct sources and support, that one was from a Taiwan scholar, one was from a Japanese scholar Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍) (you checked his book when you input your comment or question there a week ago), and one was from CNN that was firstly provided by Penwhale. Regardless that the part of the Japanese name "shotou 諸島" or "rettou 列島" has been translated into "islands", the whole name is still the Japanese name expressed as in English form or Romanized form, same as the part of Chinese name "qundao 群島" or "lieyu 列嶼" has been translated into "islands" for the Chinese name "Diaoyutai Islands". (BTW, Version A has RSs which Version B is lack. When Tenmei reverted Version A back to Version B containing , he was very gross in deleting RSs for such reversion. His such reversion can be called, using a word he uses quite often, "anti-wikipedia". Version A was also a sort of consensus after discussions). Back to here, I am waiting for your RS, and then we will go next step. --Lvhis (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't change because the mediation never came to any conclusion, despite your repeated claims of proving every single point of your own and disproving all of mine. As I said over on Talk:Senkaku Islands, I think mediation proved 1) DI may have a small advantage, currently, in some Google searches, but 2) Google searches are extremely flawed and provide almost now valuable information, and 3) I'm not certain that the parameters chosen for those searches represented fair treatment of the matter. I still hold, as I always have, that the encyclopedia and almanac evidence is far stronger, and that major non-Japanese/PRC/ROC governments use the term SI. I hold that what we need to do is try to see if major news publications have a "style guide"; i.e., if, for example, CNN always uses SI, or Time magazine always uses DI/SI, or The Guardian always mentions both in long detailed prose. In other words, I still see the weight of evidence favoring SI, though I admit that there is more work to be done to see if there is other, contrary evidence, particularly from news sources (I mean, I would prefer scholarly sources, but I don't have the necessary access to actually read the journal articles, so there's not much I can do on that end). I'm hoping that, once everybody is satisfied that they have gathered enough evidence, and gotten their arguments into a good shape, that we can hold an RfC and be done with this. I expect it will be several weeks to months before we're all ready for that, though. Meanwhile, until such time as the name changes, the sentence must be written with respect to Misplaced Pages's current choice of name. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
A friendly reminder (that you will pretend not to hear): It was shown that catalogue searches in Library of Congress, WorldCat, Google Scholar, HathiTrust, and JSTOR all favoured "our" side. Since most of them were all about scholarly articles and published materials, dismissing that as some "Google searches" is quite grossly misleading... especially when you and others had very enthusiastically supported these searches (up until they no longer supported "your side") and they were the basis of the current article name's legitimacy. I'll leave the rest to Lvhis. :-p --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, you have mixed up or confused two different questions or issues here: one is "which name is/was from which language", and another is "which name is more commonly used in English". For the later one, we know there is no any RS directly to tell which name is more commonly used in English, and we have discussed what way and what search method, search engine, and so on even involving statistical analysis in certain extent should be used. Bob responded some above and he also made some arguments against your points in SI talk page. But this one "which name is more commonly used in English" is nothing to do with the Version A vs Version B and the two questions I asked then you answered. To answer "which name is from which language" does nothing with "your stance" and "my stance". It can only get from direct Reliable Sources. No matter what stance you take for these Islands dispute and wiki page naming dispute, a name from that language is from that language, and there are a big amount of Reliable Sources telling this in a clear cut and straightforward manner. "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name, and the real English name for the Islands is "Pinnacle Islands". This is not "my stance" but the clear cut naming historical knowledge unanimously described and recorded in many, many RSs. Here I give you one more RS from another Japanese writer in addition to Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍), Kimie Hara (原貴美恵, now living in Canada), her book "Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system", page 51. Let me re-list the RSs for such text that "For these Islands, 'Senkaku Islands' is the Japanese name, 'Diaoyu' or 'Diaoyutai Islands' is the Chinese name, 'Pinnacle Islands' is the real English name":

1. Shaw, Han-yi (1999). Contemporary Asian Studies, No 3 (ed.). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC, and Japan. Baltimore, USA: School of Law, University of Maryland. ISBN 0-925153-67-2. (On page 10) ... a chain of tiny islets commonly known today to the Chinese as the Diayutai (or simply Diaoyu) Islands 釣魚台列嶼, and Senkaku Islands 尖閣列島 to the Japanese.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)

2. Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands". CNN World. US. CNN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

3.Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–92. ISBN 978-0824821593. {{cite book}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)

4. Hara, Kimie (原貴美恵) (2007). Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system. New York, USA: Routledge, c/o Taylor & Francis. p. 51. ISBN 9780415412087.

When you say "No" for these, you need to provide Reliable Sources to support what you said, but not your "stance". If you use what you mentioned in your comment above to explain why you say "No" for these, it becomes your Original Research. Before you make a conclusion or judgement on the names involving naming history on these disputed islands, you need to do your homework better on this (a week ago you were even not clear which one came first, Senkaku, or Pinnacle?). If it is difficult for you to admit your such Original Research mistake, you can choose to keep silence. BTW, you did not change, so I just overestimated. --Lvhis (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
If you still have quesions on Version A, again, you need to provide Reliable Sources to argue. May I clarify one thing here: Version A is not "Lvhis' version" any more because it was an outcome of the discussion participated by several editors including John Smith's, Bobthefish2, Chaosdruid, Benlisquare, Penwhale, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari, and me of course. I had waited for a reasonable time for objection. When no objection input and I got positive approve confirmation from Magog, I then implemented this version A to the page. So this is sort of consensus of discussion, not my own version any more. You said this version was "Pro-Chinese", wrong! In this version, it still begins with "The Senkaku Islands Dispute" with bold format, and followed by the Japanese name first, and by the Chinese name second, and not mentioned the English name "Pinnacle Islands" at all. If your "neutral" standard is actually toward "Pro-Japanese", you will interpret any real neutral one as "Pro-Chinese" or "Pro-Whatever non Japanese". Please do not use Tenmei's BRD violation version as a reference, that is an extremely biased one. --Lvhis (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse top|title="Collapse to keep continuity of the discussion above with the section 'On Version A & B' below"}}

