Talk:Senkaku Islands

Bold text

Naming section

Ok, Tenmei, I don't understand fully what you're trying to say. Can you please write out what Isaac Titsingh did with regard to the name of the Senkaku Islands and Europe? At the moment it suggests he brought a book or books back to Europe. There's no explanation of why the books were brought back, what they said, how they were distributed (if at all), etc.

Can you just start from scratch and write out here what he did and why it is important.

Similarly what's the story with Edward Belcher and what is "Pinnacle Island"?

I think the whole naming section is problematic and is a collection of random "facts". I'm not even sure that these facts are all correct. Can someone confirm, for example, where the potentially controversial statement The collective use of the name "Senkaku" to denote the entire group began with the advent of the controversy in the 1970s is supported? The link in the citation doesn't seem to direct me to anything useful. John Smith's (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's -- Does the article need a timeline summary like this?

Timeline

• 1796 Isaac Titsingh returns to Europe, importing Japanese history books written and published in context of non-Eurocentric (Japanese) historiography. Among these books is Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説, An Illustrated Description of Three Countries) by Hayashi Shihei (1738–93). The book includes the first published reference to islands in East China Sea which can be examined directly and studied by European scholars such as William Marsden in London and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat in Paris.
• 1832 Julius Klaproth publishes posthumous translation of Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu in French
• 1848 first published reference in book published in English

A 1785 map in Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説) by Hayashi Shihei --- see digitized original, Waseda University [1] 三国通覧図説.

John Smith's -- Perhaps I can do no better than to respond seriatim to your questions:

A. "...what Isaac Titsingh did with regard to the name of the Senkaku Islands and Europe? At the moment it suggests he brought a book or books back to Europe."</ref>

Yes, one book mentioning the East China Sea islands — (a) text written by a non-European historian, and also (b) text discussed by Western scholars in European settings

B. There's no explanation of why the books were brought back, what they said, how they were distributed (if at all), etc.

Yes, no explanation or analysis is presented in this "Names" section. Rémusat added the original to the collection of the Bibliotheque Nationale; and the 1832 books was distributed by subscription. I don't construe this contextual information as relevant in the narrow context of this article.

C. "... what's the story with Edward Belcher and what is 'Pinnacle Island'?"

Yes, the facts set forth in the one-sentence paragraph are clear, accurate, and supported by citations from reliable sources (with embedded hyperlinks to make double-checking easy and straightforward).

• "The first reference to the islands in a book published in English was Edward Belcher's 1848 account of the voyages of HMS Sammarang<:ref>Suganuma, Unryu. (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations, pp. 87, 89-90, p. 87, at Google Books; excerpt at bottom of page, "The first book recording the name of the Diaoyu Islands in the English language was written by Sir Edward Belcher, the captain of the British battleships Samarang in 1843."</ref>
• "... which anchored off Pinnacle Island in 1845." <:ref>Belcher, Edward. (1848). Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Samarang, Vols. I-II, pp. 316-318, 573., p. 316, at Google Books; excerpt at bottom of page, "Having embarked our instruments in the morning, and obtained another station on the Pinnacle Island, we rejoined the ship." Compare 1st sentence of our article, "The Senkaku Islands ... or the Pinnacle Islands, are a group of disputed uninhabited islands in the East China Sea."</ref> See also <:ref>Belcher, Vol. I, pp. 317-318., p. 317, at Google Books; and <:ref>Belcher, Vol. II, p. 573., p. 573, at Google Books.

D Can someone confirm, for example, where the potentially controversial statement The collective use of the name "Senkaku" to denote the entire group began with the advent of the controversy in the 1970s is supported?

Yes, see "advent" I don't understand this question. The direct relationship between the sentence in our article and the explicitly cited source could not be more on-point. This was supposed to become like the grain of sand around which a pearl is developed over time.

Strategy. A review of the edit history of Senkaku Islands will show that this section was not created by me. I discerned an unstated purpose in this section; and my guess was that it was initially intended to further a specific, non-neutral point of view. The additions I contributed were designed to begin a process of mitigating any perceived flaws and to establish a potentially useful model for assessing the academic credibility and consequences of assertions about these islands. As a closer examination reveals, there is no contemporary POV in the paragraphs which are deconstructed in A+B+C+D above. The way in which each element of each sentence is supported per WP:V becomes a kind of small step towards a generalized model of scholarly transparence. For example, in the above

• the context of the reliable source is expanded in order to assess the degree of weight which should be accorded in the context of a specific section of our article
• the specific sentences in the reliable source are made explicit on request, etc.

IMO, this section was already an essential element of this article before my participation began; and the significance of this section is underscored in the arguments which are to be found at Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Tenmei

Names in Early Historical Context of Senkaku Islands

I am unsure as to why you made this change where you deleted a mention of how the early Japanese text 順風相送 referred the island as "Diaoyu". While I suggested to keep the name usage as neutral as possible, I believe what the island was first called is quite relevant. If you feel the need to add in a Japanese-usage reference, feel free to dig up some legacy European-drawn Asian map that uses Senkaku Islands instead.

