User talk:Phoenix7777

Archive 1

.

Hello, Phoenix7777, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Daikanyama

I see you removed the paragraph about the embassies. But, aren't you mixing up Daikanyama-cho (the administrative name) and Daikanyama (the area name)? Sarugagucho is in Daikanyama, so the embassies are in Daikanyama. Here is a map:[1]. Best regards,--Mycomp (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article Daikanyama is about "the area name" but "the administrative name". The lead says "Daikanyamachō" and postal code is 150-0034 which indicates Daikanyamachō.[2]. And the "Daikanyama 代官山" in your map is not "the area name" but a station name. Please see next station "Nakameguro 中目黒" or zoom in appropriately.[3] I don't know what "the area name" Daikanyama means. Could you provide any information about "the area name" Daikanyama? I think it is probably a very vague name that no one can define explicitly. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the writing "Daikanyama" (it was the Toyoko line station). Mea culpa. But look at this: it is 代官山エリアガイド (Daikanyama area guide):[4] The Danish Embassy is listed as one of the embassies in Daikanyama. But, it's ok, if you think the embassies should not be mentioned in the Daikanyama article we can keep them out of it. I go to Daikanyama regularly, and "everybody" calls the area where the embassies are Daikanyama (yes, I know that is not an acceptable reference for Wiki :). Have a nice day.--Mycomp (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trikemike (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)trikemikeTrikemike (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)I think if it is to be claimed that a connection remains undemonstrated between Japonic languages and others, a citation is certainly called for! Thanks!

Takamikura, 1917

Timely contributions

Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to the thread at Talk:Order of Culture#Requested Move. In this context, perhaps it will be perceived as welcoming to point out the gilded figure atop the canopy structure used in Imperial enthronement ceremonies? Perhaps this 1917 image of a phoenix is new to you?--Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the honorable picture. I am proud of my user name which derived from the picture. I put it to my user page ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New message...

Hi Phoenix! Actually, those coordinates are for Shinjuku, the capital of the prefecture, Tokyo, which is different from the Greater Tokyo Area.
 —  Paine's Climax  03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops! you are right, Phoenix, I double checked and the correct coordinates for Shijuku are 35°42′2″N 139°42′54″E. I was a degree off on the latitude. My bad. The latd has been corrected.

 —  Paine's Climax  04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• PS. I've incorporated the coordinates you gave me, 35°41′23″N 139°41′30″E, into the infobox in the Greater Tokyo Area article.

Reverts

Took me lots of time collecting infos. Please discuss before reverting a whole set. All teas are from what I find and what I've bought in stores. aracha sencha japanese might be 煎茶の荒茶 rather than 荒茶煎茶 aracha gyokuro

Koicha / Usucha 抹茶

konacha

Then you can't reasonably place genmatcha as a type of tea, as this isn't a tea but a mix. Same thoughts with aracha (raw), and houjicha (roasted sencha with can also be bancha).

Might need some more cleanup on this article, as most the the tea names are just different processings of gyokuro, sencha, bancha... Might need to sub-categorize.

FCartegnie (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Copied above discussion to Talk:Green tea#Reverts in order to catch the attention of more editors. Subsequent discussion should be made there not here.) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese ?

It is very important whether you are native Japanese or not, demoiselle.--Giapponese (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Special Forces and Ninjas

Please read the following article from Dean Rostar, Croatian Police Special Forces and 15 dan Blackbelt, Bujinkan Ninjutsu:

http://www.specwog.bujinkan.hr/tekst-en.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084266135&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.236.154 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The banned user

Look, please read WP:BAN. Banned user's contribution is usually wholly blanked out, struck or deleted per the rule regardless of whether their contribution is good or not. However, the "discussion" was whole harassment campaign by Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) against me. Moreover, the thread titles were named by "me", and I let the harassment campaign stay instead of blanking. Archived discussions' titles were fixed by editors in some occasions. In addition, you're no right to falsely accuse me of doing vandalism for that. That is a personal attack. Even if the banned user appears to claim his authorship, the sockpuppeter has no right whatsoever edit Wikipedia because at the time the "discussions" occurred while the troll was already banned by persistently block-evading. There is no honor for you to defend the banned user's dignity. --Caspian blue 14:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daifuku