Lvhis -- Aha. I see.
A. Your reasoning here is consistent with a pattern of related arguments across a span of months. Your tactic is a variant bait and switch. The function and meaning of the edit which was reverted is explained by you in broad, "comprehensive" terms, i.e.,
B. After the revert here responded to the premise you yourself had so clearly articulated, the switch to a different and narrowed topic ensued. The broad, "comprehensive" terms of analysis are ipse dixit derogated, marginalized, labeled "off topic".
C. This pattern mirrors the obstinate lack of interest in the issues raised by John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and others. Again and again, they each posted diffs with a narrow focus based on the perceived premises of a specific thread; and then the switch to a different and broader topic was introduced as a method of dissipating the potential consensus-building impact. This pattern in recent edit history is summarized in a "strategic" mis-statement by Lvhis. At a minimum, this short sentence shows that Lvhis understands that there are significant "questions and challenges" which stand in line before the ones which are now urged.

"All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified."

D. Yes -- the questions posed in this thread do have answers which are already developed and these were factors which informed the revert, but the bait and switch environment affects our ability to engage or investigate any of it, e.g,
  1. No, not yet -- "... the RSs in version A gave direct sources and support, that one was from a Taiwan scholar, one was from a Japanese scholar Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍) ...."
  2. No, not yet -- "... the Japanese name "shotou 諸島" or "rettou 列島" has been translated into "islands", the whole name is still the Japanese name expressed as in English form or Romanized form, same as the part of Chinese name "qundao 群島" or "lieyu 列嶼" has been translated into "islands" for the Chinese name "Diaoyutai Islands".
  3. No -- "... Version A has RSs which Version B is lack. When Tenmei reverted Version A back to Version B containing , he was very gross in deleting RSs for such reversion."
  4. No -- "His such reversion can be called, using a word he uses quite often, 'anti-wikipedia'."
  5. No -- "Version A was also a sort of consensus after discussions."
E. After the unanswered diffs of John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and others are given their due, perhaps we will have worked out a way to address these matters in a step-by-step, constructive, forward-focused process. --Tenmei (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
A Chinese scholar's rock may be instructive.
Lvhis -- -- I learned a new phrase -- "obstinate lack of interest." Across the span of months, parts of your editing strategy have been revealed, including "obstinate lack of interest". Your sentences here illustrate this narrowed focus:
"Tenmei, I don't care what you said in a pile of words but only care whether you have answered those questions in straightforward manner. If you cannot answer, you fail."
Responding to substantive issues, I do not fail. Acknowledging and setting aside the truculence, WP:V + WP:RS do not fail, have not failed, cannot fail, will not fail.
A. Each of the three questions is an examples of a trick question.
B. As a rhetorical construct, the only practical response is to reject these questions because of their form. Rather than trying to clarify using my own words, this problem is explained briefly in wiki-written prose which I copied using cut-and-paste:

Complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question which has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer. The presupposition is called "complex" because it is

A complex or "trick" question could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.

C. In this thread, the pivotal issues are made explicit in Lvhis' own words. These words create a context for the revert.
D. The revert was informed by core policy, including WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
E. Senkaku Islands is the most commonly used English name for this geographic feature in the East China Sea

The edit history which pre-dates this thread is part of the context for the revert here

F. There are significant issues which are not addressed. I continue to be willing to wait patiently until after the diffs of John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and others are given their due. --Tenmei (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Section Break

Um, so, can someone explain to me (as I'm utterly lost) as to why Version B (version without the Kanji/Chinese Characters for Senkaku/Diaoyu) is preferred at the moment? - Penwhale | 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Some one showed preferring Version B by blatant Original Research, ignoring that Version A had got consensus as supported by RSs and NPOV. --Lvhis (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't Original Research, like I've told you. We'll take it up at WP:NORN later. But I will not hold this discussion while Arbitration is going on. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On Version A & B