I am not going to revert your changes since I don't want to bother with page-long discussion, but this is something for you to think about. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2-- This edit responded explicitly to the questions John Smith's asked above; and the context was informed by Cla68's addition of a "modern history" section heading here and here.

As originally conceived, the "Names" section appeared to be an element of Senkaku Islands dispute, but a slightly refocused text presents the same information as the historical background against which that contemporary dispute becomes a silhouetted issue. In other words, minor word changes are consistent with a non-controversial plan mirroring an etymological development section in the Oxford English Dictionary

• ¶1: Earliest reference to minor geographical features of the East China Sea, 1403–1534
• ¶2: Earliest reference in the West, 1796–1832
• ¶3: Earliest reference in any English-language source, 1848
• ¶4: Early references in British Admiralty sources, 1870-1880
• ¶5: Early references in Japanese sources, 1900-1950s
• ¶6: Earliest reference using collective proper noun, 1970s

Bobthefish2 -- Your question focuses our attention on a short paragraph without in-line citations or bibliographic reference source supports. As formerly drafted, the sole subject of this paragraph was the name "Diayou". As re-drafted, the subject is two Chinese books or the earliest recorded references to islands which are the subject of a dispute in the 21st century. You will have noticed that the somewhat unclear concluding sentence in this paragraph remains unedited for now.

• Former:
  

"The first recorded name of the islands was Diaoyu. It was used in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù), dated 1403 and 1534 respectively.

• Re-drafted:
  

The earliest recorded mention of these islands is found in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) (1403) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù) (1534).

Now that the point is emphasized with a question, I can see how the 21st century argument requires that the former opening sentence is restored; and this has been done here as supplementary amplification of the paragraph subject sentence.

In addition, please note that "citation needed templates" were added to all sentences in this section which do not have verifying support.

Bobthefish2 -- This explanation demonstrates that my edit was mindful of the issues highlighted by discussion threads on this page and at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. I would hope this summary is construed to be consistent with WP:Burden.--Tenmei (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, this doesn't have to be so complicated if we use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE. It is good that you made changes in response to my criticism, but I much prefer the paragraph as I last saw it weeks ago. As I recall, it was much simpler and the reference to the name "Diaoyu" was directly accompanied with the a reliable source (順風相送). The sentence you added in just now had a "citation needed" bracket appended to it giving an impression that there's no supporting evidence.

If I want to manipulate the presentation of information to create an illusion of unreliability over certain elements, then I would do just that. But again, I am not going to modify any of your changes. While I have a degree of trust in your respect for WP:NPOV, potential new comers may see things differentlyBobthefish2 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Non-response is a constructive reply to needlessly provocative phrases here. Acknowledgement is married with "No".

• No. Neither 順風相送 nor 順風相送 ≠ WP:Cite
• No. There is no justification for these words: "... manipulate the presentation of information ...."
• No. Nothing justifies this phrase: "... illusion of unreliability ...."

As you know, a request for citation support is modest and reasonable, e.g.,

1. ¶1 — The earliest recorded mention of these islands is found in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) (1403) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù) (1534).
2. ¶1 — The first recorded name of the islands was Diaoyu.
3. ¶1 — Adopted by the Chinese Imperial Map of the Ming Dynasty, both the Chinese name for the island group (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) both literally mean "angling".
4. ¶5 — In 1900, when Tsune Kuroiwa, a teacher at the Okinawa Prefecture Normal School, visited the islands, he adopted the name Senkaku Retto (simplified Chinese: 尖阁列岛; traditional Chinese: 尖閣列島; pinyin: Jiāngéliè Dăo), literally Pinnacle Islands, to refer the whole island group, based on the British name.
5. ¶5 — The first official document recording the name Senkaku Retto was by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nihon Gaiko Monjo (日本外交文書, Documents on Japanese Foreign Relations) in the 1950s.
6. ¶5 — In Japanese, Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼) and Senkaku Shosho (尖閣諸嶼) were translations used for these "Pinnacle Islands" by various Japanese sources.
7. ¶5 — Subsequently, the entire island group came to be called Senkaku Rettō, which later evolved into Senkaku Shotō.

There is nothing unconventional nor out-of-the-ordinary in adding as a tag for sentences without inline citation support per WP:V + WP:Cite. --Tenmei (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can you condense what you just wrote into 2 sentences? Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Non-response is the only constructive reply to the disingenuous question here. Acknowledgement is married with "No". --Tenmei (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't help me adequately understand what you are attempting to express. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Almanacs

As I had mentioned before, I said that when I had the chance, I would check a university library for more background on the naming issue. I was able to check a number of almanacs, but, unfortunately, did not have time to check encyclopedias (research I was doing for real life writing needs took precedence, sorry). I checked every international geographical Atlas published after 2000 that I could find in the main "map" section of the UC library I was at. Many of the atlases didn't list the islands at all (they are, after all, not really all that important to anyone other than the principals). The 5 atlases that included a name for these islands were:

Concise Atlas of the World, Dorling Kindersley, 5th edition, 2008 The Great World Atlas, Dorling Kindersley, 2nd Edition, 2002 Oxford Essential World Atlas', Oxford University Press, 5th edition 2008 Touring Club Italiano nuovissimo Atlanti Geogratico Mondiale', Touring Club Italiano, 2002 National Geographic Atlas of the World, 8th Edition, 2004

In all 5 maps, the only name that appeared was Senkaku-shoto. None listed an alternate name on the map itself. In Oxford, the name Diaoyu Island was listed in the index (it said Diaoyu Tai = Senkaku Shoto); none of the rest listed Diaoyutai, Diaoyu, Tiaoyu, or any other variant that I could find in their indexes. To clarify, the Touring Club Italiano gave the name as "Isole Senkaku", as the atlas was in Italian.

For additional info, both the 2 DK atlases wrote on the map "Senkaku-shoto", and underneath it said "claimed by China, Japan, and Taiwan"; the Touring Italiano said "Isole Senkaku", and underneath said "GIAPPONE rivend. da Corea del Sud e Giappone" (this makes me doubt this atlas a little, since I think that says that it's disputed with South Korea, which is of course not at all true), and National Geogrpahic said "Senkaku Shoto" and afterward said "Administered by Japan/Claimed by China and Taiwan").

Again, apologies that I couldn't check the encyclopedias; I really wish I had access to an English university library all of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a map I found about 3 months ago in the American Geographic Society Library. It dates back to 1818 and recorded the islands as "Tiaoyuou". There are other links to other maps I saved somewhere, but I haven't had the time to look through them yet. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dual-name usage in text, captions and table

This section re-introduces an archived thread; and it re-engages issues which have been held in abeyance for two months.

November 2010

We've discussed this previously. As far as I could see there were no legitimate reasons given why in the previous discussion in the geography section there had to be a duplication of the Chinese name of the islands in the table header and in the image captions. We don't keep referring to the "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai islands" throughout the article, so why must this one section have the Chinese name - and just the Chinese name, not the Taiwanese or "English" (i.e. Pinnacle) names - in the header? There is no reason as far as I can see .... John Smith's (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010

January 2011

The neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith's in this diff were valid in November. The passing of time has in no way diminished the correctness of the modest edits which were proposed. No good reason for further procrastination been put forward. I endorse these modest changes, especially in light of the newly added "Geography" section here at Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a huge thread about this issue with numerous debates. If you are to say John Smith's was right and those who disagreed with him were wrong, then you may want to point out the specific reasons.

Also, the content in the geography section is not new at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Responding to your two points,

A> No, this thread does not present a "right/wrong" dichotomy.

The misconception and duality implied by the word "right" is both inaccurate and unhelpful. Issues of "right" or "not right" can only be resolved in real world venues outside the scope of our Wikipedia project. The explicit term used was "valid" meaning "verifiable". In other words, John Smith's words are valid and congruent with WP:Five Pillars. Subsequent talk page threads clarified the validity of John Smith's's analysis here and here. In the alternative, no subsequent investigation has served to invalidate the conclusory statements John Smith's put forward in October 2010 and in November 2010. We have invested more than enough time and discussion in going around the mulberry bush.

Going around the mulberry bush tends to happen when people decide to ignore issues addressed in the past or try to unnecessarily complicate matters. What I've said earlier was clear and perfectly reasonable. I don't see any cause to start a fuss about it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

B> No, the quibble here about the content of Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Geography is a red herring.

As you know, (a) the "Geography" section (with its table) was added here in January 2001; the edit was proposed here in November 2010.

This thread highlights a number of related edits which have been on hold. In the intervening period, neither extra research nor an RfC has produced persuasive reasons for further delay.

The modest changes John Smith's proposed in October may now proceed without diminishing any open-ended prospective edits at Senkaku Islands dispute and on-going discussions at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This "new" Geography section that was "added" was almost directly copied and pasted from another page and that section existed for a very long time there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's comment

I very strongly disagree with half of the changes you just made. I think that removing the second name from the image caption was correct, in that I don't believe that we should use both names in every time we have the opportunity. However, moving the one mention of the Chinese names to the references section is extremely POV and a misunderstanding of consensus. I guess I have to go back and look again, but I am pretty sure that John Smith never advocated hiding the one and only mention of the Chinese names for individual items down in the references section. I would prefer that User:Tenmei self-revert or fix that part themselves, as I don't want this article getting locked for edit warring, but I will make the change myself as I believe this change is against consensus. I believe the best solution for the table would be 2 columns, labeled "Japanese name" and "Chinese name". Actually, are there separate Taiwanese names? If so, three columns. But putting them down in the references section is POV--just like we have the main name (Diaoyu) listed right in the lead, so should the Chinese names be in the main table. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Without actively tracking Tenmei's activities, I've already noticed a few other things he did or proposed to do:

1. Have Japanese names go first in the table of names

2. Remove reference to an early Japanese book dated in the 19th century that cited the usage of the name "Diaoyu"

3. Remove the reference of the name Diaoyu being used in early history

I don't know, but that sounds like what a POV-pusher would do... Oh yeah.. he did give me a reply when I asked him about some of these issues and his style of writing makes it very hard for others to interpret what his reasonings. Maybe you can give that a try. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- The strike-out is explained below. --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Please look again at the article. Japanese and Chinese names are fully explained in the introductory paragraph; and the context of dispute is clarified and expanded in the other paragraphs of the introduction and the infobox. This represents a full and sufficient identification of an unresolved naming dispute. In addition, the Chinese alternative naming is specifically explained by explicit inline notes in the context of the table. No inappropriate bias or confusion is contrived or implied.

