Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

Second paragraph of lead

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

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

I believe that most of us agree with this:

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

I believe less of us agree with:

• Japan currently controls and administers the islands.

I think we would all agree with

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

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

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

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

Non-neutral representation of Senkaku Islands dispute in graphic terms?
Red shows
  POV of Japan?
Blue shows
  POV of ROC?
Green shows
  POV of PRC?

Qwyrxian -- Your proposal ignores the analysis presented above in What is "neutral"? and in Parsing neutrality and consensus? Why?

In the service of hortatory goals, your proposal contrives a priori elements which are non-neutral. A graphic representation of the Senkaku Islands dispute is posted in this section; but it is not a mirror of the one posted above at Parsing neutrality and consensus? Why?

Please notice that I have avoided disputes except in terms of the four elements of the introduction. You may not understand yet; and my skills in rhetoric may be cumbersome. However, no one can dispute that my writing is informed by research and thought; and my arguments are in the service of WP:NPOV and other core values. Is this for naught?

Summarizing: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." This phrase turned on the lightbulb which flashed over my head when I read DXDanl's phrase:

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

This begs a question: Cui bono? --Tenmei (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't meet your arguments above, because I don't think I need to, because your style of arguing is simply so far beyond what we need to do to make this article useful, that I find it distracting from our task. But, to be nice, I'm going to first, in a collapse, explain why I don't think that method of analysis is helpful, then try to meet you at your level and address your concerns

Explanation for why that style of analysis doesn't help

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

Having said that, here's why I think your analysis isn't relevant, even on it's own terms. If I understand what you're saying correctly, you're claiming that this is actually a three way dispute, not a two way dispute as has been previously characterized. Well, maybe, but that's not even a correct analysis, and itself presupposes the idea that Taiwan has an equal voice in this debate (a point which PRC would disagree about). Thus, your shifting to a tripartite structure is no more neutral than standing at a two part structure. Furthermore, your division into triples fails to recognize that one of the parties isn't arguing from the same level of rhetorical or political authority. What I mean is, I can imagine waking up tomorrow and hearing that the Russian ambassador has endorsed Japan's claims on the island. I can similarly imagine waking up tomorrow and hearing that the Russian ambassador has endorsed PRC's claims on the island. But I cannot imagine any situation in which tomorrow Russia suddenly endorses Taiwan's claims to the island, simply because Taiwan doesn't have the geopolitical influence to get such a declaration. So if we really want to be "neutral," we'd have to include further complex analysis about the underlying dispute between Taiwan and China over whether or not Taiwan is even allowed to take an independent position on the islands, and suddenly to create our lead to this article we have to replicate half of the Political status of Taiwan and Legal status of Taiwan articles.

But it doesn't really matter, because I'm arguing that we should have a zero-part structure for the lead! I'm saying, the lead is not the place to try to work out all of the subtle details of the debate. Specifically, the lead is the place to summarize, in very broad strokes, the topic of the article. This article's topic is a dispute about who owns a group of (currently) uninhabited islands, along with the resource rights that go along with ownership of the islands. We have to list the participants in the dispute (Japan, PRC, ROC) and we have to name and identify what it is they are disputing (Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands, and the corresponding resources). Optionally, we can add some things, like basic frames, but I think that the less we say (for now), the better. Everything we add to the lead will be contentious. I hold that we can't even state that Japan currently controls the islands, given that, for example, right now, Chinese boats regularly fish there, while Japanese boats are forbidden from doing so. Maybe, over time, once the article body itself is more stable, we can expand the lead. But, on an article of this length, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a one to two paragraph lead. As always, we need to strive to get as much into the article as we can, focusing on the core points, then worry about the remaining difficulties on the edge that we find still find to be unbalanced. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with Qwyrxian's reasoning or suggestion. I do not think (maybe I failed to comprehend) Tenmei's argument regarding neutrality conflicts with Qwyrxian's. i.e. either one presents the "assertion" of everybody, or moves all "assertion" from the lead section to the POV section. San9663 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's analysis is clear and persuasive. This example of refutation and counterargument makes several mutually-reinforcing arguments which are reduced to a handful of adjectives — distracting, unhelpful and irrelevant.

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

"But it doesn't really matter, because I'm arguing that we should have a zero-part structure for the lead! I'm saying, the lead is not the place to try to work out all of the subtle details of the debate. Specifically, the lead is the place to summarize, in very broad strokes, the topic of the article."

I acknowledge the adjective "distracting" in Qwyrxian's opinion. This is consistent with "cumbersome", which is how Bobthefish2 assessed my writing here. I take in this constructive criticism in the same spirit in which it is offered.