Starting this up again per discussion on User Talk:Lvhis; I'm responding here to the comment that Lvhis made on August 4 which said, in part, ""Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name, and the real English name for the Islands is "Pinnacle Islands"." This is the part I still disagree with, but I think it's because you're misunderstanding what I mean by "real English name". The "real name" of something is the name that is currently used for that thing, not the name that was originally used. For example, the "real English name" of New York City is, in fact, "New York City", despite the fact that the original English name was "New Amsterdam". Similarly, the "real name" of Mumbai is "Mumbai", not "Bombay", even though as late as the mid 1950s the official English name was "Bombay". So, when I said earlier that the real English name of the islands is "Senkaku Islands", that's what I meant--the current, regularly used name is "Senkaku Islands". Probably--there's still a possibility that either there 1) is no regularly used English name, or 2) the regular English name is something like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". So, for me, the correct phrasing of your version would be "known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese and English, and known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese." Alternatively, since we don't agree on what the "real" English name "is", we could say, "known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese, and by various names in English, including the romanized version of the Chinese and Japanese names as well as several different combinations of them." That's awkward, but perhaps clearer. If We (e.g., Big We--the Misplaced Pages Community) should ever agree on what the common name is (via the theoretically upcoming RfC, God willing), then we would adjust the article to match the consensus name. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Lvhis:Please clarify the definition of "English name". And "Chinese name" and "Japanese name" too. Oda Mari (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
@Qwyrxian, you are not able to provide RSs to support your OR that "'SI' is the real English name". You gave two improper analogies here, "New York City" and "Mumbai". Can you please answer whether there ever have been name disputes linked to territory disputes in history on your these two "analogies"? It is not good having a habit preferring using analogies to using RS directly when there are RSs. I can only say the possible reason is that unfortunately the RSs here are against your opinion. This is question 1 for you. Question 2: for these disputed Islands, that what is the "English name", Chinese name", and "Japanese name" for them can be easily found out from RSs including the RSs I listed in Version A, plus the one by Kimie Hara (原貴美恵), two from Japanese authors. This is not "misunderstanding" by me at all. @Oda Mari, you can find clarification you need from these RSs too. Question 3 for Qwyrxian: your definition "real English name" is still "the name is more commonly used in English no matter originated from what non-English-language", fearing to face RSs as I mentioned in Question 2. The big problem for you here is you cannot prove that the Japanese name is more commonly used in English. After all, Misplaced Pages is the place to provide readers knowledge with reliable sources per its policies and guidelines "WP:SOURCE", "WP:NOR", and "WP:NPOV". Why do you try to hide the content supported by balanced sources? Misleading readers? --Lvhis (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
@Lvhis: You are the one who started to say "Senkaku is not an English name". It's your duty to clarify the word when asked the definition. If you don't/can't, your argument would be groundless and probably a POV pushing. Oda Mari (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sure Lvhis will provide a satisfactory argument, so you don't need to be all so impatient about it. At the same time, I really like your post, I shall remember to quote it when the opportunity arises in the future. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
@Oda Mari, I gave you the RSs already. Okay, gave you more specifically here. Japanese author Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍) described starting at page 93 through page 96 in his book:

"The Kuroiwa's Survey and the Naming Senkaku Retto. Where did the Japanese get the name Senkaku Retto, used to identify the disputed islands today? The Japanese began to call the islands Senkaky Gundao at the end of nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries (i.e. Yoshiwara's article and the Japanese navy record in 1886). ... The name Senkaku Retto originated with Kuroiwa Hisashi, an instructor at the Okinawa Normal School ... in 1900. ... ... In short, Japanese knowledge of the Diaoyu Islands during the Meiji Era relied on sources from British naval record in 1884, the name Senkaku Retto or Senkaku Gundao was translated into the Japanese language from the English name 'Pinnacle Islands' or 'Pinnacle Group'. Later, when Kuroiwa visited the Diaoyu Islands in 1900, he named them Senkaku Retto, which identified the Diaoyu as a whole. Moreover, the first official document recording the name Senkaku Retto was by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nihon Gaiko Monjo ..., which was published in 1950s."

And at page 95 Suganma listed a table (Table 5) showing "The Identification of the Diaoyu Islands from various historical documents" including the names of the Chinese, English, and Japanese for each island of the Islands. (OMG, cost me so much time to type in). Another Japanses author Kimie Hara (原貴美恵) wrote at page 51 in her book:

"The Islands disputed between Japan and China, called 'Senkaku' in Japanese and 'Diaoyu' in Chinese, are also called the Pinnacle Islands in English."