Please explain again in different words. I don't understand the following sentences:

Qwyrxian's sentences

• A. "However, moving the one mention of the Chinese names to the references section is extremely POV and a misunderstanding of consensus."

Responsive analysis/rebuttal

FACT: no, the asserted Chinese names are not solely in the references section. They are explicitly presented in the 1st paragraph and in the infobox.

---

• B. "I guess I have to go back and look again, but I am pretty sure that John Smith never advocated hiding the one and only mention of the Chinese names for individual items down in the references section."

FACT: No, the asserted Chinese names are not hidden. A neutral view of this subject presumes — as does John Smith's — that the Chinese alternative names will continue to be explained in the intro and in the infobox, as can be seen in the current version of the article.

---

• C. "But putting them down in the references section is POV ...."

FACT: No, the asserted Chinese names are not "down in the references section," not "POV" ( ? )

---

• D. "... just like we have the main name (Diaoyu) listed right in the lead, so should the Chinese names be in the main table."

No, the rationale which informs what needs to appear in the lead paragraph or in the infobox is not equivalent to the factors which need to be taken into consideration in an analysis of the table.

---

Three lines indicate the express POV of Japan, the PRC and the ROC ... and "feasible region" is the intersection of disparate data sets which are undisputed in our article about the Senkaku Islands?

Qwyrxian -- In order to discuss this subject calmly and rationally, we need to be factually on the same page. In addition to the introduction, is it your view that usefulness of the infobox is arguably enhanced by the following?

1. Uotsuri Jima (a/k/a Diaoyu Dao)?
2. Taisho Jima (a/k/a Chiwei Yu)?
3. Kuba Jima (a/k/a Huangwei Yu)?
4. Kita Kojima (a/k/a Bei Xiaodao)?
5. Minami Kojima (a/k/a Nan Xiaodao)?
6. Okino Kitaiwa (a/k/a Da Bei Xiaodao)?
7. Okino Minami-iwa (a/k/a Da Nan Xiaodao)?
8. Tobise (a/k/a Yan Jiaoyan or Fei Jiaoyan)?

If so, it is not timely for me to ask you to explain the reasoning which informs that kind of personal opinion?

The research which underlies the unchanged name of this article also supports the edits you appear to misconstrue as controversial. --Tenmei (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2011

Bobthefish2 -- In order to address each of the unresolved issues you identify here, you will need to be more explicit. In other words, you will need to sharpen the focus of your critical analysis.

A. As a first step in a constructive direction, please expand:

• "1. Have Japanese names go first in the table of names"
• "2. Remove reference to an early Japanese book dated in the 19th century that cited the usage of the name Diaoyu"
• "3. Remove the reference of the name Diaoyu being used in early history'

B. As another first step, please expand:

"... he did give me a reply when I asked him about some of these issues ..."

C. As step towards improved communication, please expand:

"... his style of writing makes it very hard for others to interpret what his reasonings."

Bobthefish2 -- It is not unimportant that you mention previous responses to questions.

It is significant that you do acknowledge these diffs as examples of "reply" and engagement with issues you identify as noteworthy. --Tenmei (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2011

In response to your post on my talk page: I've actually underestimated the extent of your changes before reading your post. I find it puzzling that you'd have to persist in removing Chinese references and names in the page. The table was there for a long time with both Chinese and Japanese names there and very few had any issue with it. Now, you decided to copy the table over to the dispute page and removed all the Chinese names in the original. First, that's a very bad case of POV-pushing (and it's obvious who's doing it) and second, it makes a mess out of the dispute page. After all, the Senkaku Islands dispute was created to house issues dealing with sovereignty debates that actually are taking place in the world. The dispute with names and naming technically does not exist in the real world because it ties with the sovereignty issue. However, since we disagree on how to best write these articles, the naming issue is important to us. Let's hope now you'd understand why the table should not belong in the dispute page at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

      .

Bobthefish2 -- Again, I need to ask for a few more words from you. In order to address each of the unresolved issues you identify here, please be more explicit.

Several inter-related issues are entangled in your prose.

Please pull apart the threads you would like me to address.

If you can, please rank order these threads so that I will be able to assess the relative importance you attach to each. --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First, to clarify, I'm talking about the names for the individual islands, not the whole chain. All of the names for the chain are listed in the lead, as they should be. The Chinese names for the individual islands are not in the lead; neither are they in the infobox. I see the Chinese names for the individual islands in two places. One is in the middle of "Early historical context"; there placement here and within that paragraph imply that these are strictly historical names. The other place I see them are in notes 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, and 35. I believe that the chart at Senkaku Islands dispute#Geography should be copied here (although, to match the title of this article, I believe the Japanese column should come first).

I just looked back at John Smith's comment, and, more importantly, at the page as it existed after JS edited it. At that point, JS did have the Chinese names of the individual islands in the infobox. For me, that is an acceptable solution. In other words, I'm not saying we need to list both every time. But I do believe the Chinese names for the individual islands need to be listed either in the infobox or in the table in the Geography section. Are you perhaps somehow thinking that they are still in the infobox right now?

Finally, could you please stop making graphs that you believe represent our dispute or conversation or argument? You need to understand that they are only helpful for you or someone else with experience in symbolic argument, which is not the majority of WP users (including myself). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd add that his style of expression is almost never used in science except in a few very specialized fields. Good communication styles involve concision and a scarcity of unnecessary abstractions. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

      .

Bobthefish2 -- Again you mention "style of expression" and "communication styles". This is a recurring tactic and a red herring. You have made this into a "hobby horse".

There is a constructive response to this kind of rhetorical gambit. I invite you to work together to address any perceived problems. In other words,

• I encourage you to put your money where your mouth is.
• I ask you to put up or shut up.

Are you familiar with these English idiomatic expressions?

I remain open to suggestions about how to "tweak" the collaborative editing process. This kind of problem is to be expected in controversial subjects like the Senkaku Islands. --Tenmei (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd attempt to respond to Qwyrxian

The serial interspersed diffs in just this one section have created an impossible-to-unravel Gordian knot -- not of my making, and not within my abilities to parse without help. --Tenmei (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll simplify. Right now the Chinese names for the individual islands are not in the lead, and they are not in the infobox. Some of them are in the historical section, and they're all in the references/notes. Why are the not in either the infobox or in the chart in the Geography section? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: I think you're making is mistake, because you say above that the Chinese names are in the infobox, when they are not (only the names for the whole chain, not the names for the individual islands). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You rejected the form of my reply to your comment. I identified specific sentences in which I felt more information would be helpful. You ignored those explicit requests for more information. Instead, you re-formulated your position -- ignoring the substance of the reply.

I have now stricken this rejected text, in part because it was ineffective and in part because of the intervening diffs Bobthefish2 has added. --Tenmei (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd attempt to respond to Bobthefish2

As an illustration of priming the pump:

Neither 順風相送 nor 順風相送 ≠ WP:Cite

Is this a constructive place to begin anew?

    .  

Please note that I have taken the trouble to investigate the cited sources in a paragraph with edits you identified as problematic; and a hyperlink to Google books was provided as a demonstration that I am actively interested in the subject matter you raised.

In other words, you asked a question, and my reply includes a proof of engagement. This is a showing that I am willing and able to grasp the concept of Pump#Priming a pump and Stimulus (economic) (redirect from Pump priming). --Tenmei (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It helps if you can explain the issue with 順風相送 (and others) in plain English. While I can certainly spend extra effort in parsing your convoluted expression style or go through all the links to learn your ubiquitous idioms, I'd much rather not to. If reaching an agreement with me and others is within your interest, then I'd expect this much from you. After all, I am not the only one who has issues with your linguistic style and several of us here are actually academics (and thus have lots of experience with "reading comprehension"). Again, write in plain English. It's not hard. Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a bit busy at the moment but will try to make my point clearly. I don't think that we should boot Chinese names to the references section. Currently they are included in the infobox (I don't think they should be in italics). I think that it's fair to also include the names in the table, as previously discussed with the Japanese names first. Following that, though, the article should just refer to the Japanese names in the main body of the article and the image captions. John Smith's (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am comfortable with them being only in the infobox. Alternatively, I would have no problem with them being in just the Geography table. My problem before was that Tenmei was saying that the information was in the infobox and the lead, when, in fact, it was not. So I guess that we need to decide which is clearer: both names in the infobox, or both names in the Geography table? Me, I don't actually care. If I were forced to choose, I'd put it in the table, just because the formatting seems more aesthetically pleasing to me, but that's a really trivial reason.

If they're in the infobox, I don't know if, format-wise, separating the islands with dots is clear enough. What if instead we wrote "Uotsuri Jima(J)/Diaoyu Dao(C)", etc.? I'm just thinking of a way to clarify it for those people who can't identify which name is Japanese and which is Chinese just by looking at the form of the info. 00:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC) whoops...must have messed up my tildas--this comment was mine Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PRC didn't exist until 1949

Because the ROC was synonomous with 'China' until 1949, and the PRC didn't exist until that year, I suggest that in the section "Dispute over ownership" we change the line: "control of the islands reverted to the PRC or ROC at that point" to "control of the islands reverted to China at that point." Dfl8cornell (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That does make sense, but I'm not personally comfortable negotiating whatever sorts of compromises we usually make on Wikipedia to handle the PRC/ROC distinction. Other thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Or how about "reverted to Taiwan", given that both the PRC and ROC see the Senkakus being part of Taiwan? John Smith's (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Control prior to 1972

Given that I can find a number of semi-reliable sources (still trying to track down a fully reliable one) that states that the U.S. used the Senkakus for bombing practice, are people really disputing that the U.S. didn't control it prior to 1972? Either my sources so far are wrong, and the US wasn't bombing them, or my sources are correct, and you're implying that China/Taiwan didn't actually care that the US was bombing their territory. I don't understand how this phrase is disputed, and it seems like BtF2 is correct on this. Am I misreading the sentence somehow? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- A faulty premise in this diff encourages a WP:Synthesis which needs to be discouraged in our collaborative editing context. --Tenmei (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2011

Explaining revert

In the edit sequence below, Bobthefish2's provocative revert is non-neutral; and his edit summary construes a PRC-proposed theory as an axiomatic "factoid". In contrast, the edit summary of John Smith's is prudent, nuanced, measured.

The relevant series of edits are:

• A. diff 10:46, 24 January 2011 STSC (30,565 bytes) (Better wording in general)
• B. diff 19:29, 24 January 2011 John Smith's (30,543 bytes) (copyediting - also made it sound like the Americans had the jurisdiction to say who controlled the islands)
• C. diff 07:57, 26 January 2011 Bobthefish2 (30,565 bytes) (Undid revision 409813432 by John Smith's (talk) That was what happened, unless you wanted to dispute American control before 1971)
• D. diff 08:03, 26 January 2011 Tenmei (30,543 bytes) (Undid revision 410130590 by Bobthefish2 revert original research, not verified)

WP:Five Pillars requires us to reject the unstated premise in the edits of User:STSC and Bobthefish2. As real world context, see Feng Zhaoku. "Diaoyu dispute sowed by US," China Daily (Beijing). September 15, 2010; and compare Isles in Ryukyus Claimed by China," New York Times. January 2, 1972; excerpt, "Peking says that Japan 'illicitly' handed over the islands with the Ryukyus to the United States after WorldWar II".

This newly contrived tempest in a teacup is a non-starter. --Tenmei (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2011

I supplement Tenmei's explanation. "the islands were reverted to Japanese control by the Americans" is legally incorrect as John Smith's succinctly pointed out "it sound like the Americans had the jurisdiction to say who controlled the islands". The reversion was not made "by American" but "under the United States- Japan Treaty of 1971"[2] or more widely recognized using intransitive verb as "the islands reverted to Japan".[3] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2011

ENDORSE the matter-of-fact reasoning and tone of Phoenix7777's diff above --Tenmei (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, wouldn't it be more correct to state "... administration of the islands were transfered from the U.S. to Japan through the "United States- Japan Treaty of 1971". After all, John Smith's edit can be interpreted in the way that some pan-global authority (i.e. U.N.) was involved in giving the islands to the Japanese government, which is not true. An U.S.-Japan treaty is between only the two named countries and technically involves no consent of any other powers.

As Tenmei has noted, this is a tempest in a teacup, but I am not at all the instigator of this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand the distinction; I misunderstood why the edit was being questioned; I think clearer edit summaries, or a discussion here, would have clarified. And, now that I look at it again, and then check dictionary.com to be sure, I am reminded that grammatically the other version was incorrect: "revert" is an intransitive verb (despite the way it's used here on Wikipedia); as such, it is impossible to make it into the passive form "was reverted...by...". So, forgetting about all of the historical facts, it's actually linguistically impossible in the other form. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2011

ENDORSE the matter-of-fact reasoning and tone of Qwyrxian's diff above --Tenmei (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Bobthefish2's diff here:

• Re: ¶1—WP:Synthesis informs our appreciation of the potential usefulness of an otherwise interesting analysis.
• Re: ¶2—the adjective "provocative" is not a synonym for the noun "instigator"

Comment: The explicitly cited edit history above -- A+B+C+D -- is straightforward.

1st> STSC's initial edit was accompanied by an edit summary which announced an intention to achieve "better wording in general."

2nd> John Smith's edit resolved a perceived problem by deleting four words only.

3rd> Bobthefish2's restoration of four words was accompanied by an edit summary which was "provocative."

Despite the mildly critical nature of the adjective, the sole action was simply the restoration of a status quo ante. In other words, my edit re-established neutral language in one subordinate clause. In one phrase only, the words in red were removed:

"... when the islands were reverted to Japanese control by the Americans."

In other words, "instigator" is an inapt word-choice in this very small context. --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know what part of it is "synthesis" and why the other version wasn't. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just substitute "revert" with "change back", we may say:

"The property was changed back to the squatters' control by the caretaker." - It's structurally correct and more informative.

"The property changed back to the squatters' control." - By who? Does it mean the action was universally approved? Surely the readers want to know.

STSC (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know, STSC. Certain people definitely seem to want to misrepresent facts to give an impression of universal approval. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd feel rather bored if they didn't start another pointless edit war! STSC (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"The islands were reverted to Japanese control by the Americans." - It's simply structurally, grammatically, factually and historically correct. STSC (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm going to play the "English teacher" card, and tell you that what STSC says with respect to grammar is unambiguously wrong. There is no transitive form of the very "revert" (that is, "revert" is never used with an object)--every dictionary I can find shows that revert is only an intransitive verb. You cannot ever make a passive form of an intransitive verb. You can only make passives of transitive verbs. So, for example, it is possible to say "He was killed by the explosion", but it is impossible to say "He was died by the explosion", because "die" is only intransitive. Now, the phrase, "The United States gave back control of the islands to Japan," or "The islands reverted from United States control to Japan," but, grammatically, we cannot say "The United states reverted control of the islands to Japan," or "Control of the islands were reverted to Japan by the United States." Another way of saying this is that the subject of the verb "revert" must be the thing undergoing change in ownership; i.e., "The islands reverted" or "Control reverted", but not either owner, so not "the U.S. reverted". The English teacher in me really really wants to change the sentence right now, but we're dangerously close to an article locking edit war. Can STSC and BtF2 please accept that the sentence as written is grammatically impossible? Personally, my recommended phrasing would be either "when control of the islands reverted to Japan" or "when control of the islands reverted from the U.S. to Japan." Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Many verbs including "revert" can be either transitive or intransitive, depending on their context in the sentence. Please don't say it's impossible. I have seen many instances in respectable books and articles where "revert" has been used as transitive verb. STSC (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In this context, the word usage is meaningful and verifiable. Illustrative examples include, e.g.,

• "Country Guide: Japan," Washington Post (US); retrieved 26 Jan 2011; excerpt, "... in the early 1970s when the United States agreed to relinquish its control of the Ryukyu Islands, including Okinawa, which had come under U.S. administration after World War II. All of the Ryukyus formally reverted to Japanese control in 1972."
• "Profile: Japan's Okinawa," BBC News (UK). 22 September 2010; retrieved 26 Jan 2011; excerpt, "In 1972 Okinawa reverted to Japanese control ...."
• McNeill, David. "Okinawa's US base took one PM down, can it take another?" Irish Times (Eire). June 26, 2010; excerpt, "In 1972 the islands reverted to Japanese rule ...."

Congruent language is used in relation to other islands not in the East China Sea, e.g.,

• McCurry, Justin. "Change of name for Iwo Jima," The Guardian (UK). 21 June 2007; retrieved 26 Jan 2011; excerpt, "It reverted to Japanese control in 1968 ...."

This usage and format is consistent throughout a wide array of "reliable sources". --Tenmei (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. The phrasal verb "revert to" may be used transitively, but, in that case, the subject is the thing undergoing transition, and the object is the final possessor of the thing or the state. So, for example, "The islands reverted to Japanese control" is correct, as is "The islands reverted to Japan". However, we cannot add "by the United States," because the "revert" is not an action that the United States can "do."

Maybe I can ask this as a question: STSC, are you saying that "The United States reverted control of the islands to Japan" is correct? That both violates every dictionary entry I, as well as my natural English teacher/native speaker intuition. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, again, we're bordering on edit warring. And over a fairly trivial phrase, at that. It doesn't matter what state it's in exactly now, so can't we talk about it here rather than reverting? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing--note that our use of "revert" here on Wikipedia is not at all a standard use of the word, and not relevant to the discussion, in case anyone finds that point odd. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

These dictionary pages say the verb is an intransitive verb. No mention that it is a transitive verb. [4], [5], and [6]. STSC, if the passive voice can be used as the standard usage with the verb, please provide RS. Take a good look at the sentences. This is the current version. Japan controlled these islands from 1895 until her surrender at the end of World War II. The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972, when the islands reverted to Japanese control. Adding "...by the Americans" is simply wordy. Oda Mari (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, maybe you're just an old fashioned teacher, maybe you need to update your knowledge? The usage of "revert" in the modern days can be intransitive or transitive, as stated in many modern English dictionaries, e.g., dicts.info, websters-online, etc. STSC (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Websters online lists only the intransitive version, as does dictionary.com, and (although not stated explicitly) wiktionary. My paper American Heritage only lists intransitive versions. I see that Webster's unabridged on dicts.info lists transitive version. So, one source that allows transitive versions. Why is this worth fighting over? Look at Oda Mari's logic above also--even if correct, it's redundant. Even if we ignore the transitive/intransitive issue (which I still don't think we can, but...), it's sloppy to say "A owned X until 2008, then X was given back to B by A." "I lent a car to my brother until Wednesday, when the car was given back to me by my brother." I just don't understand why you want this word there enough to want to go with grammar that is, at best, suspect (given that multiple dictionaries say it isn't). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that you offered such an irrelevant example. I hope you realize there is a difference in terms of the threshold of ambiguity allowed at different contexts. If you've ever studied linguistics (I did), Oda Mari's sentence has an ambiguous meaning. While you WP:LAWYER love to argue about English correctness and language flow, clarity and precision is also important. Otherwise, we wouldn't have law books and diplomatic documents written and reviewed carefully by many authorities. If you really want to ensure sentences flow well and use correct language, there's always the option of re-writing it in a different form as suggested. If that's still not reasonable, then maybe I should recommend STSC to also rewrite parts of the page and make it "flow" just as well as what we have here.

Anyhow, John Smith's was the first to start the revert sequence and I believe I have provided adequate reasoning of why it was appropriate to reverse his revert. However, it appears you guys have a problem with that and would simply like to do make any arbitrary changes you feel like to make. Even now, Tenmei has not deleted his useless geographic names table when he was already told they were totally irrelevant. Then there were of course all the issues we've fought over in the past (such as some epic filibusters by Oda Mari and Phoenix on obvious reference misuses). You know, I would really like to make this a cooperative process, but this is very hard to achieve if a significant portion of people only write arbitrary things that support their fantasies. Maybe I should ask Magog the Ogre to look both pages again so that we don't have to go through this anymore? After all, there's enough reasoning to support the notion that there will not be constructive editing going on in this page at this current state (which is actually true).

By the way, I do apologize if my expectation is too much. I am in academia and generally not used to bs being used or accepted. Perhaps I should've lowered my standards and tried to accommodate everyone's freedom of speech. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you know what, it's not really that important to me (other editors may speak for themselves). I am still firmly convinced that the sentence with "by the Americans" is grammatically incorrect, and that, by definition, grammatically incorrect sentences cannot be "precise," but it really isn't important enough to fight about. I do want to raise another point you brought up in a new section. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Other editors of course do, since they've involved themselves to use whatever ill-thought-out excuses to skew the presentation of facts. As for myself, I am just getting tired of this type of shit. If you don't see a problem with that, then I'd wonder if you've ever been an academic at all. Or perhaps you'd care more when someone start adopting the same tactic to misrepresent events in a way that goes against your favourite point of view.

Anyhow, the lack of any constructive efforts on this page is evident. Perhaps locking this will allow some people to go off and contribute their time on something like Nanking_Massacre_denial. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the crux of the thread:

A. Bobthefish2 -- No, the investment of time and thought in this thread is not about "John Smith's was the first to start the revert sequence ...."

This thread is about four words added by STSC in one clause: "... when the islands were reverted to Japanese control by the Americans." The significance of three words only is expressly recognized in edit summaries here and here. The crux of concern about "by the Americans" was crisply distilled here. The problematic meaning ascribed by STSC to the prepositional phrase "by the Americans" is underscored and amplified in restatements here and here.

B. STSC -- No, this thread has demonstrated that the unstated purpose and function of "by the Americans" was to ascribe an implicit role to the United States.

Our Wikipedia policies do not permit us to concur. As real world context, compare

Japanese analysis

"After World War II, as the Senkaku Islands had been placed under the administration of the United States as part of Nansei Shoto in accordance with Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan could not exercise direct control over the Islands until the administrative rights were reverted to Japan in 1972. However, even during this period, the Islands remained as part of the territory of Japan, and this legal status of the Islands, which was that no third state had rights over them, with the only exception of the administrative rights which the United States was authorized to exercise ...." — Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)

Chinese analysis

• Feng Zhaoku. "Diaoyu dispute sowed by US," China Daily (Beijing). September 15, 2010;

excerpt, "The Diaoyu Islands dispute was a disruptive mine planted by the United States into Sino-Japanese relations nearly four decades ago. When the US decided to return the occupied Okinawa to Japan in 1972, the Diaoyu Islands and adjacent islets, which belong to China, were also handed over to Tokyo."

• Isles in Ryukyus Claimed by China," New York Times. January 2, 1972;

excerpt, "Peking says that Japan 'illicitly' handed over the islands with the Ryukyus to the United States after WorldWar II".

WP:Five Pillars requires us to reject "were ... by the Americans" as John Smith's has done here. --Tenmei (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Geographic Table

Bobthefish2, above, you say you "Even now, Tenmei has not deleted his useless geographic names table when he was already told they were totally irrelevant." Do you mean the table labeled "Table:Islands in the group"? If so, I apologize for not noticing before that you thought those were irrelevant. Aren't they a standard inclusion for groups of this type? I checked Hawaii, Japan, and U.S. Virgin Islands; on the latter two you have to go to Geography of Japan, etc., but it seems like that kind of info is included. Or are you referring to something else? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute#Geography_section_intro_sentences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute#Geography Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick review of other island articles included in Template:Territorial disputes in East and South Asia reveals corollary tables, e.g.,

• Senkaku Islands, table was initially created by Winstonlighter here, 12 September 2010
• Kinmen, table initially created by 218.172.215.65 here, 5 May 2004
• Macclesfield Bank, table initially created by Ratzer here, 24 May 2007
• Paracel Islands, table initially created by San9663 here, 2 Nov 2010

In context, these do not appear to suggest issues relating to WP:Ownership. --Tenmei (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)