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

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

Are you a mathematician or logician? If so, you can consider following the structure of a formal proof. I believe there are several well-established structures that one can follow. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I plan to step back from an exclusive focus on the introduction section. I want to be an effective Wikipedian; and this requires re-thinking how to be effective in a talk page context. Constructive criticisms were proposed by Qwyrxian; and among the most persuasive was this:

"... [B]y defining the context of the argument to be within the community of practice of formal analysis, you remove the right to speak (marginalize, silence) those who do not have competent access to your community's ways of being .... But the truth is the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, even highly contentious ones, get by without nearly so formal analysis. In fact, the formal analysis often gets in the way of progress, because people who don't understand it are put off and feel like they're being left out of the discussion."

In other words, if the argument manages inadvertently to exclude or marginalize, it is missing the broader point that Wikipedia is a collaborative venture.

An idiomatic expression is almost applicable (but not exactly): Do you know what I mean when I say that I construe Qwyrxian to be advising me not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Tenmei (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei, we disagree on a lot of issues, and I have find it very hard to understand your reasoning. But I have to say I like your colorful graphic. :) and I also agree with this quote - "... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not." That is why I advocate to separate the POV lines from the lead. i.e. I think the lead should be white, then there is a section for R/B/G each below. Cheers! San9663 (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Double bracket links and 'additional description' of sources

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

1. When should we add a double bracket (for link to another wiki item). My understanding is "wherever possible", since it helps the reader to click through while reading, and it does not change the POV or content itself by a single letter. i.e. should cause no POV controversy. More information for readers to judge by themselves without elongating the wiki text. I raise the question because it seems some other people do not agree with me.
2. Relating to the links, for the more common "words" where we could link to another wiki entry, e.g. People's Daily, or Washington Times, to show one example from each extreme, I believe a double bracket link is important. Because it helps reader to follow the link to understand the background of these media. In fact, providing the links should save us from having to provide addition descriptions to "qualify" these media sources, which itself could be contentious. There are more experts to discuss how to best describe (and discuss about the controvery relating to) these media sources when one follows the links. For a contentious entry like this one, delegating some of the unnecessary controversies elsewhere should make works here a lot easier. San9663 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines are at WP:MOSLINK, although the exact details are still debated across all sorts of places. For example, it used to be practice among many authors to link all dates and all places; dates were officially de-linked as part of (what I have read) was a very ugly and contentious debate held in many different forums. For places, the debate is still ongoing. The two basic stances are "Wikipedia should be linked as heavily as possible, making it truly easy to find any given information," to "A field of blue simply overloads the reader, and makes it impossible for them to process the singular message in front of them." Actual practice tends to be somewhere in the middle (although the "every word is wikilinked" was explicitly ruled unacceptable quite early on). As for media sources, I would say that we should wikilink them, although in some cases I think a short phrase to explain may help as well (as an example, if we quoted from Stars and Stripes, we would definitely need to state that the newspaper is published by the U.S. government). We also should be explicit if a particular article that we are referencing is/has been controversial. Better yet, we should avoid using any sources that are themselves disputed (as above in the article with the misattributed photographs), or do so only in context. I guess what I'm saying is the very unhelpful, "It depends." sigh...sorry about that long history lesson that doesn't really answer your question definitively. Maybe you have a specific example in mind that we could look at? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Specific examples? (1) e.g. Washington Times, which often have people confused with its competitor of 10x higher circulation Washington Post (I did when I first heard of it), sort of the more obscure version of Sankei, except that Sankei is a lot "better" and more professional than Washington Times IMO. (2) In the lead section, I think terms like "Diaoyu" deserves the square brackets, but certain people keep reverting them. I presume these people think giving the square bracket to 'diaoyu' maybe imply these are legitimate wiki entries (they are indeed), but for a reader with no knowledge of this subject he will want to click through to see "what the hell is Diaoyu?". Those who removed the brackets seems to assume that every uninformed reader knows would automatically do the 'redirect' himself, or maybe there are other "more honorable" motivation. P.S. I agree that year and dates do not need the wikilinks. the rule of thumb is probably if the link goes to somewhere 'relevant', even if marginally. San9663 (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think terms like "Diaoyu" deserves the square brackets As I said in the edit summary, you do not wikilink to re-directs. John Smith's (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

John Smith is right, in that we do not wikilink to re-directs. Furthermore, no one could possibly read "The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, the Senkaku Islands (also known as the "Diaoyutai Islands" in Chinese)" and then ask "What the heck are Diaoyutai", given that that sentence itself explains what it is.