These two RSs are just two of many RSs. So, it is very clear that the real and only English name is the "Pinnacle Islands", and the "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. If you argue against this and say the "Senkaku Islands" is the English name, that it is your turn and duty to clarify your argument. "If you don't/can't, your argument would be groundless" and definitely an original research and POV pushing. --Lvhis (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis, you're trying to indirectly argue the "name of the islands" issue here. Currently, the best consensus we have had is that the English name of the articles is Senkaku Islands. That was the result of the RfC had back in November. I accept that that RfC is (still) disputed, and that new evidence may alter some people's opinion, thus necessitating further dispute resolution. However, until such time a new RfC occurs (which, if you've been following the discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands, you know is going to be some time due to criticisms of the last RfC), the consensus is as stated. If the consensus changes to find that there is no common name, then your new version will make sense. Until that time, your new version is an implicit undermining of consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, the dispute over the name/title of the wiki pages including this one in question has not been resolved yet. The main discussion is still ongoing in the main page there. Version A here is not dealing with that at all, neither directly nor indirectly. You are oversensitive and overreactive, or some problem else, and have distracted the discussion. Although the name/title is still disputable, the content of the wiki page shall be no doubt kept according to wiki's policies at least WP:SOURCE" and "WP:NOR. Please review "Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought". For the name/title of the wiki pages, you can put something based on the consensus (which can be changed depending on new or updated dispute) from a group of Wikipedians such as the participators of RfC. But for the content, in wiki, it is not allowable to keep what is from original thought or researches, no matter that is from one wikipedian or from a group of wikipedians. The bottom line is: the content of wiki page needs RSs support. As for Version A, we do not need to care about the current page name/title, we just need to care about if the content of Version A supported by balanced RSs. The answer here is "Yes, it is". If you can find any RS saying "'Senkaku Islands' is the English name", then we need to balance among these RSs and decided how to express the opinions from the opposite sources. But now the issue is very simple: you can only find RSs clearly saying "'Senkaku Islands' is the Japanese name for these Islands" or like. No RS or no direct RS saying "'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" can be found. I have given the RSs, now it is you onus to provide RS, direct RS, to support what you want to express in the content. You have failed to do so. So your argument is groundless, is your original thought or research, and POV pushing. If you feel Version A fully supported by RSs agitates your ground for your argument for the current name/title, that is your problem, but not this version's or wiki policies problem. The last words for this reply is: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. --Lvhis (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I can produce hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, books, etc., in English, that use the term "Senkaku Islands", and only Senkaku Islands, to describe this place. You know that--I just put up some in my analysis of Guardian news articles on Talk:Senkaku Islands. This clearly means that they consider that to be the "English Name"--i.e., the name used in English writing. If an article says, "called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China", that implies that they don't know what the English name is (this is, as far as I know, the primary basis of the whole argument to move the title). But if they write, "Conflict broke out at the Senkaku Islands yesterday..." and never mention any other names, that means that they consider that the English name. Just like if a source says, "Numerous protests were held in Beijing yesterday", that means that the source considers the English name of 北京 to be "Beijing", not "Bejing" or "Peking" or "Northern Capital". Use of a word without any qualifications ("Called ___ by the X-ese"; "referred to as ____ by some"; "sometimes called ____"; etc.) means that that is the English name. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis, I didn't ask you the origin of the name Senkaku. I didn't ask you why Senkaku was not an English name. Sorry if my question was vague. I'd like to know the general definition of Chinese names"/"English names"/"Japanese names" ( in geography). What is an en/ja/zh name and what is not? How about Liancourt Rocks? Is it an English name or not? What about Iwo jima and Bonin Islands? What about translated names like People's Republic of China and Sea of Japan? What about 日本 in China/zh? The characters are the same, but the pronunciation is different. Is it a Chinese name or a Japanese name? I think now you understand what I wanted to know. Please give me the answers. Oda Mari (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian and @Oda Mari, please explain what is the Romanized non-English names or Asian characters?? Check Romanization of Japanese. Following Qwyrxian's logic, "Diaoyu Islands" is also the English name!? Don't deliberately mess up the concept here. Both of you explain word by word what Kimie Hara (原貴美恵) wrote at page 51 in her book:

"The Islands disputed between Japan and China, called 'Senkaku' in Japanese and 'Diaoyu' in Chinese, are also called the Pinnacle Islands in English."

As for version A, actually expressed as "known as ... in ...". It is even less disputable. Wait, Tenmei made several edits there, I need to check. --Lvhis (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@Lvhis, The reason I asked you the definition was your concept of the word "English name" seemed to be different from mine. I just want to know the definition clearly for the further talk. You cited a book by Kimie Hara, it can be RS when dealing with the dispute, but not when dealing with English usage as she is not a native en speaker nor a linguist. Is it correct that you think the name SI is not an English name as "Senkaku" is the romanaized ja word? If so, Tokyo is not an English name, is it? How about Los Angeles and Las Vegas? They are Spanish. The ja name of the islands is 尖閣諸島, not Senkaku Islands, and SI is the English name. Of course I think "Diaoyu Islands" is also an English name. Usually non-en proper nouns, namely geographical names in this talk, are not translated except common words like Sea, Mt., River, etc. They are just transliterated. Don't misunderstand that I deny the Pinnacle islands. Yes, the name was used in British naval record in 1884, but it is a nearly-obsolete, uncommon en name as the UK nautical chart use Senkaku today. I ask you again, what is the definition of "English names"? Oda Mari (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation-supported introduction paragraphs

This section was re-positioned as a constructive response to the collapsing edit of Lvhis here. {{collapse top|title="Collapse due to this discussion with its edits interrupted another ongoing discussion"}}

These introductory paragraphs may cause comments. --Tenmei (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns conflicting claims about territorial sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands at the Pacific edge of the East China Sea.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). or the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台群島)

The Japanese government identifies these islands as an integral part of Japan; but the islands are also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The PRC and ROC have a shared historical past, with similar sovereignty claims and brief official statements. The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 when they reverted to Japan. The US maintains an neutral stance on the issues of the dispute. The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences. Some of the complications in the dispute are related to a disjunction between pre-existing Chinese conceptions of control and the modern, Western legal systems which were adopted by the Japanese in the late 19th century.
_________