Hi. I restored the text you deleted, and added a {{fact}} tag. Unless the tag is there, readers and contributors are unlikely to know a reliable source is needed, and for the tag to be there the text has to be there too. --Una Smith (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Una, thank you for informing me of your revert. However if it is left with {{cn}}, no one will never add a reference as with many other {{cn}. So I will bring it to the talk page, however probably no one will respond to my post either because no one can prove the description is true. Even if it is proved to be true, I am sure it is too rare case to describe it as a variation of daifuku.

I am concerned so many false descriptions are left with/without {{cn}}. Actually I removed dubious descriptions in Shumai recently.[5] In this case, I am not so confident as Daifuku, I brought it to talk page and Phillipine project.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you delete the text, even fewer readers will even know a source is needed. So put the tag on, or better yet find a source. --Una Smith (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the rationale you removed tag[6] without adding a reference? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Already given on Talk:Daifuku. If it is not clear, please say so there. --Una Smith (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Phoenix7777. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Geisha"

Thank you for starting an effort to source "Geisha" honestly. Yes, I realize it was somebody unrelated who decided to employ fiction for this purpose; but anyway see Talk:Geisha for an attempt at an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

KFC claim in Christianity in Japan

It occured to me I didn't know if you were watching Aphaia's talk page or not; anyway, I have replied there: User talk:Aphaia. Perhaps we should be having this conversation in Talk:Christianity in Japan? -- Joren (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

After getting the support from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard please do so. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix, thank you for your reply. I don't believe RSN is intended to be a place where all sources must be vetted before being used; if you read the noticeboard, you will find that RSN is more of a place to go if you have doubts about a source that has already been used in an article and want it checked out. However, I appreciate the intent. WP:V and WP:RS are better places to direct people if you want to convey what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source.

I've been Googling and what I've found (filtering out blogs of course) are rather unsatisfactorily mostly news articles with bits of journal and encyclopedia sprinkled in here and there.

Voice of America - Japan and Fried Chicken: A New Christmas Tradition? - Seems to give a good overview but would prefer something other than VOA.

Reuters - It's Christmas! Have a little more bat meat! - This one is usable perhaps.... At least they had reporters in Tokyo.

Reuters - In Japan, $850 Christmas chicken defies recession - This one references the tradition, but only does so as a side note.

KFC Christmas (BBC, et al) - Kind of short, not terribly thorough; seems to rely mostly on KFC's own version of events

On my next library visit I'll search their journal database and see what they have. Who knows, might discover something on my bookshelf too :O -- Joren (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you by reverting your edit. Yes, you may be able to find a reliable source supporting KFC, however you may also be able to find a reliable source supporting McDonald's sells special chicken menus during the Christmas season. What is clear is that chicken is very popular in Japan during the Christmas season regardless of fried chicken, roast chicken, chicken burger or chicken nugget. So if you mention only KFC, it is against NPOV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, no. I didn't state I was looking for a kind of source that talks about it being on sale. I'd be looking for a secondary source that authoritatively states that it is a tradition. But anyway... no offense taken, just, we seem to be miscommunicating. You seem to believe that "what is clear" to you is clear to me as well. It is not.
• You might want to keep this in mind before saying things are POV or NPOV; after all, unless you cite evidence to back up "what is clear", it just seems like someone's POV and you make as little sense to me as I made to you :P From what was "clear to me", there was a KFC tradition, anecdotal, news media, and article evidence seemed to confirm it, so I was not aware of any bias, and your calling it POV wouldn't have made much sense to me if I hadn't read Aphaia's reply before reading yours. However, Aphaia has actually explained her understanding in a way that makes sense, so I'm willing to go with that. In the future, instead of just asserting "what is clear", you might want to explain and back it up, as Aphaia has done, and we can avoid further miscommunication. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ady Gil article, Peter Bethune's detention and arrest

Hello, You removed the referenced video showing Peter Bethune delivering his bill to the captain of the Shonan Maru 2. This video is important because another editor inserted the word "ostensibly" into the Ady Gil article, regarding the purpose of Bethune's visit to the Captain of the Shonan Maru 2. But the supporting news story which is referenced states that as a fact, and the video of Bethune knocking on the door of the bridge of the Shonan Maru 2 with a piece of paper in his hand also supports this. He was not attempting to sabotage or blow up the ship, for example. I'm going to revert your recent change based on this information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is not a self-published source. Bethune did not take a video of himself on another ship or post it. It is evidence that he was there to contact the ship's captain. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

tenno title

1; there is no word in japanese for the latin word Imperator, or emperor in english or emperador in spanish, 2;the meaning of the title which belongs to Japanese monarch, shown in this publication is incorrect, there is no literal translation of the word emperor of origin in the Latin language,to the Japanese language,

3; As I explain here, is obvious and need no sources this 天 means, heaven or heavenly or celestial , and this 皇 NOT means "Emperor" or "king", this 王 means "king"...., this 皇 means some type of "sovereign" rather than king {王}, 天子 this means son of heaven, from 天 {Heaven} and 子 son or prince, that is why 天皇 {tennō} means "heavenly sovereign" Thats is why.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.106.213 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Emperor of Japan#exactly meaning of the title tennō, not here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Kofun Haniwa soldier

What can I say? I do agree with you Phoenix7777 about the caption being too detailed for a picture. Yet I still think the caption is far too laconic as it is. If you pay attention to my edits you will find out that I had actually started trimming down and redistributing the information to the more suitable Chokutō page. The Haniwa soldier holds a Chokutō indeed, additionally showing a slight though obvious inward curvature.

I have been researching this particular ancient sword and its roughly 5 different pommel based sub-varieties. I have personally visited the largest collections of Kofun Period material including Kofun period swords, and engaged in discussions with resident experts and archaeologist versed in this topic. One particularly important reference is one publication by the Chikatsu Atsuka Museum (Osaka prefecture) which documented the most ample collection of Kofun period swords from various museums across Japan. I will soon enough provide this reference, amongst other equally valuable references published by the Tenri University Museum which I also visited. I have pictures, which they allowed me to take, of two exquisitely well preserved Chokutō (one Kantou-tachi and one Kentou-tachi), which I would like to add to the Wikipedia Chokutō page, though I have never done it, tried once but failed for some reason. Can you help me do it?--Luxgratia (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Buddhist architecture

Hi, Phoenix7777. Thanks for the changes you are making to the article and for the message. I am dropping a line just to say that I am receptive to more suggestions about this or other articles, and that I will learn how to use properly the Harvnb template. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Taro. I hope the readers will find it useful. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Hirai

Hello. In February you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [7]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....

... for your contribution to the article Nureongi! Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tributaries of Imperial China

As you can see, I supplemented and slightly modified the inline citation at List of tributaries of Imperial China which was restored by JamesBWatson here.

The actual copy of the book you used must have Pratt listed as first author; but OCLC lists Hoare as first author. I used the version which was online verifiable. Under the circumstances, I wondered if there might be a need for me to explain this?

I do not have a copy of this book, but I was able to verify the accuracy of the citation using Google in a non-obvious way:

• re: Goryo (173 tribute missions)

using "173 tribute missions" as search topic in Google books yields several "hits", including this one — http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=173+tribute+missions&btnG=Search+Books

• re: Baekje (45 tribute missions)

using "45 tribute missions" ... yields ... — http://books.google.com/books?id=e7pyBEWioLsC&pg=PA482&dq=45+tribute+missions&hl=en&ei=_4ViTLTYBYS8lQeF_7jTCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA

• re: Unified Silla (63 tribute missions in 8th century)

using "63 tribute missions in 8th century" ... yields ... — http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=63+tribute+missions+in+8th+century&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I hope this mitigates a "problem" which was never really a problem. --Tenmei (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tenmei. I am not sure the intent of your edit. I rearranged the refs.

1. Why did you discard my template {{cite book}} of "Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary"?
   1. Why did you remove the Google book link to "Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary"?
   2. "Why did you change the author's name from "Pratt, Keith L.; Rutt, Richard; Hoare, James (1999)" to "Hoare, James et al."?
2. Why did you concatenate the refs like "Hoare, p. 482; Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31; excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system.""? I think this is not a standard practice.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that your question was rhetorical. There is nothing wrong with your edit, nor is there anything wrong with your citation format. Any point I may have been trying to make is not very important. --Tenmei (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whale meat

Hello folks, as expected, the POV tag on whale meat is preventing it from hitting the front page as DYK. I would really like it to make it. As you know, DYKs get thousands of hits. A whale meat DYK might get 5 thousand or more.

This would be very good for the article, as editors would improve it, and neutrality issues would certainly be resolved. Also, if you feel strongly about whale meat consumption, this is a good way for it to get exposure.

So, please, could we remove the tag? Or, if there are issues, could we remove the contentious text for the time being. After DYK, other editors will restore it or leave it out, based on consensus. I hope this seems fair. Time is short, so please act quickly.

I also sent this message to User talk:Malick78. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See also DYK nom. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's POV, please remove the offending text. Then, in your eyes, it will be neutral, yes? Then please remove the tag. Then, we can let the new eyes decide. Does that seem fair? If not, what do you suggest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is now too late for the article to get DYK exposure. Now there will probably be a POV tag and extended dispute over content. A real shame. I am wondering why you didn't take the time to respond. You objected to removing the tag. I offered a solution. You didn't reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-visiting a proposal

Please give some thought to my arguments in support of Elmor's proposal to rename Eulsa Treaty -- see here. Do I need to explain any part of this using different words?

Do you have any questions or suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tenmei. I responded to Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested move. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 -- You may not have noticed that I relisted the projected move of Eulsa Treaty at WP:Requested moves#Current discussions/August 31. It is only prudent for me to alert all contributors in our discussion about changing the name of this article.

Please consider Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Relisting at WP:Requested moves. On one hand, this can be construed as an unnecessary delay. On the other hand, this ensures the possibility of wider community input which may bring out any points-of-view which remain unstated or glossed over. --Tenmei (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I sent a follow-up e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Void

I understood you well enough, but I questioned one word in the following context:

"An opposition without a valid refutation is void."

In my opinion, "void" is provocative without suggesting a way out of the dispute which may ensue. Another way to say the same thing might be:

"An opposition without a valid refutation is counterfactual thinking."

What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I sought assistance here — Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-04/Eulsa Treaty. I do not know what happens next. --Tenmei (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the so-called discussion which began at Talk:Eulsa Treaty in early August here:

A. In an attempt to help us start discussion, options were proposed here and refined here.

1. Leave it at its current name?
2. To Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty?
3. To Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905?
4. To 1905 Protectorate Treaty?
5. Or what?; see the second paragraph of page Eulsa Treaty.

B. Valentim presented the results of a Lexis/Nexis search here. This supplements several Google searches.

In the many weeks of so-called discussion thread development, those opposing the move have either been unwilling or unable to present refutation or counterargument; and therefore, I propose we delay no longer.

In other words, I suggest that there is a consensus to act now on the basis of the Lexis-Nexis search outcome. The time has come for this article to be renamed Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905. --Tenmei (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Move edit warring on Senkaku Islands

Please do not engage in move edit warring on Senkaku Islands. The proper way to take care of the issue would have been to raise your concerns first on Talk:Senkaku Islands, let everyone come to a consensus, and then request that the article be moved according to that consensus. Further POV-pushing by moving the article without any discussion may result in an escalation of consequences. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. I posted a comment to Talk page immediately after the move. If you were a neutral admin, you should have revert the move to the long standing stable name and suggested the new comer to review the past discussion and to read Naming convention. The result is you encouraged the user to insist a POV because of your action. "An admin (nihonjoe) and I have moved the page...."[8] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, your move of neutral Pinnacle Islands to Japanese Senkaku Islands seems to be based on a flawed google search with a careful choice of keywords. Correct me if i'm wrong. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalists to claim sovereignty and it's hardly productive to stir up a move warring between the use of "senkaku" or "diaoyu" as we can see in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan which become an unproductive gala for Korean and Japanese nationalists but left nothing to the community. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phoenix7777. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 11:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fénix

As you may know, en:Phoenix (mythology) = es:Fénix.

Did you notice that "Fénix 2" was the name of the rescue capsule used in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident? --Tenmei (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm not sure how long you've been working on Wikipedia, so please don't feel like I'm being patronizing, but I do think you want to re-read WP:VANDAL. The edits you marked as Vandalism (the one's you're talking about over on User Talk:Magog the Ogre, weren't vandalism--they were content disagreements. By definition, vandalism primarily involves things that the editor thinks will make Wikipedia worse. While you or I may not agree with Winstonlighter and other's edits, they certainly aren't making them with the intent of harming the encyclopedia, or defacing it, or spamming it. Even if they added things Senkaku Islands with "These islands obviously belong to China, anyone can see that, because Chinese are just superior," that wouldn't even be vandalism (although might possibly rise to that level if they removed major chunks of sourced info). It would be an extreme POV, it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR and WP:V, but it still probably wouldn't be vandalism. In other words, you reverting them was okay (as long as you weren't going so far as to edit war), but you probably shouldn't label their edits vandalism. You may want to consider retracting your claims of vandalism, and just saying that you weren't aware of the exact definition. Note that I say this even though I think their edits and plans for the article are quite often wrong, but I still think that what they're doing isn't vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for enlighten me with your explanation above. Actually I haven't read the policy before. Although I rarely used "identified as vandalism" in my edit summary except for an unexplained removal of a citation or a cited material which I believed as a vandalism, I will follow the policy from now on. Thanks again for your input. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a relevant read for you. I reckon that it can help newcomers understand Wikipedia more. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you. —Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy

In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Senkaku Islands

The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Locked article

I'm very sorry that Senkaku Islands dispute was locked -- not because of a short-term problem with the current version of the article, but because of the unintended consequences.

Even if this action does succeed in mitigating some kind of short-term dispute, I anticipate longer-term problems as a result of Nihonjoe's decision. I tried to explain at User talk:Nihonjoe#Locking of Senkaku Islands dispute; but the effort was not well received:

• diff . . User talk:Nihonjoe‎; 04:07 . . (-33,990) . . Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 411729997 by Nihonjoe; rv edit war spllover from Senkaku Islands, please keep your discussion on THAT talk page, not here.)

IMO, this is a problem which didn't need to be a problem. I do not know how to be a force for good in this context, but I will think about it over the next few days. --Tenmei (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions

This is not a site for your opinions. Your bias is impeding the proper reporting of history. Just because you believe something is fictional doesn't make it so. If you find facts contrary to what has been said, please site your sources. Your own stubbornness should not influence this site. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popeyeatucb (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment - the templated warning was entirely inappropriate. I've already asked you to assume good faith and to stop referring to other editor's changes as vandalism. You had no idea if this editor was doing so on purpose or not; in this case, he was not. So let me state this point blank: if you continue to bite our newcomers and other editors with false accusations of vandalism, I will block you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If I may chime in as a talk page lurker, I believe that the problem was the use of the vandalism template. The new user's edit was incorrect, because it asserted something to be certainly true when it is merely the opinion of a single historian (at least, according to the reference given). As such, I went and changed the article statement to read properly. However, Popeyeatucb's edits don't qualify as vandalism, because they were done with good intentions. Vandalism, by Wikipedia's definition, is always something done to harm the encyclopedia. While Popeyeatucb violated WP:NPOV (by asserting an opinion as a verified fact), I suspect that's more a problem of not understanding how we work here (i.e., how to properly attribute opinions). You could have gone ahead and reverted, just not called it vandalism, and instead made a more clear comment to Popeyeatucb (which I'm going to do now, actually).Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I made a mistake again. I used a wrong template. What I originally intended to use was an unsourced template instead. I corrected the user's talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK well then thank you. It sounds like an error on your part, so no need to get worked up; apologies if I was forceful, but I was under the opinion that you were doing so carelessly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Good step in process of collaborative editing

Please take note of my apology to Historiographer for delay in responding to his edits of January 24 -- please read Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Good step in process of collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Attributing the Remin Ribao statement on Senkaku Islands dispute

Currently, 4 editors have been able to come to a compromise wording on the sentence in Senkaku Islands dispute about the Remin Ribao article. We've agreed (Tenmei still disagrees) that we should change the sentence to say "The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed that a 1953 article in The People's Daily, a daily newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Rykuyu Islands, and that this further implied that the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory." I believe that you have objected to this wording in the past, on the grounds that since this is already the Japanese section, it's obvious that this is a one-sided claim. However, I think that since this is obviously a highly contentious article, and the subtlety here is that this is an interpretation of a translation, it is beneficial for readers to understand clearly that this not "literally" what the original article says, but specifically an interpretation. In other words, it does no harm to clearly attribute this opinion, but that not attributing it may be confusing. I'm hoping that since this opinion was arrived at in part through the comments by two previously uninvolved editors (Nlu and Ohconfucius), you might be persuaded to see that this version will make the article better. If you do agree, I think we can show a very solid consensus to make an edit request and have that line changed. I sincerely appreciate you providing your input on this; it would feel really great to know that we were actually able to move forward through a consensus decision. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your unanswered questions

You mention an important concept when you use the word "refutation" here.

In one important paragraph, you make two related points:

¶-Part A. The attribution doesn't help improve NPOV in this case because trying to make the Japanese POV claim to NPOV is nonsense. What we should do is to represent the sources accurately not to represent the editor's "POV"/"NPOV" interpretation.

Your point is simple, transparent, obvious to me; however, it seems to be ignored. I don't know why.

¶-Part B. In this case, NPOV can be easily attained by adding the refutation from China to "Arguments from PRC and ROC" section as is done in Chinese article. I cannot understand why pro-Chinese editors won't add the refutation ....

I am persuaded that Qwyrxian does not recognize the importance of this underlined sentence; and I do not know how to re-direct attention to the pivotal point you make.

In other words, Qwyrxian and others ignore it; however, you put your finger on the central problem with this so-called "compromise" sentence.

We need to figure out why your words are not understood to be significant. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to answer here, but I realized I should do it on the article's talk page...but the short version is that the sentence as written now is wrong--it states a falsehood, something which is not true. Phoenix's points about me misattributing are good, but the sentence just has to change somehow.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian repeats a characteristic mistake. Instead of investigating a specific question with research (WP:V + WP:RS), the focus of attention shifts to something else. This is a kind of con game or confidence trick in which misdirection is a key factor; but in this scam, Qwyrxian is a victim.

Qwyrxian is a person who has been deceived. This is not a personal attack. Rather it is a simple restatement. It is an accurate assessment of a what has been going on in this thread since Qwyrxian began to participate and things have gone horribly wrong.

In the diff above, Qwyrxian functions as a shill for the Bobthefish2 game of Cups and balls which has been evolving slowly for months.

The so-called "compromise" Qwyrxian sentence is not valid. It is incorrect. It is unsupported by WP:V + WP:RS. It is only a factoid. This word is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".

Qwyrxian has read Bobthefish2's use of the word "fraudulent" so many times that factoid and fact are indistinguishable. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 -- Your question is the key. Your question is implied: "I cannot understand why pro-Chinese editors won't add the refutation."

The word "refutation" is key to why Qwyrxian's sentence is unworkable, not because I say so, but because the premises of the sentence are not supported by WP:V + WP:RS.

There is no refutation added because there is nothing to refute. This is only smoke and mirrors; and Qwyrxian has been seduced by the fraud.

In the context of the above, please review the following from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. There is no evidence to support a belief that Qwyrxian has looked at anything outside the ambit of the talk page threads; and this means that not even the the MOFA website has been examined superficially In other words, if Qwyrxian looks at the following, it will be for the first time here on your talk page.

Question 1
尖閣諸島についての日本政府の基本的な立場はどのようなものですか。

.

• What is the basic view of the Government of Japan on the Senkaku Islands?

Question 2
尖閣諸島に対する日本政府の領有権の根拠は何ですか。

.

• What are the grounds for Japan's territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands?

Question 3
日本は尖閣諸島を有効に支配しているとのことですが，具体例を教えてください。

.

• What are the concrete examples of Japan's valid control over the Senkaku Islands?

Question 4
中国（・台湾）による尖閣諸島の領有権に関する主張に対して，日本政府はどのような見解を有していますか。

.

• What is the view of the Government of Japan on China's (and Taiwan's) assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands?

日本の領土たる尖閣諸島の領有権について，中国政府及び台湾当局が独自の主張を始めたのは，1970年代以降（参考）です。

It is only since the 1970s that the Government of China and the Taiwanese Authorities began making their own assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, which constitute Japan's inherent territory (See reference).

Responding to Question 4: Some examples which contradict the PRC's post-1970s allegations include:

なお，1920年5月に，当時の中華民国駐長崎領事から福建省の漁民が尖閣諸島に遭難した件について発出された感謝状においては，「日本帝国沖縄県八重山郡尖閣列島」との記載が見られます。また，1953年1月8日人民日報記事「琉球諸島における人々の米国占領反対の戦い」においては，琉球諸島は尖閣諸島を含む7組の島嶼からなる旨の記載があるほか，例えば1933年に中国で発行された「中華民国新地図」や1960年に中国で発行された「世界地図集」では，尖閣諸島が日本に属するものとして扱われています。

• There is a description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the Senkaku Islands.
• In addition, an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands
• ..."The Republic of China New Atlas" published in China in 1933 treated the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan
• ..."World Atlas" published in China in 1960 treated the Senkaku Islands as part of Japan

In other words, the People's Daily article (8 Jan 1953) is identified as refutation -- as one among several illustrative examples which show that the PRC's words in the pre-1970s were different than its post-1970s position on the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands.

諸島は，我が国（注：中国。以下同様。）の台湾東北部及び日本の九州南西部の間の海上に散在しており，尖閣諸島，先島諸島，大東諸島，沖縄諸島，大島諸島，トカラ諸島，大隈諸島の7組の島嶼からなる。

"The Ryukyu Islands lie scattered on the sea between the Northeast of Taiwan of our State (note: China; same in the following text) and the Southwest of Kyushu, Japan. They consist of 7 groups of islands; the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands and the Osumi Islands. "

Summary conclusion. The often repeated lie that the translation of the first sentence of the article was "fraudulent" is a fantasy -- it is now shown that this lie is part of a bigger fraud. It is a scam.

It is demonstrated that this fraud was constructed by Bobthefish2 and not supported by WP:V + WP:RS. Nevertheless, Qwyrxian continues to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, factoid from fact, verified from unverified, etc.

The so-called "compromise" sentence is fatally flawed.

Do you understand what I have written. If not, please ask questions. Let me try to explain again in different words.

Can you suggest any part of this which could have been left out? Can you point to any sentences which would have been deleted? Can you help me see how this could have been shorter?

This is not simple. --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)