As for the Times, we can use a wikilink, I think. We should not be giving context about the relative size of the newspaper. If the Wikilink there helps people be less confused, I have no problem with it.

To above (signature seems missing), is there some official policy of no link to "re-direct"? I am not suggesting of showing details such as circulation here, it should be taken care by the wikilink, that is the point of my original question. San9663 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean and what you want, San9663. Please click Diaoyu, Diaoyutai Islands, and Pinnacle Islands and see what happens. And this is the guideline. Oda Mari (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your link. However, the section your link points to is about "self redirect". Here I am talking about linking (from the dispute) to a different page (the island). But a bit above it talks about "reasons to delete" and "reasons for not deleting". in particular, see #5 of "reasons for not deleting".San9663 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean that you want to use a piped link like this? Diaoyutai Islands. If this is what you want, you have to edit [[Senkaku Islands|Diaoyutai Islands]]. What is the target page you want to link? But we do not have an article called the "Diaoyutai Islands" and what you did here was self-redirect. I still don't know what you want to do. Oda Mari (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, this is the first time I heard of "Piped link", I am saying to put the double brackets in Diaoyu in the "dispute" entry, to link back to the "island" entry. One reason being, the re-direct may change. when it changes, one does not need to re-edit the links. Other reason is, simply, "symmetry" and looks nicer, and that one may want to click into it.San9663 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Oda Mari (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am confused too. A guess would be a scenario where the Senkaku Island page is renamed to say... Diaoyu/Senkaku Island. Then it will be symmetric to see both Senkaku and Diaoyu to have links attached. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

OK, I have placed this article on indefinite protection. I tried to avert this for a while because the article's undergoing a major reconstruction, but the edit warring has continued, and I see no other alternative. As such, any major edits will have to receive compromise before they can be inserted. My suggestion: start an RFC or mediation immediately. Perhaps major changes can be placed at Senkaku Islands dispute/temp; friendly jockeying on that page will be permitted (e.g., several reversions of different items with a day); unfriendly jockeying will not (reverting the same item more than once). If there are pressing uncontroversial changes or whole-scale changes that have received consensus, you may use the {{editprotected}} template, and an administrator can add the content. If the edit war has calmed down and all sides come to an agreement to stop edit warring, feel free to request removal of the protection at that time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A good solution would be to simply ban those who have been maliciously removing edits of others. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN, only a community consensus (which would have to be established at WP:AN or WP:ANI), and Arbcom decision, or Jimbo Wales fiat allows for the banning of editors, either site wide or from topics/pages. Generally speaking, we would have to show that we've tried to fix the problem ourselves first, and there's so many steps we haven't taken that I doubt you could get consensus for that. Note that the ANI thread that Magog opened is already marked resolved, and no admin indicated that this is anything other than a highly contentious content dispute. In any event, since right now no one can "maliciously remove" any edits under full protection, that problem is basically solved.

While I resisted before, I guess mediation is a fair step. I recommend informal Mediation (the WP:Mediation Cabal). To do that we two things. First, we need to craft a clear, specific explanation of what we want out of Mediation. My suggestion on that regard is "We need the help of an independent facilitator to keep discussions focused, and with the goal of achieving an article which meets the requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:V." The second thing we need is the agreement of all involved parties--the Cabal won't mediate unless everyone agrees to participate. So, I guess a quick step would be for everyone who intends to continue working on this page to state whether or not they will agree to Mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What a pity.

I agree with the choice of mediation. Some authority figure from an independent background may help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with mediation, and the outstanding issue that requires mediation is that of the Title/name. Reason is as we discussed before in the "Island page" (not located in the "dispute" page though), that previous analysis (google search) was shown to be flawed.San9663 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The title issue would be much more suitable to an RfC. And fixing the title doesn't fix the underlying problem--the page was protected because of edit warring and a disagreement, particularly over how to represent and choose sources. No edit warring has actually occurred over the name. At this point, we're actually making constructive progress on the name--we agree that the previous study was flawed, and we're still in the process of collecting new data to move forward. It's very possible that we are going to run into an impasse soon if some people adamantly stick to the old results and refuse to consider new ones, but that's why I'd prefer that the mediation be open ended, so that it can address the overall issue of POV editing and poor editing behavior on the article, not just a single aspect of NPOV.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. btw, what is RfC? San9663 (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An RfC is a "Request for Comment." Basically, someone neutrally describes the issue being disputed in short terms in a new section, then adds a special tag. Adding that tag automatically adds a note on the RfC page, which is an indication to other editors not currently involved that there is an issue here which needs wider community input. In addition, it's not unusual to canvas (following a very specific set of rules listed at WP:CANVAS), particularly on relevant Wikiprojects (here, for example, the Japan, China, and Taiwan Wikiprojects, plus possibly some more general ones like the Geography Wikiproject). That message stays active for 30 days. The idea is that it's a recognition that in our insular group of editors, we've reached something of an impasse, so we're wondering if the rest of the community has input. In instances like this page, it sometimes causes as much harm as good, if the people who show up just shout jingoist slogans without actually looking at the data. But it still doesn't hurt to try. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S., I assume everyone's watching the other article to, but, just in case, I just added some new data regarding the name over on Talk:Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I seems the jp.wiki's site entry is less "POV" than this English one, surprised me a bit. In fact, the history/chronology chart in jp.wiki is much better than this one. Even the POV comparison section would put the same section here in shame. I would suggest taking the common parts of the jp/zh wiki sites to start with.San9663 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, but, in any event, I oppose on principle. Other wikis do not follow the exact same pillars/policies/guidelines that we do, and they don't interpret the shared ones in the same way. We have no way of knowing if just because something is approved there, it should be approved here. We should just evaluate based on our principles, understanding, and consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure all wiki's have similar rule, just different editors with different motives and different history of evolution. I found the structure of presenting POV in the jp version pretty clear and good. I am just suggesting there are lesson to be learned from there, and some ideas about how to fix the problems in this entry here. The wiki principles and understandings are similar. It is the "consensus" history that were different. San9663 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with San9663 that the jp version is better organized, and I wish that we could revise this site based on the strcuture of the jp site. Xjian77 (talk)18:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to unprotect when the parties agree to come to consensus and not revert war with each other. I seriously doubt that the jp wiki rules are so different that a translated text would be incompatible with en's. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan investigating reported China-Japan deal on disputed islands

Once the protection comes off, add:

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

Images, splitting, et. al

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

Wrapping up some old issues

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

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

Issue	Supporting Argument	Opposing Argument	Proposed Action
Whether or not Remin Ribao article has said Senkaku Islands belong to Okinawa. This is related to an edit that removes a reference to Okinawa in the figure caption of the article.	"... Okinawa is is considered a synonym of Ryukyu. See Ryukyu Islands." -- Oda Mari (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) "... please see the [secondary] source. "To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan." It unambiguously states Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) twice. Please refrain from insisting the original research. Even if Ryukyu Islands include a part of Kagoshima, it depends on the context of the story." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) "This article is not a textbook of mathematics and the sentence is not a mathematical equation. An author has a privilege to insert his/her own interpretation in the parenthesis. If Okinawa is important in the context (actually it is) and Kagoshima is not, then the author will ignore Kagoshima and insert Okinawa inside the parenthesis. See all these books using "Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa)". [4][5][6][7][8][9]" ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)	"Japanese [secondary] source cited is definitely mis-interpreting the Remin Ribao article because this is what the Remin Ribao article said: "琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛." which translates to: "Ryukyu Islands are distributed between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛." For the rest of the article, Okinawa was only mentioned as Okinawa Islands (which is different to Okinawa Prefecture)" --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC) "Remin Ribao figure said the disputed land was part of Ryukyu islands Remin Ribao figure did not say the disputed land was part of Okinawa islands Ryukyu islands != Okinawa Prefecture" -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) "... whatever [a secondary source] said would not change the contents of the Remin Ribao article ...". -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)	Restore the edit since Ryukyu Islands is not the same as Okinawa and the article only said Senkaku Islands is a constituent of Ryukyu Islands and not the Japanese province of Okinawa.
Not restoring Swastika-wearing Japanese photos that are allegedly taken during October 2010 protests. This is related to contested materials on October 2010 protests.	"I also did a detective work. This ref. Bobthefish2 used says "According to...BBC in Chinese..." and this is the BBC page. BBC doesn't use the images of men in dark blue uniform. BBC images are similar to those of the WSJ and CNN used. Where are the images of men in dark blue uniform from? I found out where two of the images were taken. See the third image. You can see "MIZUHO みずほ銀行". The name of the building is Kudan Fuji Building (九段富士ビル). See[3] and [4]. See the second image. You can see "ニュー九段ビル" at the top right. It's the name of the building. See [5], [6] and [7]. See also the map that there are a bridge and an elevated express way. Kudan is the place where Yasukuni shrine lies and Shibuya is not a neighboring area. The images used by Chinese media indicate Kudan and Yasukuni. They are definitely not the images of the 10/02 protest at Shibuya, Aoyama, and Harajyuku. They were probably taken on August 15. Because I found an image of one of the right wing men. See the third image. I phoned Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department Public Security Bureau and was told the Shibuya protest was the only one rally in Tokyo on October 2 and there was no protests at Kudan on that day." -- Oda Mari (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC) "The Chinese news source was clearly forged by the Chinese media. As Oda Mari pointed out, the placards in this picture say "We need neither the Imperial system nor Yasukuni" and "demolish Yasukuni" in front of Mizuho Bank Kudan branch[1] near the Yasukuni Shrine. This picture was taken in front of ニュー九段ビル (New Kudan Building)[2] near the Yasukuni Shrine. The demonstration is held by the left-wing organization "Yasukuni Shrine Demolition Enterprise" on August 15 every year. The extreme right-wing activists were not participating in the demonstration but protesting it. This picture shows the policemen are surrounding the activist to prevent him assault the demonstration. How does the demonstration holding the placards saying "We need neither the Imperial system nor Yasukuni" and "demolish Yasukuni" near the Yasukuni Shrine become the anti-Chinese demonstration?" ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)	"We still do not have a clear cut conclusion yet. What we need to establish is whether this is indeed fabricated. I think the more useful evidence, if you can find, should be the report where these photos were originally published, Aug 15 near Yasukuni you said? There must be reports then. It should not be too difficult to locate if you search the .jp domains? since some of you have suggested the date and occasion. (BTW, They seem to be wearing a lot considering the temperature in August)" -- San9663 (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) "As San9663 and I suggested, go find instances of those images that occur before October 2010. If you managed to locate one instance of that, then that's convincing evidence." -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)	While no one ultimately bothered to verify whether or not these pictures were unrelated to the October 2010 protests, the pictures also don't appear on most of the prominent Chinese and English media. So, it's best to leave them out.
Not restoring October 2010 protest content (barring swastika pictures). This is related to contested materials on October 2010 protests	"Wikipedia is not a news story. Putting all the protests in the events is not appropriate. It would make the events list endlessly long. So the consulate and the bus incidents should not be included. "Right-wing Japanese politicians" ? Who? I cannot find other politicians' name in the source. Please do not modify the content of the source." -- Oda Mari (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)	"... disputes and reactions are commonly occur in the same page. Try to look up pages on other disputes. There's a reason that these things are found together... Whether or not protests and reactions should be included in the historical events section is up for debate. These elements definitely belong to this page but they can also be relocated to "Japanese Reaction" and "Chinese Reaction". On the other hand, if we relocate these mentionings to separate categories, we lose the benefit of listing them together in a single time-line. The atomic-weapon article mentioned one politician. I guess you'd want that to be changed to singular? That's fine." -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)	Since there isn't an a good reason to leave the non-swastika contents out, then they should be restored.

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

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

I disagree with a number of your points. First of all, numerous editors noted the Japanese secondary sources were wrong. If we are to throw away swastika pictures due to suspicion raised by editors, then we should also throw away dubious secondary sources and their references if numerous editors agreed that their translations of a primary source are blatantly wrong! In fact, it's not even just an issue of translation. The secondary sources have cited content that was not even said by the Remin Ribao article. If this doesn't warrant deletion, then one can use the same line of reasoning to do some POV-pushing by citing bad English review articles of foreign language primary sources.

I agree that the protest section should not be focused on, but what was added was only 3 sentences worth of summary for the October 2010 protests. Originally, I planned to replace all the old entries for the individual October protests, but that was cut short when two Japanese editors jumped in and vetoed the content. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On the translations, other editors stated that the translations were blatantly correct. Thus, we have a dispute about translations between editors. Again, I don't know what to do here...On the protests, I definitely I agree with you that we should include some. I can easily see more than 3 sentences. We just want avoid the "On October 3 in Beijing...On October 5 in Tokyo...etc..." I haven't done any looking for sources, but I can imagine a section/sub-section saying something like "The arrest of the Chinese fisherman sparked a number of protests in Beijing. Over the following months, these protests escalated and became directed more broadly at Japanese occupation of Senkaku as well as encompassing more generalized anti-Japanese sentiment. In some cases, those protests have become violent, with protesters inflicting severe damage on Japanese owned businesses. Protests occurred in Japan as well, although on a smaller scale than in China." Now, please note, that's all horribly written, and done off the top of my head without looking for any sources. It's just a vague guess about what we want to say, and should in no way be taken as advocating an actual recommended edit to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a matter of common sense. Several Chinese editors already agreed with me about the translation. The counter-arguments made by the Japanese editors didn't even contradict what we said. Rather, one cited numerous flawed secondary sources and another claimed Okinawa = Ryukyu Islands (which is obviously wrong). If you insist, we can always call for an RfC, but it's a complete waste of time for something this trivial and obvious.

What you said about the protests section is kind of what I have in mind. We can change it to have it this way once the page unlocks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the issues. But for the Renmin Ribao issue, I think if there is doubt in translation, we should attach the original language in bracket. then maybe a note explaining/listing the difference in interpretation)? For the protests, yes, I think it is not practical to list every single protest. A compromise may be just one line to list the dates and identify the cities. Regarding the controversial pictures, also, show the link and state there is controversy. I think this should be fair. wiki will be a collection of links to external reports but wiki will just direct readers to these links to judge for themselves. BTW, i still think there is really no point in uploading the Washington Times map to wiki, I think it is better to show the link instead. It is as controversial as those pictures and the source is really dubious. San9663 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, The first paragraph of the second page of this article says "還有不少婦女和看起來像是知識分子的參加者旁聽，現場氣氛冷靜，但從喝彩和掌聲中可以感覺到日本社會對中國不滿的情緒。中國政府日前已提醒訪日旅遊的國民小心、香港也傳出一些取消訪日預定的新聞。 " Will you please translate it into English for the editors who don't understand Chinese? Why did you choose that Chinese news article over the BBC article? Please answer the question. Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusative tones are such a norm to your posts. Angry much?

The BBC article was not deliberately ignored. If you wanted it to be used as well, that's fine. The Chinese passage you cited translates to "There are lots of women and apparent educated elites among the participants. The atmosphere of the scene was calm, but frustration of the Japanese society towards China can be felt through the cheers and applause. Days ago, the Chinese government reminded its citizens to be careful when travelling in Japan. Rumour also has it that there are cancellations of reservations to Japan in Hong Kong."

Now, here's a little something I want you to translate into English for the editors who don't understand Chinese

"琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛屿，总计共有五十个以上有名称的岛屿和四百多个无名小岛，全部陆地面积为四千六百七十平方公里。群岛中最大的岛是冲绳诸岛中的冲绳岛（即大琉球岛）". In fact, it would be decent if you can translate this

"美国在一九四五年六月占领了琉球群岛后，就着手在该岛建筑军事基地。"

and that

"美国侵略者竟不顾“开罗宣言”、“波茨坦公告”等各项国际协议中都没有规定托管琉球群岛的决定，也不顾苏联政府和中华人民共和国政府的一再声明，更不顾一百万琉球人民的坚决反对，竟勾结日本吉田政府，擅自在它片面制订的对日“和约”中规定：“日本对于美国向联合国提出将北纬二十九度以南的琉球群岛……置于联合国托管制度之下，而以美国为唯一管理当局的任何提议，将予同意。"

as well. These are all passages from the Remin Ribao article. If you have trouble doing that, then maybe you can ask User:San9663 or User:John Smith's to lend you a hand.

By the way, don't forget to address the other issues because you were the primary objector of my edits. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I cannot translate Chinese into English. I can only read kanji and guess the meaning using dictionaries and machine translations. That is why I asked you to translate as you seem to be a native Chinese speaker. I also wanted know if I read the paragraph correctly. I was not totally sure the meaning of the paragraph. I have no idea why you thought my tone accusative. I didn't mean that way. Oda Mari (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... and yet you are arguing with us on how to interpret articles written in Chinese. Here's my translation of the three Chinese paragraphs I listed. They are all texts located within the Remin Ribao article:

Chinese Text: 琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛屿，总计共有五十个以上有名称的岛屿和四百多个无名小岛，全部陆地面积为四千六百七十平方公里。群岛中最大的岛是冲绳诸岛中的冲绳岛（即大琉球岛"

English Translation (except for some of the location names): Ryukyu Islands are scattered at a region that is north east to our nation's Taiwan and south west to Japan's 九洲岛. They are seven island groups composed of Senkaku Islands, 先岛诸岛, 大东诸岛, Okinawa Islands, 大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛. Each group of islands have lots of large and small islands. There are more than 50 islands with names and around 400 small islands without names. The total land surface area is 4670 square kilometers. The largest island of all islands is Okinawa Island's Okinawa Island (which is the Large Ryukyu Island).

Chinese Text: 美国在一九四五年六月占领了琉球群岛后，就着手在该岛建筑军事基地。

English Translation: After annexing the Ryukyu Islands on June 1945, America has built military base on the islands.

Chinese Text: 美国侵略者竟不顾“开罗宣言”、“波茨坦公告”等各项国际协议中都没有规定托管琉球群岛的决定，也不顾苏联政府和中华人民共和国政府的一再声明，更不顾一百万琉球人民的坚决反对，竟勾结日本吉田政府，擅自在它片面制订的对日“和约”中规定：“日本对于美国向联合国提出将北纬二十九度以南的琉球群岛……置于联合国托管制度之下，而以美国为唯一管理当局的任何提议，将予同意。

English Translation: America the invader disregarded Potsdam declaration and associated international treaties which did not decide on governorship of Ryukyu Islands. They also did not care about the words of the People's Republic of China or the opposition of a million Ryukyu natives. Instead, they conspired with the Japanese government and decided by themselves to insert their own rule in the Japanese peace treaty: "Japan will agree to America's suggestion to the U.N. regarding to have the Ryukyu Islands located 29 degrees south of the north latitude.... transfer to U.N. supervision where America is the sole controller."

Your tone sounds accusative because it heavily implies that (1) I am purposely not using BBC references for some seemingly POV-pushing purpose and (2) I am avoiding your questions because they sound inconvenient. Since I haven't done either of those things, it is within reason for me to take exception along with your earlier recommendation for me to "educate myself". Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean this was not good enough? What else do you want me to do? Oda Mari (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I was simply taking note of some of your choice words and attitudes. While you don't need to do anything, you may want to know that some editors generally back their positions with appropriate reasoning (unlike certain other editors). So... on the occasion that they are unjustifiably accused of the contrary, some might have very bad impressions of their accusers' sense of objectivity and logic. Since you are an avid wiki-editor, I'd presume you want people to have confidence in your standards.

With this said, I hope we can get back to topic. This dispute is started by your act of reverting an edit of mine. I would like it to be resolved. I decided to concede on the issue of the swastika photos because you convinced me it is controversial (albeit without proving their actually instances of mis-used) and I don't feel strongly about getting entangled in another messy argument. On the other hand, I felt I am right on issues 1 & 3 and thus the corresponding contents should be re-instated. Since there are no strong counter-arguments opposing my positions on these matters, I believe it will be a waste of time if you persist in vetoing those contents. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

1)It's OK to remove Okinawa as they were occupied by the U.S. and there was not Okinawa prefecture in Japan at that time. 3) I personally and basically disagree to include each and every protest and protest-related incident. As I wrote before, it makes the list endlessly long and WP:NOT#NEWS. They did not change the situation at all so far. Protests are current events and their significance in the dispute is not yet known. I think they can wait. But IMO, if they'd be included, a summary like the one Qwyrxian proposed above would be appropriate. Oda Mari (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.179.195.36, 24 October 2010

{{edit protected}}

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

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

Recommend this not be done: according to Potsdam Declaration, the Soviet Union was not at Potsdam, but RoC was. Unless IP has some further explanation, this change would not be factual. Furthermore, it sounds like an issue that needs to be pursued at Potsdam Declaration first. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Did a quick Google search. Found this. Would be nice if someone can verify whether or not the follow line is really found in Posterdam " The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.". Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording is verified by the National Diet Library webpage: Potsdam Declaration; excerpt of "Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender Issued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945," paragraph 8. "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

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

Would be nice if there is an original text to look at. Another quote of interest is "As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests". Not sure if this is synthesis or not. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Googling this explicit wording suggests its non-neutral provenance -- Hu Fiyue. "Friendly advice to Japan," China Daily, September 23, 2010. In contrast, compare Cairo Press Release, December 1, 1943 and other context-creating reliable sources. --Tenmei (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I am inclined to just have the original text cited and/or quoted so that the readers can decide for themselves. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Which, as far as I understand, is explicitly not what we do, per WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The whole "let the readers decide for themselves" is not actually what encyclopedias do. Instead, our job is to explain what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the world (including primary sources), in prominence relative to their importance. This is exactly the same reason we don't just report what primary science sources say about a phenomenon, but, instead, wait for secondary sources to tell us whether the primary research is actually valid, relevant, and supported by the field. In any event, you'd have to contextualize it--where would you put it in the article? What comes before and after it? You can't put the primary source into either Japan or China's arguments, because it doesn't, by itself, support either (i.e., putting it in either section violate NPOV). You can't put it by itself unless you provide a context. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2010

You are right. I still occasionally confuse wiki-standards with academic-standards. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse clarifying policy analysis of Qwyrxian in this diff above. --Tenmei (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Potsdam is relevant because it is in the center of the dispute. Without Potsdam China (ROC or PRC) would not have the nullification of Shimonoseki, and China cannot use the argument that the islands were part of the spoil of the war and hence should be returned. Regarding secondary source, I think the Korean scholar Lee Seokwoo book discussed about it when discussing China's argument. San9663 (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One sentence from the Cairo Declaration become relevant in refutation of an aspect of San9663's minor line of argument here. Setting aside reasonable questions about original research or synthesis, we can not avoid noticing that one very specific date is cited:

It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914 ....

In whatever manner San9663 construes "nullification of Shimononoseki", this explicit 1914 date is a stumbling block. --Tenmei (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you finish reading your sentence, Tenmei? It said, ".....since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, 'and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.' " Anyway, Potsdam is published in 1944 (cairo in 1943), and the Japan's surrender stated it accepted Potsdam, not Cairo San9663 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the crucial date is 1914. Yes, the words in bold font are readily verified by using the hyperlinks I provided in the text above here and here; and yes, I also read the sentence about Korea.

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

Well, then Japan's Surrender Document --- Potsdam --- Cairo means that Taiwan is to be returned, and China's claims that Diaoyu/Senkaku is part of it is very relevant to this dispute. Without such there will not be dispute. Moreover, Taiwan/Formosa was "stolen" in 1895 before 1914 if you know a bit of the history. I am not saying China would win the ICJ legal battle, I am just saying that it is a relevant enough issue to be disucssed and highlighted to the potential wiki reader who wants to know the causes of this dispute. San9663 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If 1914 is the crucial year, then Japan owns the island -and Taiwan. But Taiwan was returned. So we should consider 1895 to be the crucial year. But were the islands part of China taken by Japan in 1895? Taiwan claims so. If the Allies agreed with this claim, why didn't they return them after the war? Why was it returned to Japan? I have suspicions that:

1. the allies (USA) either didn't find conclusive evidence that the islands belong to Taiwan/China, or

2. ignored the evidence because Okinawa was ruled by US until 1972 thus,

3. when Okinawa was returned, Senkaku (I use the Japanes name because Japan administers the islands now) was returned too. Or

4. neither Japan nor China had exclusive claim over the islands before 1895, their claims overlapped. Thus,

5. when Japan won in 1895 considers Senkaku hers and attached it to Okinawa.

Personally I I think points 4&5 are correct. Rad vsovereign (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There are few place missing~ in this dispute~!

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

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

Actually, we're discussing both of those changes in teh section above. My concern with either declaration is that reading either one, there is no "common sense"/"obvious" interpretation of whether or not they apply to these islands. However, I do think we can include reliable, secondary sources that interpret those primary documents. As for your recommended site, that's nothing more than a self-published, personal interpretation of the issue, and so can't be used as a source, nor is there any reason to believe it's a neutral analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, FYI the website is from Durham University, UK. Durham is one of the top university in UK. The author Dzurek has written a number of books and papersin maritime legal issues. I am pretty sure whatever written on that site is a summary of something in his book and published/peer reviewed papers. However, I am not sure which exact line in the articles is not covered yet and Xzone wants to include. San9663 (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, in that case, the site itself could fall under the "well-respected expert" exemption on self-published sources, although, of course, it would be better to use the sources referenced in the paper or other published sources. I just read over the page, and it does have a lot of information, presented fairly clearly. I think our page covers a lot of that already, although I didn't do a point by point comparison. As you (San96663) say, we need to know if there are specific point Xzone (or anyone else) was thinking are missing. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Nor is posting a comment like the one you just committed. Maybe you should help this new participant out by telling him how to contribute more effectively? Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing per WP:V and WP:RS: This discussion thread seems to be about a case study excerpt from the International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

A review of the "External links" section of Senkaku Islands dispute reveals that this reliable source was already listed prior to the article split.

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

References

• Lee, Seokwoo, Shelagh Furness and Clive Schofield. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands. Durham: University of Durham, International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU). 10-ISBN 1897643500/13-ISBN 9781897643501; OCLC 249501645

External links

• Dzurek, Daniel. "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute," International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU). October 18, 1996.

I have created an IBRU stub article. I hope this can be a step towards mitigating further storms in a teacup. I also created a stub article about Daniel Dzurek, who was formerly the Chief of the Spatial, Environmental and Boundary Analysis Division of the United States Department of State. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct Note No.75

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