  1. Government Information Office, Republic of China (ROC): "Ma Ying-jeou: Beijing’s Senkaku Claim isn’t Taipei’s Claim," China news Agency (ROC). July 22, 2011; retrieved 2011-08-04
  2. NILOS, p. 108, p. 108, at Google Books; excerpt, "In view of the history of the Senkaku Islands and in light of the relevant principles of international law, there is no question that the islands are an integral part of the territory of Japan, and that Japan has always been exercising effective control over them. It is thus the position of the Government of Japan that no question of territorial title should arise with respect to those islands."
  3. Shaw, Han-yi. (1999). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC, and Japan, p. 10 (PDF 12 of 150); excerpt, "... a chain of tiny islets commonly known today to the Chinese as the Diayutai (or simply Diaoyu) Islands 釣魚台列嶼, and Senkaku Islands 尖閣列島 to the Japanese"; Suganuma, Unryu (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, pp. 89-92, p. 89, at Google Books; Lee, Seokwoo et al. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, Taiwan and China concerning the Senkaku Islands, pp. 11-12., p. 11, at Google Books
  4. Shaw, p. 41 (PDF 43 of 150); excerpt, "The brevity of official statements of the PRC and ROC, however, has compelled numerous Chines and Japanese scholars to supplement them by presenting more detailed accounts of historical evidence either mentioned in official statements, or those that may been left out or discovered later ... scholarly works have proliferated ...."
  5. Finney, John W. "Senate Endorses Okinawa Treaty; Votes 84 to 6 for Island's Return to Japan," New York Times. November 11, 1971; US Department of State, "Press Availability with Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara," October 27, 2010; retrieved 2011-08-04
  6. Deans, Phil. (2000). "Review of Han-yi Shaw 'The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC and Japan'," The China Quarterly (UK), 163, p. 858; excerpt, " ... would like to see Shaw develop his argument about the complications related to the encounter between pre-existing Chinese conceptions of control and the modern, Western legal systems that the Japanese pursued in the late 19th century."
Yeah, I just reverted that. That's even more "Pro-Japanese" than Lvhis's version is "Pro-Chinese". I can list out the details if you need, but, really, isn't it obvious? I mean, just look at the first sentence of paragraph 2: it's obviously unbalanced to set "an integral part of Japan" alongside "also claimed by both PRC and ROC". There's other problems, but that's the one that jumps out at me and hits me in the face; no one reading that would think that it was written by anyone other than a supporter of the Japanese position
How about we all try a new plan: no one makes any major changes without getting consensus first? I know, that's not an actual requirement of editing, but it can sometimes be recommended practice in a highly controversial article. Both sides have to know that the other side will be sensitive to even the slightest hint of bias, so it seems like some restraint and discussion before big moves would improve the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- Your opinion needs to be expressed in different words. Please be specific by identifying any phrase or sentence you perceive as problematic; and then explain why your revert is reasonable and justified.
  1. The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns conflicting sovereignty claims about a group of uninhabited islands at the Pacific edge of the East China Sea.
  2. The Senkaku Islands are also identified as "Diaoyu Dao Island (釣魚島) and all the islands appertaining thereto" or the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台群島).
  3. The Japanese government identifies these islands as an integral part of Japan; but the islands are also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan).
  4. The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 when they reverted to Japan.
  5. The US maintains an neutral stance on the issues of the dispute.
  6. The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.
Qwyrxian -- please review the explicit short excerpt quotes which underscore the credibility of carefully crafted sentences you have reverted. Please be specific; and then explain why you reverted each inline citation.
Qwyrxian -- your revert is not "obvious," nor is the diff which fails to justify your decision-making. One sentence is especially surprising:

"I mean, just look at the first sentence of paragraph 2: it's obviously unbalanced to set 'an integral part of Japan' alongside 'also claimed by both PRC and ROC'."

Your use of the word "unbalanced" needs explaining. Please clarify what you mean by the phrase "obviously unbalanced." --Tenmei (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I gave one example, let's start with that. It is unbalanced to put one sides claim in terms of a claim of being an "integral part" while the other side's claim is described as just a claim. That is POV, as it implies something fundamentally different about the two sets of claims. After we address this point I will move on to more. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Good. This is a non-issue because these words which are explicitly supported by the short excerpt which has been explicitly cited. The sentence is not complex. It is subject + predicate only:
CLAUSE:"The Japanese government identifies these islands as an integral part of Japan ..."
INLINE CITE -- verified by Japanese Foreign Ministry: NILOS, p. 108 at Google Books; excerpt, "In view of the history of the Senkaku Islands and in light of the relevant principles of international law, there is no question that the islands are an integral part of the territory of Japan, and that Japan has always been exercising effective control over them. It is thus the position of the Government of Japan that no question of territorial title should arise with respect to those islands."
The only difference between MOFA language and the posted clause is the word "territory", which I deleted because MOFA asserts "no question of territorial title shall arise." In sum, this sentence is accurately reflecting what you can read for yourself in the NILOS text which is cited.

If anyone is troubled by another part of what I wrote, that is independent of this clause.

I have guesses and theories about your over-reaction; but they can wait for another day.

Is there another question or comment? --Tenmei (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Why won't you learn that just because something is verified doesn't mean it automatically goes in articles? You've been here a long time, Tenmei. In these pages alone, and I'm sure in other places, you have been told very clearly that just because a statement is verified does not guarantee it a place in an article; that's because WP:V is only one of our many many policies. Specifically, that sentence violates WP:NPOV, and comes close to being too-close paraphrasing. We don't just copy the exact words of a source. Instead, we take the underlying information, summarize it, extract it, and put it into coherent, neutral sentences. Obviously, if you were quoting the Japanese claim in the body of the article you would use their exact words. In the lead, our job is not to provide such quotes, but, rather, provide a neutral overview. I feel kind-of silly to have to keep repeating the word "neutral(ity)". As always, I am happy to take this specific question to the relevant noticeboard (here, WP:NPOVN); I'd also love the input of other editors. Am I really blowing that phrase out of proportion, or is it as obviously POV as I think it is? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- you struggle with a fundamental error, a misconception, a mistake. In the diff above, for example,
Invalid analysis
Axiomatic

One of the required elements of this article is a sentence which explains that "an integral part of Japan" is a concept used by the Japanese government to describe the Senkaku Islands. --Tenmei (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Then put that in a quotation, and put it in the body of the article. It can't go in the lead lined up against the Chinese claim in those words. In other words, what I'm saying isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong, but that it's wrong when placed directly next to the simpler way you phrased the PRC/ROC claims. That parallelism implies some sort of difference in the quality of the claims (for one side, it's an integral part, for the other side, it's just territory); that implication is what we must avoid. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Aha, yes?
  1. What you're saying "isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong," but that your precipitous revert was over-reaching.
  2. What you're saying "isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong," but that your precipitous revert was "really blowing that phrase out of proportion."
  3. What you're saying "isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong," but that your precipitous revert was throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In other words -- in your words
Qwyrxian -- Please review the first of the explicit short excerpts which underscore the credibility of paragraphs you have undone. This stands on its own. Your complaints do not.
Qwyrxian -- who's kidding who? Your sole contribution consists of personal opinions and whims. Where are the citation-supported sentences you yourself have added to Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute?
Now would be a good time to self-revert.
Now would be a good time to restore the good work you have undone; and then you can feel free to re-write every other sentence except the one which you highlighted as the urgent reason for your rash action. ...Or perhaps we could try work together? --Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested draft addition highlighted in yellow in the box below and in the initial draft in a box at the top of this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • To be added after Sentence #3 at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph:
The PRC and ROC have a shared historical past, with similar sovereignty claims and brief official statements.
Inline citation? -- Shaw, Han-yi. (1999). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC, and Japan, p. 41 (PDF 43 of 150); excerpt, "The brevity of official statements of the PRC and ROC, however, has compelled numerous Chines and Japanese scholars to supplement them by presenting more detailed accounts of historical evidence either mentioned in official statements, or those that may been left out or discovered later ... scholarly works have proliferated ...."</ref>
  • To be added after Sentence #6 at end of 2nd paragraph:
Some of the complications in the dispute are related to a disjunction between pre-existing Chinese conceptions of control and the modern, Western legal systems which were adopted by the Japanese in the late 19th century.
Inline citation? -- Deans, Phil. (2000). "Review of Han-yi Shaw 'The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC and Japan'," The China Quarterly (UK), 163, p. 858; excerpt, " ... would like to see Shaw develop his argument about the complications related to the encounter between pre-existing Chinese conceptions of control and the modern, Western legal systems that the Japanese pursued in the late 19th century."</ref>

Qwyrxian -- I was persuaded by the reasoning of Kanguole here at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC; and I adopt the words as if they were my own:

We should not be campaigning to change common usage, or be more "correct" than our sources.

To the extent that you are campaigning, if you are -- please stop. If you propose to make Misplaced Pages or this article more "correct" than our sources, please stop.--Tenmei (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of not nitpicking, I have no concern with your change other than the one specific sentence I've already mentioned. However, I also don't see your version as any better than the one currently there; using the phrase "conflicting sovereignty claims" versus saying "territorial dispute" seems to mean roughly same thing and to be less accessible to the average reader. Remember, we're not trying to show off our smart phrasing, but instead are trying to make something that the typical reader can understand (especially in the lead). As for the other two sentence you highlight in yellow above? No. They make almost no sense to someone without immense background in geo-political language, and they're only one/two people's opinion on what the disputes are about. I'd be willing to be that the vast vast majority of people, including both the governments and the academics, actually think that the dispute is about what it appears to be on the surface (ownership of a group of islands along with associated resource rights), and/or a matter of national pride (especially in light of the legacy of early 20th century Japanese imperialism and the continuing (over)reaction to those historical events). However, I have no problem including Han-yi's theory somewhere in the body of the article as one particular academic analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- Okay, now that your concern is addressed -- problem solved -- please self-revert. Please restore those sentences and inline citation which were too quickly removed.

If not now, when? --Tenmei (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Flow-chart showing BRD process

Restoring

A.Qwyrxian's concerns appear to be distilled in one sentence: "I have no concern with your change other than the one specific sentence I've already mentioned." I construe this to mean that the time is ripe for restoring the two sentences of the first paragraph. In this two-sentence context, Qwyrxian's unsupported opinion about the word "sovereignty" is acknowledged. An additional inline citation clarifies any questions about this term by showing its use in an official statement from the PRC Foreign Ministry. --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

B. Any perceived imbalance which Qwyrxian identified in the second paragraph has been addressed with the addition of a few words. These edit changes are supported by inline citations which incorporate hyperlinks and brief text excerpts. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
C. The citation support for US neutrality is enhanced by a hyperlink to Congressional Research Service Report 96-798 and a brief 2011 restatement by the US Secretary of State. --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The investment of time and research which are demonstrated by this thread become meaningless because of this quick edit:

  • diff . . Senkaku Islands dispute‎; 05:02 . . (-3,445) . . STSC (talk | contribs) (rv POV edit.)

Nothing can be said to point to any specific sentence or phrase or citation which is challenged. This is a knee-jerk reaction. I don't know what to make of the enigmatic edit summary? "rv POV edit"?

What are we to make of this "obstinate lack of interest in our collaborative editing processes? One line of reasoning has been repeated too often --

" ... the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." -- STSC 12:12, 3 May 2011

Who's kidding who? --Tenmei (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I've protected the article indefinitely. FYI, I would have blocked Tenmei for the recent edits which reinstated a few controversial phrases due to running afoul of BRD, but the article is protected, so it's too late. I'm not going to do a block now because it would be purely punitive, and it would get overturned by the other administrators anyway.
@Tenmei: I have no bias against you, nor any bias against in-depth research. However, it's important to remember that everybody thinks their edits are well enough researched and nobody can fathom how anyone else could possibly think their editrs aren't pro-Misplaced Pages/pro-truth. There is no point in arguing this; if you cannot see my reasoning, Tenmei, you will probably not ever see it (I don't say this to be rude, I say this from experience trying and because I don't want to get into a long discussion explaining a block I've never actually laid down). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Editorial sources

Here is a newspaper editorial which could be used to help source information about Japan's position in the dispute once the article is opened for editing. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, although China has claimed the islands for some time, it first used the phrase "indisputable sovereignty" to refer to its claim to the Senkakus in an official announcement in February 2009 (source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China | "China Makes Solemn Representations With Japan on the Issue of Diaoyu Islands" | 11 February 2009 | CPP20090212038001). Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding A & B

Since it's been so long, let me ask for clarification: Lvhis, is this the version you want to go back to? That's the version with the opening sentence that says, "The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, and known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese." If that is your preferred version, I personally no longer care enough to object, though I cannot speak for other participants. Re-reading it now that more time has passed and everything is a bit more calm, I see the rationale for it. I'm not totally certain that I agree 100% with the wording, but it doesn't seem so bad. Depending on what happens with whatever form of dispute resolution we finally get going on the main article regarding the overall name, we may want to revisit this in the future, but for now I don't mind the change. So, is there consensus for this change, beyond Lvhis and I (and, Lvhis, did I spot the right edit?)? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis's proposed wording is an improvement, but we could do even better for neutrality and faithfulness to sources (without changing the status quo regarding the titles). Although it is common, it is not set in stone that an article with a descriptive title must begin its lead with its exact title, especially in this case when the title is so contentious. If Lvhis's version intends to address the misconception that "Senkaku Islands" is the more common or correct English name than "Diaoyu Islands", then xyr intent is undermined by having the first words in the article be "The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, known as x in Japanese and x in Chinese...", instead of something like "A territorial dispute concerns Japan and China about the islands called x in Japanese and x in Chinese...". There are strict conventions and technical limitations limiting the change of titles, which we haven't seemed to solve yet, but the lead seems to be flexible enough for this further remedy. Apologies if this has been fully explored before; the archives are a nightmare to read, mostly because of Tenmei's formatting, but that shouldn't be a problem now: link me to that discussion if it has. Quigley (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The current intro wording seems fine to me, but it needs to be expanded to briefly summarize the positions of each of the three governments which claim the islands. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Quigley's question, per WP:BEGINNING, which is the part of the WP:MOS talking about the first sentence, the relevant points are "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text" and "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms. Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text." I would oppose any attempt to remove the phrase "Senkaku Islands dispute" from the lead sentence until such time as the article title is changed. This is actually part of why I've warmed up to Lvhis's version, now that I look back on it in a better frame of mind--it says the name of the dispute, defines it, then gives the Japanese name and the Chinese name. But taking out "Senkaku Islands dispute" would be, to my mind, an attempt to make an end run around whatever process we're using to decide on the article title. Of course, if we end up picking a different name via RfC or whatever, then I would certainly support changing the leads to match the new name. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think no modification is necessary because this article is about a "territorial dispute" not a "naming dispute". The detail of the namings are described in the main article Senkaku Islands. No duplication of the description is necessary. If we discuss the wording of the lead, we should discuss at Talk:Senkaku Islands. In that case, I propose the following wording;

The Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島, Senkaku Shotō, variants: Senkaku-guntō and Senkaku-rettō), also known as the Diaoyu Islands (Chinese: 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿; pinyin: Diàoyúdǎo) in PRC or Diaoyutai Islands (Chinese: 釣魚台群島; pinyin: Diàoyútái Qúndǎo) in ROC or the Pinnacle Islands, are a group of disputed uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.

with the following references;

  • "China is involved in a territorial dispute with Japan and Taiwan over the sovereignty of islands known in China as the Diaoyu, in Taiwan as the Diaoyutai, and in Japan as the Senkakus."
  • "the Senkaku islands, a group of five islets and three barren rocks that lie between Taiwan and the Japanese island of Okinawa known as the Pinnacle Islands in English, Diaoyu Islands to the Chinese and Diaoyutai to the Taiwanese."
  • "China calls them the Diaoyu Islands, Taiwan calls them the Diaoyutai, and Japan calls them the Senkaku Islands."
  • "The PRC uses Diaoyudao (Diaoyu means “fishing”; dao means “island”), and Taiwan uses Diaoyutai."
  • "In mainland China, the islets are usually referred to as the Diaoyu Islands. As this article is about the movement organized by Chinese students from Taiwan, it uses “Diaoyutai Islands, which is the name better known in Taiwan."
  • "There is a three-way claim involving China, Taiwan and Japan over the Senkaku Islands (known in Chinese as either Tiaoyu Tao or Tiao-yu-tai) and hence a conflict of claims over the adjacent shelf (see Map 3.3)."
  • "Japan, China and Taiwan are involved in a three-way territorial dispute over the Senkaku group, which is said to be rich in under-sea oil resources."
  • "Such jingoistic spats as those between Japan and South Korea over Toktu island in the mid-1990s and the ongoing three-way quarrel involving Japan, Taiwan, and China over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands are only the most visible incidents."
  • "Presumably, these are for Taiwan, the on-going three-way dispute over the Senkaku Group and Spratly Archipelago."

Also Taiwan is not in line with PRC in regard to the dispute. See: No collaboration with China on Diaoyutais: Ma, President Ma distances Taiwan from China on Tiaoyutai dispute and Ma seeks business cooperation with Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Sorry for my delay in response, quite busy recently.

  • @Qwyrxian, I am glad to see that you are positively improved towards that version (you quoted correctly) after calmly re-reading it. I will modify a little bit with which I only add more RS. I hope we will start a new "era" in collaborative edit and discussion after this Arbitration.
  • @Quigley, thank you for your encouragement. The previous discussion regarding the version before Tenmei reverted is here. This version or "Version A" is mainly presenting readers more clear information that the dispute over these islands even starts from different naming, than previous version (or current one called Version B) which was quite vague that is not good for an encyclopedia. As the naming issue may be the most difficult one to reach consensus, we can put it aside for the time being and discuss it more detail in the main page. Although the open words of this "Version A" is with the current title, it will be changeable if finally the name in the main page is agreed to change, based on what Qwyrxian quoted WP:BEGINNING of the WP:MOS.
  • The "Version A" sustained from previous discussion which Phoenix7777 also participated in. As the leading section, it did not change the sentence existed before describing that "These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan)". Regarding the names in Chinese language, we have discussed more than one or two times before. Regarding the stance from the mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) towards these islands, based on RSs, they have same points such as shared historic viewpoints, and they have some difference as you raised above. You can put these into corresponding section "Arguments from PRC and ROC" where you can elaborate more while the lead section cannot do too detail.
  • The current version or "Version B" has tag there, we definitely need to change or do something on it. @Cla68, I hope you can understand and agree with me.

Therefore, I will boldly edit back to the Version A with very minor modification. This can be as a new base with which we can continue to improve it with our discussion. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for your own benefit, you probably shouldn't: both Phoenix7777 and Cla68 don't seem to like that version. Under discretionary sanctions, as far as I understand, any time there's objections its best to take things slowly. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the Lvhis's edit. There is clearly no consensus reached as Qwyrxian raised a concern. Under the discretionary sanctions Lvhis should be careful in editing this article, otherwise sanctions will be imposed on him. See WP:AC/DS#For editors.
As I said above, there is no need to reiterate the names in this article about "dispute". Please see Spratly Islands / Spratly Islands dispute, Liancourt Rocks / Liancourt Rocks dispute, and Kuril Islands / Kuril Islands dispute. None of these articles about "dispute" reiterate the names of the islands. Lvhis is trying to promote the non-real-world naming dispute by adding it to the real-world territorial dispute article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I found I made an overestimation again. Qwyrxian, if you are really sincere in no objection of the "Version A", you would be better to sit aside after making your comment than inducing objection from others. I have been cautious as commented above. This version is not a brand new edit, it got consensus before. Okay, I will be more cautious. I have explained and gave some suggestions towards Phoenix7777 and Cla68. @Phoenix7777, please explain more detail what is "non-real-world naming dispute" which I added to "the real-world territorial dispute article"? Almost every fragment of the sentence improved in that version came out with RSs. I hope after the Arbitration, we can go real "BRD" instead of "BREA". Your revert itself was also no consensus base. I am afraid that we may just get stuck on the current vague version with tag if going "BREA". --Lvhis (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, you need to answer my question asked above in that you did that reversion. --Lvhis (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I know sometimes you don't think so, but I was trying to be helpful, and I certainly wasn't inducing an objection from others At least 2 other editors objected before I ever made my comment, thus more discussion was warranted. Now that we are under discretionary sanctions, if there are clear objections or alternative proposals, we all really have to keep working at the issue. That's all I was trying to say. To be honest, Phoenix7777's version also looks okay to me. Is there any sort of compromise possible here? A joint wording? A third wording that has the feelings of both? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis, please note that we don't need consensus to revert a "no consensus" edit. Onus is on you to gain consensus. If you add the text again without consensus, you will be banned like STSC.
I already explained why Lvhis's edit is unnecessary. Please re-read my two posts above. It is not a common practice to reiterate native names and alternative names in an article (Senkaku Islands dispute) which have a link to the name of the article (Senkaku Islands). This is based on the basic idea that it is unnecessary to reiterate the content of a linked article too much. MOS:CHINA#Insertion of Chinese characters prohibits to reiterate even Chinese characters or romanization of a linked article like "Li Shimin (李世民)" saying "If the reader wishes to find out about the native text, he or she can simply click on the link". This can also be reworded as "If the reader wishes to find out about the native text or alternative names, he or she can simply click on the link" because the native name and alternative names are assured to be included in the linked article per WP:UEIA.
Again, it is ridiculous to insist to repeat the sentence described in the linked article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, whether some user will be banned or not is not decided by you, that is decided by uninvolved admin. A behavior of BREA can also risk a similar consequence. Your explanation is nothing new, as I mentioned above on 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC) "we have discussed more than one or two times before". The key point is that you fear to face the fact supported by RSs that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name for these islands. It is you who "is trying to promote the non-real-world naming dispute by adding it to the real-world territorial dispute article". I will give some more detail later. --Lvhis (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ROC name usage

Rklawton was perfectly correct in using the format "Republic of China (Taiwan)" The reference page cited by Qwyrxian clearly says When identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC (e.g. "Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan).") In general, this only needs to be done once, subsequent references to the ROC need not include "(Taiwan)". "Taiwan" is clearly the popular name for the entity, and the sentence in question seeks to distinguish the two Chinese entities. Wiki-lawyering aside, the reference page is a guideline to be applied with flexibility and common sense. Eclecticology (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories: