Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

Re-formatted inline note

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

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

People's Daily (8 Jan 1953): disputed sentence + inline citation support

Disputed sentence: The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953. Inline citation note: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3; retrieved 29 Jan 2011; restatement Representative Office of Japan to PNA, Newsletter #2, November 2010; see Item 3; excerpt, "... an article in the People’s Daily dated January 8, 1953, under the title of “Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation”, made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands"; accord Embassy of Japan in Israel, Newsletter #2, October 2010; see Item 4; and see Suganuma, Unryu (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. University of Hawaii Press. p. 127. ISBN 0824824938. To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan. compare "Why Japan claims the Senkaku Islands". Asahi shimbun. 2010-09-25.; excerpt, "In his book "Gendai Chugoku Nenpyo" (Timeline on modern China), Masashi Ando referred to a People's Daily article dated Jan. 8, 1953, which makes reference to the "Senkaku Islands in Okinawa"; Ando, Masashi (2010). (in Japanese). Iwanami shoten. p. 88. ISBN 978-4-00-022778-0. 「人民日報」が米軍軍政下の沖縄の尖閣諸島(当時の中国の呼び方のまま. 現在中国は「釣魚島」という)で日本人民の米軍の軍事演習に反対する闘争が行われていると報道. 「琉球諸島はわが国台湾の東北および日本九州島の西南の間の海上に散在し、尖閣諸島、先島諸島、大東諸島、沖縄諸島、大島諸島、吐噶喇諸島、大隅諸島など7つの島嶼からなっている」と紹介(新華月報：1953-7) {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help); read Google Chinese-English translation</ref>

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

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

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

Parsing argument content — acknowledging categories of constructive comments:
* Refuting the Central Point
* Refutation
* Counterargument
____________
Identifying remarks which are unhelpful:
* Contradiction
* Responding to Tone
* Ad Hominem

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

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

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

Perhaps you might consider alternative approaches:

• No — these words are poking

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

• Better — these words encourage collaborative editing

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

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

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

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

Revert

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

Next step towards agreement

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

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

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

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1 — 7-Dubious addition

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1#Dubious addition As for the Ryukyu and Okinawa issue, please see the source. "To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan." It unambiguously states Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) twice. Please refrain from insisting the original research. Even if Ryukyu Islands include a part of Kagoshima, it depends on the context of the story. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC) These events are relevant to this dispute because they constitute the reaction of certain population groups towards the dispute at one point. If they portray the Japanese in a negative way, then it is not intended, as the sources I cited are legitimate and were simply reporting observations. Again, if you have any concerns about their reliability, then that's a different matter and I would expect some good research to be done to defend such allegations. Your other point ties directly to one of the reverts you've done in which you've failed to justify. To reiterate, the Japanese source cited is definitely mis-interpreting the Remin Ribao article because this is what the Remin Ribao article said: "琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛." which translates to: "Ryukyu Islands are distributed between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛." For the rest of the article, Okinawa was only mentioned as Okinawa Islands (which is different to Okinawa Prefecture). Since you are Japanese and thus are familiar with Chinese characters, I trust you can validate that yourself. If not, then you can ask Chinese editors like Winstonlighter or San9663 to confirm. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you would get to know the context of an argument before butting your head in. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I can confirm the literal translation is correct. To be more precise, literally, it reads, ""Ryukyu Islands are scattered on the sea between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's Kyushu's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛."". To reach a compromise, maybe one solution is to quote the exact lines printed and let the readers to interpret? San9663 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I think two of those islands are not even a part of Okinawa. The paper, if you've seen the complete, original edition, was referring to the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands and why the native population (formerly the Ryuku Kingdom, which also spans more than Okinawa) was protesting against U.S. military operations. We probably have an academic author who couldn't read his primary source and didn't check with English sources either. Sigh.99.99.146.104 (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1 — 16 Wrapping up some old issues

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1#Wrapping up some old issues Here are some unresolved issues from this thread. It will be great if we can resolve them once and for all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Still under construction. Will finish the rest bit by bit over the next few days. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Issue Supporting Argument Opposing Argument Proposed Action Whether or not Remin Ribao article has said Senkaku Islands belong to Okinawa. This is related to an edit that removes a reference to Okinawa in the figure caption of the article. "... Okinawa is is considered a synonym of Ryukyu. See Ryukyu Islands." -- Oda Mari (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) "... please see the [secondary] source. "To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Renmin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party, criticized the occupation of Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that "the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands...including Senkaku Shoto. According to this statement, the PRC recognized that the Diaoyu (J:Senkaku) Islands were a part of Liuqiu Islands (or Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan." It unambiguously states Rukyu Islands(or Okinawa Prefecture) twice. Please refrain from insisting the original research. Even if Ryukyu Islands include a part of Kagoshima, it depends on the context of the story." ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) "This article is not a textbook of mathematics and the sentence is not a mathematical equation. An author has a privilege to insert his/her own interpretation in the parenthesis. If Okinawa is important in the context (actually it is) and Kagoshima is not, then the author will ignore Kagoshima and insert Okinawa inside the parenthesis. See all these books using "Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa)". [1][2][3][4][5][6]" ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC) "Japanese [secondary] source cited is definitely mis-interpreting the Remin Ribao article because this is what the Remin Ribao article said: "琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛." which translates to: "Ryukyu Islands are distributed between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛." For the rest of the article, Okinawa was only mentioned as Okinawa Islands (which is different to Okinawa Prefecture)" --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC) "Remin Ribao figure said the disputed land was part of Ryukyu islands Remin Ribao figure did not say the disputed land was part of Okinawa islands Ryukyu islands != Okinawa Prefecture" -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) "... whatever [a secondary source] said would not change the contents of the Remin Ribao article ...". -- Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Restore the edit since Ryukyu Islands is not the same as Okinawa and the article only said Senkaku Islands is a constituent of Ryukyu Islands and not the Japanese province of Okinawa. Note: unrelated rows of this table have been omitted -- see archived table here .... Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I don't believe I've commented on any of the above before, so pardon while I weigh in my opinions: 1) I have no opinon about the Remin Ribao article and its translation--there seems to be no solution to me. Basically, what I see is the supporting side quoting a reliable source about the translation of the Chinese document, and the opposing side saying that the reliable source got the translation wrong. In general, I usually prefer going with the reliable source, but when we're talking about a translation issue, I'm somehow more hesitant...an ideal would be if we had an English language reliable source that said the opposite of the Japanese secondary source; then we could include both interpretations of the Remin Ribao article. Without such a source, I really don't know what to do .... Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Note: unrelated diffs have been omitted -- see archived thread here ....Here's my translation of the three Chinese paragraphs I listed. They are all texts located within the Remin Ribao article: Chinese Text: 琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛屿，总计共有五十个以上有名称的岛屿和四百多个无名小岛，全部陆地面积为四千六百七十平方公里。群岛中最大的岛是冲绳诸岛中的冲绳岛（即大琉球岛" English Translation (except for some of the location names): Ryukyu Islands are scattered at a region that is north east to our nation's Taiwan and south west to Japan's 九洲岛. They are seven island groups composed of Senkaku Islands, 先岛诸岛, 大东诸岛, Okinawa Islands, 大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛. Each group of islands have lots of large and small islands. There are more than 50 islands with names and around 400 small islands without names. The total land surface area is 4670 square kilometers. The largest island of all islands is Okinawa Island's Okinawa Island (which is the Large Ryukyu Island). Chinese Text: 美国在一九四五年六月占领了琉球群岛后，就着手在该岛建筑军事基地。 English Translation: After annexing the Ryukyu Islands on June 1945, America has built military base on the islands. Chinese Text: 美国侵略者竟不顾“开罗宣言”、“波茨坦公告”等各项国际协议中都没有规定托管琉球群岛的决定，也不顾苏联政府和中华人民共和国政府的一再声明，更不顾一百万琉球人民的坚决反对，竟勾结日本吉田政府，擅自在它片面制订的对日“和约”中规定：“日本对于美国向联合国提出将北纬二十九度以南的琉球群岛……置于联合国托管制度之下，而以美国为唯一管理当局的任何提议，将予同意。 English Translation: America the invader disregarded Potsdam declaration and associated international treaties which did not decide on governorship of Ryukyu Islands. They also did not care about the words of the People's Republic of China or the opposition of a million Ryukyu natives. Instead, they conspired with the Japanese government and decided by themselves to insert their own rule in the Japanese peace treaty: "Japan will agree to America's suggestion to the U.N. regarding to have the Ryukyu Islands located 29 degrees south of the north latitude.... transfer to U.N. supervision where America is the sole controller." .... Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Wikisource text helps us move beyond this exhausting distraction.

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

Wikisource: 包括尖閣諸島 ... is translated "including the Senkaku Islands"

In the text below, the key phrase 包括尖閣諸島 is recognizable in the middle of the second line. Chinese 琉球群島人民反對美國佔領的鬥爭 　琉球群島散佈在我國台灣東北和日本九洲島西南 之間的海面上，包括尖閣諸島、先島諸島、大東諸 島、冲繩諸島、大島諸島、土噶喇諸島，大隈諸島 等七組島嶼，毎組都有許多大小島嶼、總計共有五 十個以上有名稱的島嶼和四百多個無名小島，全部 陸地面積爲四千六百七十平方公里。群島中最大的 島是冲繩諸島中的冲繩島（即大琉球島），面積一 千二百十一平方公里；其次是大島諸島中的奄美大 島，面積七百三十平方公里。琉球群島綿互遠一千 公里，它的内側是我國東海，外側就是太平洋公 海。 　美國在一九四五年六月佔領了琉球群島後，就著 手在該島建築軍事基地。隨著美國在亞洲大陸上侵 略計劃的破產，琉球基地的建築工程也就更趨積極 起來。遠在美國發動侵略朝鮮戰爭前，美國在琉球 群島的軍事工程就已佔用了琉球三分之一的土地， 用作建造基地的費用超過了兩億美元。其後，琉球 基地的建造計劃一再擴大，而且以更大的速度進行 着。一九五一年六月二十二日「美國新聞與世界報 道」雜誌曾透露齣美國侵略者的野心：「美國在冲 繩島的目標是用空軍獨霸亞洲，要使它成爲太平洋 的最大基地。由冲繩島起飛，Ｂ二十九型轟炸機能達 到亞洲大部分內陸地區，轟炸半徑可能包括中國全 部和西伯利亞大部地區――包括西伯利亞大鐵路。 Ｂ三十六型轟炸機則可達到更遠的距離。」去年九月 八日，冲繩島的美國官員竟公然宣佈：「用來將冲 繩島改變成「太平洋的直佈羅陀」的全部經費將近 四億八千萬美元。建築工作正在按計劃進行，防颱 風的公路、飛機場、兵營、司令部以及其他軍事設 備，將遍佈全島。」另一方面，據不久前日本的報紙 消息稱：美國在冲繩島那霸港入口處的浮島神社 下，已脩建了具有八萬噸容量的三個地下油庫，冲 繩島週圍各島都散佈着基地，共修建有二十幾個大 型飛機場，並且在奄美大島、宮古島、冲之永良部 島等島嶼上都裝置了雷達。許多島上都建成了兼作 飛機跑道用的軍用公路。而美國通訊社也早經不止 一次地承認：「美國Ｂ二十九型轟炸機，每天都從 冲繩島起飛去襲擊北朝鮮」。 　與建築及使用琉球軍事基地同時，美國侵略者積 極陰謀永久霸佔琉球群島。美國佔領琉球後不久， 就獨攬了琉球的一切政權。去年以來，美國侵略者 竟不顧「開羅宣言」、「波茨坦公告」等各項國際 協議中都沒有規定託管琉球群島的決定，也不顧蘇 聯政府和中華人民共和國政府的一再聲明，更不顧 一百萬琉球人民的堅決反對，竟勾結日本吉田政府， 擅自在它片面製訂的對日「和約」中規定：「日本 對於美國嚮聯合國提出將北緯二十九度以南的琉球 群島……置於聯合國託管製度之下，而以美國爲唯 一管理當局的任何提議，將予同意。在提出此種建 議，並對此種建議採取肯定措施以前，美國將有權 對此等島嶼之領土及其居民，包括其領水，行使一 切及任何行政、立法與司法權力。」美國以這樣卑 鄙的手段擅自爲其無限期霸佔琉球群島的侵略行爲 披上「合法」的外衣後，並於去年四月一日在島上 建立了以比嘉秀平爲首的琉球傀儡政府。 　七年多以來，美國侵略者用極其野蠻橫暴的手段， 把琉球群島變成了美國的軍事基地；一百萬琉球人 民在美國的奴役與剝削下，已陷在水深火熱中，過著 極爲悲慘的生活。凡是被美軍圈定爲構築軍事目標 的土地，全部居民便被趕出自己的鄉土，現在僅冲 繩島就有三分之二的土地被徵作軍用。琉球人民不 僅土地被強佔，而且有勞動力的年青人大部被強迫 去參加建築美國軍事基地的奴隸勞動。美國侵略者 用槍刺殘酷地逼迫琉球人民自己去毀滅賴以爲生的 和平家園與漁村，以致全島農田荒蕪、食糧缺乏、 漁業不振，戰前頗具規模的糖業也迄未恢復。同 時，美軍用恐怖的警察統治壓製琉球人民的反抗。 從一九四七年起，美軍就藉口保守軍事機密，禁止 居民旅行全島。美國憲兵及其走狗琉球警察（都是 過去充當過日本軍閥的爪牙現在被美軍起用的當地 流氓）佈滿全島。村落和村落之間佈有鐵絲網，兩 村的村民來往必須先向警察報告並獲得允許，否則 就要以「偷越界綫」治罪，公路旁也佈有鐵絲網， 有的甚至通有電流。因而，琉球人民對外貿易被禁 止，交通被阻撓，耕種和捕魚被限制，一切的自由 權利全被美軍剝奪。而且，戰爭中砲火損毀了全島 房屋的百分之九十，迄今絕大部分琉球人民無處棲 身。去年琉球北部一帶遭受飢荒時，災民竟被迫吃 蜥蜴、蛇等以延續生命。在美軍中做工的琉球工人， 工資只及美國工人的九十分之一，受僱在美軍酒吧 間、飯館及機關中的琉球婦女，每月工資最多只有 四塊美元。荒淫無恥的美軍，也給琉球帶來了大批的 「吉普女郎」，駐在琉球群島的美軍野蠻地凌辱琉球 婦女。美軍隨便槍殺琉球人民的暴行也屢見不鮮。 　琉球群島曾經是美國和日本激戰地區，當地居民 死亡慘重，戰爭創傷深深烙印在琉球人民心中。琉 球人民痛惡戰爭，熱烈要求和平。戰後美國侵略者 變琉球爲基地和奴役剝削的軍事殖民地政策，逼得 琉球人民不得不挺身起來用各種方式展開反對美國 佔領者的鬥爭。最初，爲飢餓所迫的琉球人民，開 始奪取美軍物資，後來逐漸發展爲公開襲擊美軍並 大量奪取軍用物資。據日本報紙消息：前年一月冲 繩島嘉手納機場航空隊的太巴斯（譯音）兵營就被 奪去了九十七件軍火物資。去年一月二十一日，嘉 手納機場航空隊第十八號火藥庫又丟失了火藥七噸 半。島上美軍的軍火倉庫，經常「無故」爆炸。例 如一九四八年八月，在冲繩島附近的一個小島上， 美軍的軍火庫就爆炸了一天一夜，把美軍儲藏在該 島的軍火全部炸毀。去年從台灣傳出的美國新聞電 訊中，曾透露琉球人民遊擊隊和美國佔領軍展開了 激烈鬥爭，琉球人民且曾潛入冲繩島的卡台那（譯 音）機場中將機場破壞。 　被迫爲美軍工作的琉球工人不斷地進行罷工、怠 工以反抗美軍的奴役。去年六月，冲繩島建築美國 軍事工程的琉球工人，不顧美軍的禁令，舉行了要 求提高工資的鬥爭，得到了全島工人的支持。七 月，島上松村包工組的工人舉行反對解僱的罷工， 全島各地都舉行了支持罷工的示威。琉球人民反對 美國佔領的鬥爭已和反對戰爭、保衞和平的運動結 合起來，並正在更有力地向前發展着。去年的五一 節，冲繩島的工人、職員和市民，在琉球人民黨的 號召下，不顧美軍的鎭壓，舉行了保障生活權利大 會和示威大遊行。最近，冲繩島人民又廣泛地展開 了反對琉球傀儡政府爲日本吉田政府徵兵的運動。 　琉球人民反對美國變琉球爲軍事基地、反對美國 奴役統治爭取自由解放與和平的鬥爭不是孤立的， 它是和日本人民爭取獨立、民主與和平的鬥爭分不 開，也是和亞洲及太平洋區域人民以及全世界各國 人民保衞和平的鬥爭分不開的，因而，雖然美國佔 領者對琉球人民實行野蠻鎭壓，但最後勝利必定是 屬於琉球人民的。 — 《人民日報》1953年1月8日 English (Google translation) Ryukyu Islands, the struggle of peoples against U.S. occupation The Ryukyu Islands are scattered in the sea northeast of Taiwan and southwest of the island of Kyushu (Japan), consisting of seven groups including the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa islands, Oshima Islands, the Tokara islands abd the Osumi islands. Each group has many small islands, a total of more than a total of fifty four hundred names unnamed islands and islets, the total land area of four thousand six hundred and seventy square kilometers. The largest island in the Ryukyu Islands, Okinawa, has an area of 1211 square kilometers. The second largest island is Amami Oshima with an area of seven hundred and thirty square kilometers. The Ryukyu Islands are within the East China Sea at the edge of the Pacific Ocean .... Raw text     Ryukyu Islands scattered in the country northeast of Taiwan and Japan, Kyushu Island, southwest between the sea, including the Senkaku Islands, the first island Islands, Daito Islands, Okinawa Islands, Big Island Islands, earth Karma La islands, Okuma islands, the seven group of islands, Each group has many small islands, a total of more than a total of fifty four hundred names unnamed islands and islets, the total land area of four thousand six hundred and seventy square kilometers. Islands, the largest island in the Okinawa Islands Okinawa Island (Ryukyu Big Island), an area of 1211 square kilometers; followed by the Big Island Islands of Amami Oshima, an area of seven hundred and thirty square kilometers. Ryukyu Islands, a thousand kilometers far from each cotton, it is the inside of the East China Sea, the high seas outside the Pacific Ocean ....

Image of page in January 8, 1953 edition of the People's Daily.

External links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thread is too long because

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

Getting back to the point:

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

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

In fact, this all around the mulberry bush is about

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

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

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

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

Cumulative vs redundant reliable sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO CAUSE for locking this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation table: People's Daily article (8 Jan 1953)

Translation table Bobthefish2, would you please specify what part is wrongly translated? Original text Translation Translator Comment People's Daily article (8 Jan 1953) 琉球群岛散布在我国台湾东北和日本九洲岛西南之间的海面上，包括尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛等七组岛屿，每组都有许多大小岛           — Bobthefish2 Ryukyu Islands are distributed between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛. Bobthefish2 "...the Japanese source cited is definitely mis-interpreting the Remin Ribao article because this is what the Remin Ribao article said:" 02:02, 13 October 2010 Ryukyu Islands are scattered on the sea between our nation's Taiwan's northeast and Japan's Kyushu's southwest, including 尖阁诸岛、先岛诸岛、大东诸岛、冲绳诸岛 (Okinawa Islands)、大岛诸岛、土噶喇诸岛、大隅诸岛] San9663 To reach a compromise, maybe one solution is to quote the exact lines printed and let the readers to interpret?, 03:54, 13 October 2010 Ryukyu Islands ... "dispersed between the northeastern part of our country’s Taiwan and the southwestern part of Japan’s Kyushu Island" ... consisting of "seven islands groups such as the Senkaku Islands as well as the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands and Osumi Islands" Japanese Communist Party "... thus themselves including the Senkakus as part of Japanese territory and explicitly using the Japanese appellation 'Senkaku", 4 October 2010 Ryukyu Islands ... "dispersed between the northeastern part of our country's Taiwan and the southwestern part of Japan's Kyushu Island" ... including the Senkaku Islands ... Seiji Maehara Japan Times citing Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara 琉球群島散佈在我國台灣東北和日本九洲島西南之間的海面上，包括尖閣諸島、先島諸島、大東諸島、冲繩諸島、大島諸島、土噶喇諸島，大隈諸島 等七組島嶼，毎組都有許多大小島嶼、總計共有五 十個以上有名稱的島嶼和四百多個無名小島，全部 陸地面積爲四千六百七十平方公里。           — Wikisource Ryukyu Islands scattered in the northeast of Taiwan and Japan, China southwestern Kyushu island Between the sea, including the Senkaku Islands, the islands of the first island, all Big East Island, Okinawa Islands, the islands of the Big Island, the islands of soil Karma La, Okuma Islands The seven groups of islands, Each group has many small islands, a total of five More than ten have the name of the unnamed islands and four hundred small islands, all Land area of four thousand six hundred and seventy square kilometers. Google Translate

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

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

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

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

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

To make matters worse, when on January 8, 1953, Remin Ribao [People's Daily], the official propaganda organ for the Communist Party criticized the occupation of the Ryukyu Islands or (Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States, it stated that the Ryukyu Islands are located northeast of our Taiwan Islands... including Senkaku Shoto". According to this statement, the PRC recognized Diaoyu (J: Senkaku Islands) were a part of the Liuqiu Islands (Okinawa Prefecture). In other words, the Diaoyu Islands belonged neither to Taiwan nor to mainland China, but to Japan..

Note the text I bolded. Bobthefish2

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

The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] (Arguments from Japan section)

An article published by the Renmin Ribao in 1953. It listed "Senkaku Islands" as part of the (then) U.S.-occupied Ryuku Islands (Okinawa).[32] (Figure caption)

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

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

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

Geography Section

I propose that the table in the geography section be removed, and replace with {{Main|Senkaku Islands#Geography|Senakuku Islands geography}}, plus a 2-3 prose sentences, stating approximately where the islands are (latitude/longitude), total number, and total area. The whole point of having this (the dispute) article is that we should include all of the general information at Senkaku Islands and only the information which strictly relates to the dispute belongs here. See, for example, how Sea of Japan naming dispute has no geography section (including info only in the lead), Kuril Islands dispute includes no geographic info outside of the map, and Cyprus dispute contains no geographic information at all. In fact, now that I've looked at those examples, I'd prefer to completely removing the geography section, but would consider a "Main" template + short prose to be a not-horrible compromise. Does anyone support keeping the table? Does anyone support removing the whole section? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The geography section should not exist due to lack of relevance. The only possible reason to keep it is if Tenmei moves the sea boundary materials to this page (which he should). Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not put this in terms of what Tenmei should or should not do—that makes it sound as if xe has some sort of special right or responsibility to make changes to the two articles. If consensus says the section should be removed, then it should be removed, whether or not Tenmei agrees. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Of course he doesn't have special rights, but it'd be much better if he can learn to listen and clean up after himself. After all, those changes were introduced by him. Have you realized how much time we wasted just to dispute those changes he made a while ago (i.e. making copies of tables, removing chinese columns, etc)? I'd much rather prove a point to him so that we don't have to go through this again than having to request consensus on every petulant change he makes. I am sure you'd, by now, realize how exceedingly difficult it is when it comes to getting a consensus on removing pro-Japanese or anti-Chinese contents. I really hate to refer things as anti/pro-Chinese/Japanese, but that's what they are most of the time (and this page is about a dispute between China and Japan). Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but, in this case, this table is neither pro-Japanese or pro-Chinese--it includes both, and, I think, this article should include neither (as I expressed above). As I'm a big fan of not getting these pages locked, I'm going to wait a day before removing the section, but will proceed with doing so absent a consensus to keep the section in. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of getting these pages locked either. However, I also do not like having to police these pages when I am confident that all that will come out of it is inaccurate information. I can, of course, leave this page to the wolves, but the notion of getting it locked with an admin controlling the editorial process is a good alternative to that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei has made changes to try to demonstrate that the names are "in dispute". I disagree with xyr interpretation of that article. The LDP (in the article) isn't opposed to the names--they're opposed to Google listing the names, which is Google's way of saying that the territories are in dispute. If you look at the actual quote from the LDP, their point is that "the Senkaku Islands are under the effective control of Japan in both history and the international law." That is, they are disputing Googles (implied) claim that the ownership of the islands is in dispute, not a claim about the names themselves. In any event, the chart is still not the right way to present this information, as demonstrated by the other dispute article I listed above. This particular historical point is already covered in the 2010 section of the dispute chronology. I say, the table (and section) should still go. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Tenmei has not said a word yet and is still adding things. Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be sensible to remove the table, instead relying on the one at the main article. Qwyrxian has made some good points above. John Smith's (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to remove the table. I'm going to rename the section, "The islands," include a hatnote directing people to the Geography section in the other other article, and leave a 1-3 sentence summary here. If I can find a place, I'll move Tenmei's recent addition about what he perceives as a name dispute; if I can't find a place, I'll leave it here for future reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I removed: "The names of these islands and rocks have become the subject of an unresolved controversy.".

I put the first reference into the last line of the "2010" section. I replaced the reference that was previously there, because the previous reference is an opinion/analysis piece, therefore not as good a reference per WP:RS. The second reference cannot be in this article, as it is about the Spratly Islands, and including that here is a direct and obvious violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Nothing in that article mentions the Senkaku Islands, and we are absolutely forbidden from trying to "contextualize" this issue (The SI dispute) in some sort of wider East Asian dispute unless a reliable source already does that. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate approaches

Former name of this thread was "Efforts to calm the dispute" section.--Tenmei (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What's going on with this section? It doesn't make any sense to me. I feel like we should be able to include the first reference (the Edward Miles book) elsewhere (probably at the very end of the "Beginnings" section). I don't know what the Deng Xiaoping quote is meant to do, or why it belongs anywhere in the article, but maybe it just needs a better placement and context. In any event, the section is definitely mistitled, because the Miles reference itself makes it clear that it wasn't about "calming the dispute"; rather, both sides just agreed not to talk about it. To me, in a section titled "Efforts to calm the dispute", I would expect to read about specific negotiations, conferences, bi-lateral efforts, etc., that were specifically and intentionally directed at reducing tensions about the dispute. If we don't have any examples of such efforts, then I think the section should go. However, I do think that on the Xiaoping quote, I'm missing something, so I appreciate input. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This diff should not be archived.

• both sides just agreed not to talk about it

• I would expect to read about specific negotiations, conferences, bi-lateral efforts, etc., that were specifically and intentionally directed at reducing tensions about the dispute. If we don't have any examples of such efforts, then I think the section should go.

This thread diff needs to remain on the active talk page despite conventional archiving practices. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see the point with it. The issue seems to flare up every so often, so are leaders on both sides calming things down? Deng was speaking nearly 40 years ago. John Smith's (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, probably you got your diffs wrong; all you linked to was the diff of me changing the section title, which I did because I thought people might think I meant "This is a new section on the talk page designed to decrease dispute on the talk page," when what I meant was "This is a new section on the talk page about the section in the article called "Efforts to end the dispute." In any event, do you have any actual comment about whether or not that section should stay? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please stop adding in links to my posts. Those links have nothing to do with what I commented, I find them distracting, and it looks like I said something I didn't say. I've asked this before--please do not edit any other person's comments; if you think such an edit is necessary, you may request they do it, but you may not do it yourself, per WP:TPO. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Blind monks examining an elephant", an 1888 ukiyo-e print by Hanabusa Itchō.

Qwyrxian -- I am not obliged to accept the false premise of your question. Your questions are an attempt to establish and solidify a perceptual transformation and paradigm; and as such, it does not enhance our prospects for collaborative editing in the future.

This broad-stroke edit strategy is undermined by WP:Burden and by verifying inline citations which are individually and cumulatively clear, credible and persuasive.

In other words, you don't "get it." Okay.

John Smith's doesn't "get it." Okay.

You propose to throw out the baby with the bath water. Not okay.

I cannot concur. Nor do I concur that this section urgently demands our attention before addressing the other active issues which have been engaged in the threads above. --Tenmei (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Now the section is titled "Alternate approaches." Alternate to what? It can't be an "alternate approach" unless there is a "main approach." Unless you mean that the alternate to arguing is to...not argue? I can kind-of understand how the latter part (a cooperative approach) is a an alternate, but not what Xiaopeng says (which, is, basically, let's talk about it later). Also, the big fat side quote is a clear WP:MOS violation--we're an encyclopedia, not a weekly/monthly news magazine. And you want to tackle other issues? You're welcome to--we can work on things simultaneously, as long as we keep each issue in separate threads. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a violation of WP:MOS -- not because of the formatting. The quote template would not exist if it were violative of wiki-policy. As for the other parts of your diff, Your framing limits the range of response. Please feel free to draft a different heading for this section; but I encourage you to restrain the impulse to blank it out entirely --Tenmei (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My first time seeing Tenmei writing anything resembling standard English. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING -- see context here for zero tolerance. --Tenmei (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You could've used one short sentence to communicate your protest against my compliment. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you two stop, please? If either of you is too irritated with the other to respond civilly, then just stop commenting to the other. Neither backhanded compliments nor over-linking is helping the issue. Every time we stop to comment on other people's motives or style of writing, we get drawn away from improving the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING -- see context here for zero tolerance. --Tenmei (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding just the quotation itself, Rquote and cquote are to be used for pull quotes, and, as such, belong (per the documentation) in places like essays. Quoting from the documentation of cquote, "NOTE: This template should not be used for block quotations in article text. " For that matter, this quotations isn't even eligible for block quote, because it's not 4 or more lines long, as specified in WP:MOSQUOTE. So I'm going to convert it back into a regular quotation, while we continue to discuss what to do with this section. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that "efforts to calm dispute" is kind of irrelevant. We can condense it into the "Reaction of ROC/PRC" but this certainly does not deserve an unique section. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be requesting Mediation later

We're obviously all not working together well. Half of the time someone edits, it gets reverted; then we end up with pages and pages of words, hacking out words; then often we get accusations of bad faith, incivility, tendentious editing, etc. We need outside assistance to help guide our conversations and work. I'm going to make a request at WP:MEDCAB. However, the process is voluntary (even formal mediation from WP:MEDCOMis voluntary). As such, all participants in this dispute will, after the request is filed, agree to take part in mediation. Now, "all" is somewhat subjective; for example, though User:Winstonlighter used to be active here, the last time xe edited these articles was in October, so xe doesn't have to be a party. As far as I can see by looking up at this discussion, here's the people I think would need to agree (note that anyone can participate, it's just that the core disputants need to):

• Qwyrxian
• Tenmei
• Bobthefish2
• Phoenix7777
• John Smith
• Oda Mari
• STSC

I think that San9663, Benlinsquare, could also be helpful, but they're less active recently so aren't nearly as critical. Similarly, Kusunose and HXL49 could be helpful, as they work on Senkaku Islands, but their participation isn't necessary. Even Oda Mari could decline to participate, since I know xe's often busy and doesn't participate all that much , as long as xyr future involvement in the article didn't work contrary to any progress made in mediation. If anyone is going to outright reject mediation right now, please say so, as if you are there's no real point in me making the request. Note, though, that explicitly refusing to actively work on dispute resolution could be construed as being evidence of intentionally being non-collaborative.

Finally, please understand that my request for mediation is not because I think I can "win" (if you've been "keeping score", you'll see that I'm not editing on a side), but because I honestly think we need help. This article needs work, and we seem incapable of accomplishing that work on our own. A mediator can help us do that. Note that a mediator cannot make any rulings, impose any decisions, or assess any sanctions. They're whole job is to help people talk together in a constructive way. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't proceed with such a helpful option. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Mediation is needed. I think the current problem started at this removal. The edit summary says " Deleted a fraudulant claim + references regarding Remin Ribao article..." . Bobthefish2 wrote " Again removed fraudulent references/content based on misinformation" when he restored his removal. See [7]. I think the answer to the current problem is this. It is a hard fact the Japanese government says "...an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands." See [8]. Even if the Japanese argument is based on wrong translation/misinformation, the information should be included in the article because it is a fact. It is not WP editors' role to judge if it's a false/wrong argument. If Bobthefish2 thinks the claim of the Japanese government is a fraudulent claim + references regarding Remin Ribao article, all he had/has to do is add the Chinese government's refutation with RS to the article. The removal was inappropriate because Bobthefish2's claim was merely a personal thought as he has not provided any RSs supporting his claim so far. If I missed something, please point it out as I haven't been watchful on threads above. Oda Mari (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2011

Oda Mari, I am afraid you are totally confused. My advice for you is to scroll up and read the post I left below User:Tenmei's gigantic (and useless) table. If reading comprehension is not your strong suit, then you may want to ask your Japanese friends to help you with translating the text into Japanese. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

ENDORSE summary and conclusion as presented by Oda Mari above because, as the first paragraph at WP:V explains: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This core principle is essential to our collaborative editing process. This is not optional -- not arbitrarily devalued or set aside by those who are successful at spin. --Tenmei (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the current problem. I'm talking that every single little change causes either an edit war, a near edit war, or such a massive, overwhelming talk page discussion with both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative. This particular point is just an example. If we don't go into mediation, I can discuss the solution to this particular point, but I don't think anyone is going to like it, and I don't think the current tone on this page is going to allow for a serious consideration of it Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. Then request it. I'll join in it. Oda Mari (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

NO, the framing for the proposed "mediation" is fatally flawed. In other words, the cognitive distortion implicit in "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Restatement: the implied cognitive bias in Qwyrxian's proposal and lessons learned the hard way exposes this diff as a likely illusion. This is barking up the wrong tree. --Tenmei (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The comment you just made is exactly one of the reasons we need mediation. I've been patient, but the truth is I have no idea at all what you just said. I shouldn't have to follow 7 different links to understand your point. Every time anyone makes a change you don't like, you add a dozen links, tables with multiple diffs framing the discussion, and, sometimes, even graphs. These are absolutely hurting our ability to talk to you. I think we've explained it before, but the point is that while your formal style of thinking may well work in whatever field you are in (formal logic? philosophy? computer science?) but it doesn't work in an informal place like this.

You know what? It's time to stop beating around the bush. You want to hear what I think the two big problems are here and on Senkaku Islands? It's relatively simple: Tenmei produces impossible to follow talk page discussions and makes massive article changes before getting consensus, and Bobthefish2 treats the majority of issues like they're battlegrounds and assumes every piece of disagreement is a cover for POV pushing. Both of you are sometimes right: people are pushing POVs, and having concise summaries of discussions and links to policy do help. But the way the discussion goes here is so out of control that when we're arguing about the grammar of 3 words (like on Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972), we can't do it civilly or functionally. We need help. We need a truly neutral party to discuss not just this one point about Remin Ribao, but the overall structure of the article (it's bad), the ordering and use of the names in different languages, the infoboxes, picture captions, which claims can be including...etc., etc. Why would you reject the help of a neutral mediator? Remember, the mediator can't "rule" on claims, they can't say "Okay, then, I've decided, take out/leave in the Remin Ribao sentence." What xe can do is help us talk to each other civilly and productively. Xe can help us by saying, "Yes, but that's not what policy says." Xe can help us by structuring the discussions. Why wouldn't you want to do that? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say I am pretty much right whenever I suspect something is a cover for POV pushing. But then again, I do understand you need to somehow behave like a neutral party and thus have to find something in me to suspect or criticize.

Anyhow, I hope this mediation thing is going to do some good. If possible, please do consider inviting User:Benlisquare. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Repeating for emphasis: The framing for the proposed "mediation" is fatally flawed. In other words, the confirmation bias which is explicit in "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

NO — EXAMPLE A

Oda Mari hits the center of the target here and my endorsement underscores her point here. In your non-responsive next diff, you do not acknowledge anything she wrote; and in this way, you trivialize her participation and contributions. Your subsequent writing ascribes no meaningful or timely relevance to her words -- nor do you value my words -- especially here. Oda Mari got it right in more ways than one.

No part of Oda Mari diff shows "entrenched and non-collaborative" editing. None of Oda Mari's archived diffs can be framed as "entrenched and non-collaborative." The skewed labeling elevates mere spin.

WP:AGF does not not require us to presume validity in broad brush complaints about Oda Mari here and here, but there we have it. Among the lessons learned the hard way is that unsupported allegations succeed in a flash to discredit and devalue the cumulative edit history Oda Mari has created at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

The evidence of attitude polarization which marginalizes Oda Mari or me or anyone else is vexing destructive to collaborative editing.

Qwyrxian -- The term of "mediation" is stripped of its natural meaning when broad brush complaining is conflated with hard work and specifics. This is the essence of what you propose as WP:Mediation. --Tenmei (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, your unquenchable loyalty to your countrymen/women is unquestionable, but you still have not the courage to respond to the issues I raised. Let's hope you will realize soon enough that your essays of rhetorics and non-responses are not going to get you anywhere aside from wasting everyone's time. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason I said Oda Mari need not join (but should if xe can), is because Oda Mari often goes for stretches of a month or more without editing this page. There's nothing wrong with that--we all have countless things to do on or off Wiki. But the key is that mediation requires full participation, and someone (generally, the person requesting mediation) has to determine who those participants need to be. The point is that, for example, we can't possibly enter mediation without you, because you are too active here, which means that any agreements we came to in mediation would be useless without your input. And please don't tell me I don't understand why we're entering mediation. I understand exactly why--I know the event that triggered it, and I know the long term concerns I have had for more than a month that have lead to it. Finally, you can, of course, choose not to enter mediation. Could you, though, please explain why, specifically, without a single diff or wikilink, ideally in 4 sentences or less, why you don't think mediation will be helpful? Please explain don't explain what you think my or other people's motives are (because you're wrong), please don't worry about Remin Ribao or another other detail--please just say why, simply, you don't want to engage in this part of dispute resolution. I would appreciate that, although, again, you don't have to. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, so who's agreeing to take part in this mediation? From the looks of it, the answer from User:Tenmei is probably a no. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- Your rhetorical question here is crafted in ways which marginalize any reply. The principal purpose of any answer is substantially frustrated. An arguably constructive response is to change a few words and the sequence of sentences which are thus far ignored:

A. The framing for the prospective "mediation" is fatally flawed.

B. In other words, your newest diff demonstrates anew that (a) mediation as you define it is a non-starter and (b) you appear not to understand what you just said.

This persisting pattern is problematic and its likely repetition in the future is noteworthy.

NO — EXAMPLE B

You mention Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972 in a diff above: "But the way the discussion goes here is so out of control that when we're arguing about the grammar of 3 words ..., we can't do it civilly or functionally."

Your spin marginalizes the core issue, which is that the words "by the Americans" have geo-political significance as defined by credible published work about Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

CONTEXT: The meaning and intention of STSC who added "by the Americans" is underscored and amplified here and here

• FACT: John Smith's revert and edit summary was justified and explained here

SPIN: The "grammar of 3 words" marginalizes this.

• FACT: Phoenix7777's supplemental restatement was concise here

SPIN: The "grammar of 3 words" marginalizes this.

• FACT: Research is shown to have informed the diffs of Phoenix7777 and me; and this is demonstrated by verifying support from reliable sources plus embedded hyperlinks

SPIN: The "grammar of 3 words" marginalizes this.

• FACT:The contributions of John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and me were each moderate in tone and focused solely on refutation and counterargument

SPIN: The "grammar of 3 words" marginalizes this.

ANALYSIS: This post hoc re-framing -- that we were merely "arguing about the grammar of 3 words" -- causes harm because it trivializes edits and contributors alike; and at the same time, the re-framing validates contradiction and ad hominem as persuasive tactics. This is not simple. This thread does not show "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative".

See pyramid at WP:Dispute Resolution.

Qwyrxian -- The term "mediation" is stripped of its natural meaning when unsupported generalizations are construed to be indistinguishable from citation-supported specifics. The foundation for WP:Mediation is critically undermined. --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I actually think I understand what you're saying, although I could have done it in about 300 less words, and, in the end, you missed my point. First, let me paraphrase what you said, and make sure I've got it right. What I write now is Tenmei speaking:

"Qwyrxian, you're asking for mediation. One reason you said we need mediation is because of a dispute we had about whether or not to include "by the Americans," and you feel like the fact that just some simple grammatical issues cause us so much work is evidence that we need mediation. But, Qwyrxian, what you're not understanding is that it's not just grammar, because those words have important geo-political consequences. Thus, your reframing of the issue is fundamentally wrong and misleading. Furthermore, you say we had problems talking to each other, but if you look back at what John Smith, Phoenix7777, and Oda Mari wrote, we were always nice, polite, and just trying to refute that geo-political problem. In fact, even though Qwyrxian claims we have a problem with non-collaborative editing, in fact, some of us are being civil, while others are not, and that is the real problem. We can't go into mediation under Qwyrxian's premises, because they are wrong with regards the way this thread is working."

Is that correct? I'm pretty sure it is. Okay, if even I grant that you're right about this issue (I don't think you are, but that's not relevant), your concern fails to address the larger issue. Every single time there's a dispute, solving it is somewhere between painful and impossible. We've had this article (or the other one) locked multiple times in the last 6 months. That means we have an underlying problem in how we work. If I could combine Bobthefish2's points (that he made on Elen of the Road's and Magog the Ogre's talk page) with mine, I would say that there really are only 2 possible solutions to the ongoing problems that we have.

1. A number of editors stop editing the page, either voluntarily (out of exhaustion, most likely), or involuntarily (because someone(s) get topic banned). This is, in my opinion, a terrible solution, and ultimately unstable, because someone else will always come forward to pick up the POV torch.
2. We enter mediation. That means that when we talk to each other, we have a neutral party to help frame the discussion, focus the issues, maybe offer compromises, etc.

The reason I think these are the only solutions is that I think one or the other is inevitable. If we don't do (2), someone(s) is probably going to get topic banned. At best, the article will stay locked, on and off, indefinitely. When I gave the "grammar" discussion as an example, it was only an example. I could pick a half-dozen other examples as well. Part of the problem here is that you perceive everything that you're doing (on the article and on talk) is neutral, polite, and helpful, when, in fact, it's not. Mediation can help all of us, and, most importantly, help the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S., at Bobthefish2: the problem is that neither MEDCAB nor MEDCOM will accept us for mediation if Tenmei doesn't join. This is because it would be pointless for the rest of us to spend lots of time and effort working out solutions, if there was a regular, active editor not participating in the process who would just ignore everything we did and edit however we want. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of WP:Mediation's requirements.

By the way, it's a shame that User:Tenmei's writing in engrish again. After all, he was just making those big steps towards writing like a normal person. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you need to stop. First, it's not engrish (which I work with every day in Japan). In fact, it's highly refined English, philosophical English...it's still very difficult to follow, but it's certainly not engrish. And, in any event, this is an example of you being uncivil--your part of the problem. My problem is most likely that I'm trying to act like a mediator without actually being one. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You should be a bit careful about throwing terms around. As far as I know, there is no such thing as "philosophical English". However, I can comment that the domain of highly refined English likely does not encompass the entire space of idiom overuse.

Anyway, I will try to refrain from remarking about User:Tenmei's English for a short while. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Engrish

See pyramid at WP:Dispute Resolution.

Bobthefish2 -- Your critical observations about my engrish or any other aspect of my English composition skills are unwelcome.

Your derisive, provocative complaints are part of a context including what you have written about others participating in development of this article:

• FACT: Oda Mari's words here were trivialized, but not met with refutation or counterargument
• FACT: John Smith's words here were marginalized but not refuted
• FACT: Phoenix7777's words here were marginalized but not refuted

The fact of the matter is that my writing is not the worst among the thousands of Wikipedia contributors. Your ad hominem complaint is really nothing more than a red herring.

Even if my writing were somehow above reproach, it would not matter. The cumulative history of this talk page shows that the derogatory analysis would be much the same as it was for Oda Mari, John Smith's and Phoenix7777. In comparison with their diffs, my writing has been more resistant to trivialization. In other words, the ad hominem tactic is a distraction, but it does not directly address or engage the process of ensuring academic credibility in Senkaku Islands or Senkaku Islands dispute.

The attempt to focus attention on my writing is a straw man in this thread's explicit context.

The purpose is not to help me do better; but rather, the objective is to distract attention from the reasonable investigation of the differences between facts and factoids, which is an ordinary and necessary part of collaborative editing.

It would be better if you made no further comments about my writing skills. --Tenmei (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Except you failed to mention that a good number of other editors opined on the unhelpful nature of your style of writing. Let's see, there were User:San9663 and User:STSC. Then there were a few of your fellows in Border. And of course, User:Qwyrxian and User:Elen of the Roads also made comments on your page about that in your talk page which you deleted. It's really your problem if you lack the ability to comprehend criticisms and adjust your behaviour accordingly, but it's also your choice if you decide to blame others for criticizing you on such a basis.

Anyway, we'll see how well-received your writing style is once we do this ANI thing. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative editing

All who choose to participate in our Wikipedia project are presumed to acknowledge that effective choices in group awareness, participation, and coordination are critical to successful collaborative writing outcomes—compare Lowry, Paul Benjamin, Aaron Mosiah Curtis and Michelle Rene Lowry. "A Taxonomy of Collaborative Writing to Improve Empirical Research, Writing Practice, and Tool Development," Journal of Business Communication (JBC), Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 66-99, 2004.

SUMMARY

EXAMPLE A-above and EXAMPLE B-above show Oda Mari, John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Tenmei as "entrenched" in support of WP:V+WP:RS and WP:Five Pillars. The words and conduct of these four project participants exemplify good collaborative editing.

There is no justification for labeling these editors as "entrenched and non-collaborative."

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

Terms which are likely to be helpful for developing a more constructive framework for future collaborative editing include: (a) refutation; (b) counterargument; (c) confirmation bias; (d) attitude polarization; (e) contradiction; and (f) ad hominem.

COLLABORATIVE EDITING—YES

These sentences need no further comment. They resist re-framing and spin:

• Thus, "... reframing of the issue is fundamentally wrong and misleading."—Qwyrxian 03:43, 6 February 2011

• "We can't go into mediation under Qwyrxian's premises, because they are wrong with regards the way this thread is working."—Qwyrxian 03:43, 6 February 2011

• "Okay ..., your concern fails to address the larger issue. Every single time there's a dispute, solving it is somewhere between painful and impossible. We've had this article (or the other one) locked multiple times in the last 6 months. That means we have an underlying problem in how we work."—Qwyrxian 03:43, 6 February 2011

COLLABORATIVE EDITING—NO

This clause illustrates a fundamental misconception.

• "Okay ..., your concern fails to address the larger issue. Every single time there's a dispute, solving it is somewhere between painful and impossible. We've had this article (or the other one) locked multiple times in the last 6 months. That means we have an underlying problem in how we work."—Qwyrxian 03:43, 6 February 2011

No, Qwyrxian, the fact-of-the-matter is that EXAMPLE A and EXAMPLE B above are emblematic of the larger issue. explicit, on-topic, pivotal and indispensable. --Tenmei (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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

No, Qwyrxian, when you act like a mediator, something good happens. In a our non-hierarchical wiki-project, are we not all called to act like mediators whenever the opportunity arises?--Tenmei (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Remin Ribao statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See pyramid at WP:Dispute Resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qwyrxian -- Yes

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

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

Qwyrxian -- Yes, of course.

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

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

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

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

In other words, in this instance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohconfucius, you missed two important points.

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

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

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

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

“ We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics .... ”

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

Rinmin Ribao is a primary source

Can we all agree on a few facts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rinmin Ribao translation

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

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

• Comment:

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

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

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

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

Bobthefish2, I am curious you suddenly keep silence. you have an obligation to respond to above User:Nlu's comment. If you do not respond, you are construed as to admit you lied that the translation is "fraudulent"[9]. I usually overlook a loser of discussion. However I am not so tolerant in this case. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2011

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

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

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

Bobthefish2 complains:

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

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

Bobthefish2 complains:

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

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

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

Bobthefish2 complains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, as for the rest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Nlu said above, I think we don't have to translate the PD article. We can use the translation of the Ministry of Foreign affairs of Japan page as a quote. I think I said what I had to say about this problem at here.
I said "I don't think the Mediation is needed. I think the current problem started at this removal. The edit summary says " Deleted a fraudulant claim + references regarding Remin Ribao article..." . Bobthefish2 wrote " Again removed fraudulent references/content based on misinformation" when he restored his removal. See [10]. I think the answer to the current problem is this. It is a hard fact the Japanese government says "...an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands." See [11]. Even if the Japanese argument is based on wrong translation/misinformation, the information should be included in the article because it is a fact. It is not WP editors' role to judge if it's a false/wrong argument. If Bobthefish2 thinks the claim of the Japanese government is a fraudulent claim + references regarding Remin Ribao article, all he had/has to do is add the Chinese government's refutation with RS to the article. The removal was inappropriate because Bobthefish2's claim was merely a personal thought as he has not provided any RSs supporting his claim so far. If I missed something, please point it out as I haven't been watchful on threads above. "
I support Qwyrxian's suggestion and his "The Japanese government and U.S. researchers have claimed ...".
Although it's my personal thought, it's a big mystery that the PB article didn't say the Senkaku islands were Chinese territory and the US administration was illegal. Oda Mari (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. [Tenmei 19:50, 12 February 2011] --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A way out of the quagmire

Ohconfucius proposes a conventionally attractive course of action:

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

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

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

"Fraudulent translations"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion, not fact

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

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

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

Just to clarify, you've either mislinked or misunderstood WP:Synthesis. SYN is when a person takes facts from 2 different sources and lays them side by side, and then draws or implies a conclusion that neither sources independently verifies. The statement "The Japanese government and some U.S. researchers have claimed," is, in fact, the opposite of synthesis, since it explicitly calls out that it has 2 different sources. If we're really concerned though, what we can do is move the citations so that the explicitly align with the claims, like "The Japanese government[ref1][ref2] and several U.S. researchers[ref3][ref4] have claimed...". Personally, I have a stylistic preference for references at the end of sentences, but I have absolutely no problem if other editors think it would be clearer to move them so that which one goes with which person is more explicit, since both styles are allowed per the manual of style. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. [Tenmei 20:06, 11 February 2011] --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. [Tenmei 19:39, 12 February 2011] --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. [Tenmei 11Feb2011/20:06/ + 12Feb2011/19:39 + 12Feb2011/19:50] --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Common ground

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

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

If this is not understood as a foundation from which to build, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And what you quoted me on is exactly why the claim needs to be clearly attributed. WP:NPOV clearly states that all claims of opinion (and the claim that an article in a Chinese newspaper means/implies a certain thing is a claim of opinion) must be attributed. Take a look specifically at the section WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which explains this. Our common ground is, I think, the following:

1. WP:V says we can't include info just because we believe it is true--we must provide reliable sources.
2. Any interpretation of the meaning of something is not a fact--it is an interpretation, and thus governed by WP:NPOV. This is especially true when information is translated from one language to another.
3. We have reliable sources that support that the Japanese government, a Japanese newspaper, and 2 U.S. researchers believe that the Chinese article means/implies a certain thing.

I think, if I understand correctly, that our primary point of disagreement is exactly how to express the above three, given the current organization of the article (that this sentence already falls within a section entitled "Arguments from Japan"). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Followup: I'm not sure if your underlining and crossing-out of your quote of me is supposed to be in response to what I wrote here, but that still matches my points. Since we're trying to describe the dispute, we need to be clear about what is a claim of one side (that Remin Ribao said X), and what is an undisputed fact. That is, we need to be sure that we attribute each claim to the proper side, if it is a one-sided claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me correct you on this. The primary issue of contention was about whether or not to keep a piece of text (and associated references) that had a deceptive misinterpreation of a primary source. You proposed a compromise (which I accept) to rewrite the text in a way that is appropriate. But to be clear, the original disagreement was not about how to best write the sentence in dispute. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's correct--I was only talking about the current state of the dispute, and you are correct in your assessment of the original argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think Qwyrxian has it just about right. What we are dealing with is how the PD text was treated. This whole issue ls like Chinese whispers – a piece of information which, when second-hand, is liable to become distorted even with the best of intentions; add a layer of national pride and this is what we have. First, let's be clear there is nothing explicit or direct in the text that Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese soil. Japanese govt and some researchers rely on that text to make an inference – they clearly cite the PD article, acknowledge the inferences they make, and their reasons for making same). Because it is clear enough from the quotes within the citations, we don't even need the original text in English. It is our duty to ensure that this information is laid out transparently and in a balanced fashion without making any judgement either way, so that the reader can make up his/her own mind up on the issue. Because the apparent 'surrender of sovereignty' is derived/second-hand, we must attribute it as such. I do not feel it is synthetic in any way. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just go through with this. Since this page is locked, we can get User:Magog the Ogre to make the changes for us (he is one of the admins who are most involved in this page). At the moment, there are 4 editors who support this motion and only User:Tenmei objected to this (albeit using defective logic). Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Magog can probably decide whether xhe is sufficiently impartial or perhaps too involved to make the edit. Best thing would be to make a request using {{editprotect}}, stating exactly what the offending paragraph should be changed to. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The person I was thinking of was Phoenix7777; I felt like he had expressed reservations about this attribution, because xe felt (I thought--I can't find it in the morass above) that since this statement is already in the Japanese section, it was obvious that it's a Japanese POV. This rationale I understand, even though I disagree with it. I'm hoping that the voice of previously external editors may have persuaded xyr to accept this clarification. The only reason I'm being a little formal on this is because admins aren't supposed to edit a protected article unless it is really clear what consensus is. I'll drop a note on xyr talk page...I'd rather make it clear that we've got consensus on this then have to backtrack in a week.... Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While you are at it, don't forget to call up User:John Smith's and User:Oda Mari. They both had blocked my attempts at correcting the situations. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Fingers, toes, and all sorts of other appendages crossed.... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so worried. The more absurd resistance they put up, the closer we are to RFCU. If we are to witness more absurdly obstructive resistance, then we may be closer to RFCU.Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. [Tenmei 11Feb2011/20:06/ + 12Feb2011/19:39 + 12Feb2011/19:50] --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Shame that historical tensions are still so very evident... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think what's more shameful is that there are cultures in the world that cannot tolerate the acknowledgement of mistakes committed in the past and have to resort to lying when arguing for their positions.

However, that's life. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

|Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated. [Tenmei 11Feb2011/20:06/ + 12Feb2011/19:39 + 12Feb2011/19:50] --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to join in this talk, but having read the second latest comment by Bobthefish2, I changed my mind. It is clear that Bobthefish2 has not been assuming good faith. It is too much to input my agreement/disagreement for now. Oda Mari (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2011

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

I don't think whether or not I assume good faith is relevant. If you have a good point and exercised valid reasoning, then I believe your opinion is going to be respected regardless of whether or not it agrees with the proposed measures.

Of course, it's ultimately your choice when it comes to offering your input on this. I am all ears if you have something reasonable to say. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the attribution of the claim Qwyrxian proposed:

"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."[12]

This section is "Arguments from Japan". So the attributions like "The Japanese government claims..." or "A Japanese scholar claims..." is completely superfluous. Qwyrxian himself expressed "The problem is that one source is outside of the easily categorizable "Japanese government". It would look really weird to say "The Japanese government and a Hawaiian researcher claimed that....""[13] Moreover "The Japanese government and U.S. researchers" is incorrect. The sources provided are from the Japanese government (including the Foreign Minister), a book written by a Japanese scholar, a paper written by a Chinese scholar, and a Japanese newspaper citing a Japanese book. The sources are not limited to a specific person or institution but simply a claim from Japan, then such an attribution is unnecessary.

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. 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 instead of blanking the sourced content.

If the attribution is removed, I compromise on the Qwyrxian's proposal with some change affected by the removal of the attribution.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of where in the article it sits, the sentence "The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953", left unattributed, is totally misleading, because that is not what the PD said. This is second hand, and has been interpreted. Lack of attribution makes it hard fact, which prima facie it is not. I do not feel that it would be insulting to the reader for us to be absolutely unambiguous; in any event, such should not be attributed to the People's Daily, as it appears to be at present. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the current text? Then what about the Qwyrxian's proposed text? Does the text still need an attribution? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had dismissed it out of hand, and I was trying to explain why such a dismissal is unwarranted. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy recently and have lost track of the discussion. Can someone sum up the current position? John Smith's (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically, User:Nlu, User:Ohconfucius, User:Qwyrxian, and myself agreed that the content in dispute is inappropriate. User:Qwyrxian proposed a compromise where we change the text so that the Remin Ribao interpretation in question is explicitly attributed to the opinion of the Japanese government and individuals instead of being stated as fact. The three of us agreed to such a compromise. User:Tenmei is opposed to this and has gone circular with his complaints of WP:SYN violations. User:Phoenix7777 is also opposed because he thinks it doesn't improve WP:NPOV. User:Oda Mari said she will withhold her comment in protest to my lack of confidence in her good faith. Yes, that's basically it. Feel free to join in. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, well I would propose that we start at the beginning. First we need to say that an article was published in the People's Daily in 1953 (maybe being as specific as to say 8 January 1953), criticising the US occupation of the Ryuku Islands. The issue is what comes after that. Is Suganuma's translation totally in dispute? If so, what do other sources say?

I don't like the "further implied" bit of the suggested edit. If it was stated that the Senkakus were part of the Ryukus, then it's not so much implied as acknowledged that they were Japanese. It's not like China was claiming the Ryuku Islands. John Smith's (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My advice for you is to pay a bit more attention to other people's posts so that they don't need to repeat things (after all, it can be annoying having to keep answering the same questions over and over). To address your question, I'd point out that the Ryukyu Islands were occupied by the U.S. since the end of the second world war. They were also traditionally a client state of the Qing Dynasty until the Japanese Empire annexed the territories shortly before the first Sino-Japanese war (in a way much like Germany annexing various Eastern European countries before/during the phoney war). If you didn't know the Ryukyu Islands were not traditionally part of Japan, then you may want to read up on a few East Asian articles. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and bob, I don't like your continued cheap shots. I don't "block" your "attempts at correcting the situations". I'm happy to discuss suggestions on the talk page, as I'm doing now. I'd like to AGF with you, but it seems that you keep doing something to make me pause and think if that's possible.

I've got an idea, why don't you show your good faith by sincerely apologising to Oda Mari and pledge not to make any more comments like that? Then maybe we can get some more input. John Smith's (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation was discussed in the past. What we saw here was simply a repeat of what I've done back in November 2010. Since the matter was discussed and objections were addressed, it's reasonable for me to consider the unjustified obstacles introduced by you and User:Oda Mari as obstructive. After all, both of you were active when the discussion took place and were also informed of it.

With that said, I don't see any need to apologize to anyone. If User:Oda Mari would like to use my lack of WP:AGF of her as an excuse not to say anything, then that's too bad because this matter is not about my personal disposition towards other editors.

Lastly, I generally AGF on others as long as good reasoning is used (and regardless of their opinions relative to mine). In your case, your history of questionable editorial practices makes it hard for me to AGF. The fact that you made some slanderous accusations of my alleged edit-warring also presents some steep difficulties in terms of trusting your motivations behind all of this. However, if you truly are a reputable editor who wants to engage in collaborative editing with me, a good place for you to start is to behave like a good British gentleman and apologize for your ungallant intrusion. Then perhaps... I will reconsider my opinion of you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What a shame, I think your last post is a matter of QED. John Smith's (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to address b2f2's very bad editorial behavior on btf2's talk page, and will stick with the sentence in dispute here. The problem is that the sentence right now is wrong. It makes a claim about what an article written in Chinese says. It does this in Wikipedia's voice, not in the voice of a particular POV. But what it must say, to be correct and meet WP:NPOV, is that this is an interpretation of the text. As far as I understand, the actual text said that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Ryukyu Islands. Now, it seems reasonable for me for those supporting Japanese ownership of Senkaku to interpret that as meaning that they meant the articles are a part of Japanese territory. But that is an interpretation, an opinion, and, as such must be attributed to the interpreters. Note that this is the case whether or not the so-called "pro-Chinese editors" add a counter claim in the Chinese section, because the sentence in question right now violates policy. Phoenxi7777 misunderstands WP:NPOV. We don't achieve a neutral article just by putting both sides POV down. We achieve a neutral article by making each individual statement NPOV, which we do by carefully distinguishing between what is verifiable fact (i.e., things agreed upon by all/most), and what is interpretation of one side or the other. Let me provide a counter example. Later, in the Japanese argument section, it says, "A world atlas published in November 1958, by the Map Publishing Company of Beijing, treats the Senkaku Islands as a Japanese territory." This statement does not need a "Japan claims that," because this is a statement of fact. It is fundamentally different from the claim about the Remin Ribao article, which is an interpretive act.

However, I will say that Phoenix7777 makes a very good point that my compromise mis-summarized who the sources are, and I was oversimplifying by saying "the Japanese government." I'm not quite sure at this exact moment of how to rephrase that, and welcome suggestions; but we must find a way to attribute the statement to someone(s). Leaving it as it is now, in Wikipedia's voice, is a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Having slept on the question, I would suggest that, at a minimum, the premise of the claim – currently just one sentence – be expanded upon. I still think that some manner of attribution would be beneficial. I understand that this is a heated dispute that has resulted in a locked article, and would like to add my view that some of the editors here would benefit from a Time out. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The matter of attribution is not hard. At the moment, the attribution suggested is merely a placeholder. In the end, one couldn't go wrong in writing "Some Japanese scholars and journalists claimed ...", since the references we had at the moment were indeed written by Japanese scholars and journalists (correct me if I am wrong). Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 lists the sources above; the problem is that there are US researchers, a Japanese journalist, the Japanese government, and, I believe Chinese writer (of some type). Still, it's just about finding the right phrasing, I think. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. By the way, don't forget to reply to the thread you started in my talk page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's even worse than I thought

Because of something Tenmei posted on Phoenix7777's talk page, I had the chance to look at the MOFA website again, and realized that not only are we confusing opinion and fact, but we actually wrote MOFA's opinion wrong! Our sentence currently says "The People's Daily...had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953" [empahsis added]. But that's not what the MOFA website says. It says, "an article in the People's Daily...made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands." Do you (all) see the difference?! The MOFA website says PD says that the Senkaku Islands are part of the Ryukyu Islands, but our articles says that MOFA says that PD says that the Senkaku Islands are part of Japanese territory! That's not the same thing, at all. So not only is there the attribution problem, but the sentence in our article is a complete fabrication. I'm going to go look at the other references. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Alright, here's a breakdown of the rest of the references:

• 33 (Representative Office of Japan to PNA, Newsletter #2): same wording as MOFA website.
• 34 (Book by Suganuma, Unryu): says both, but as an act of interpretation. It says that the PD said SI is a part of Ryukyu, but then moves on to say that that means it recognized Diayou as belonging to Japan.
• 35 (Book by Shaw, Han-yi): Basically the same as 34.
• 36 (Asahi Shinbun): Same as MOFA (SI = Ryukyu).
• 37 (Book by Ando, Masashi): As far as I can tell from the Google translation, this is the same as MOFA.
• 38 (Book by Suganuma, Unryu): Same as MOFA.

So, as far as I can see, only the Suganuma and Shaw books assert that PD meant that SI belongs to Japan; the other 6 sources, include the Japanese government sources, both only go so far as to state that PD meant that SI are part of the Ryukyu Islands. Thus, our sentence only matches 2 of the cited sources.

And I think maybe this gives us a solution to the attribution problems! If I remember correctly, Btf2 agrees that PD said SI = Ryukyu, but that it is an interpretation to say PD meant that Ryukyu belongs to Japan. So what about this (going to 2 sentences):

"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 are a part of the Ryukyu Islands.(refs 32, 33, 36-38). Some researchers such as Unryu Suganuma and Han-yi Shaw have further claimed that this meant that China recognized in 1953 that the Senkaku Islands belonged to Japan.(refs 35, 36)."

That seems like a more accurate assessment of exactly what each of the sources state, and correctly gives attribution to the opinion in question. Two possible changes are 1) we can replace "Some researchers such as Suganuma and Shaw" with "Suganuma and Shaw" or "Historians Unryu Suganuma and Han-yi Shaw" or some other equivalent phrase that is correct and appropriate and 2) the end of the second "Senkaku Islands belonged to Japan" could easily be changed to "Senkaku Islands are a part of Japanese territory."

I am more convinced than ever that the sentence must change because right now it "fails verification"--that is, it doesn't say what the sources say. And I also hope that this new new wording might be even more acceptable, especially as it addresses the vagueness of my prior attribution. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction -> That PD article said Senkaku Islands ∈ Ryukyu Islands

Also, here are a few more issues:

• MOFA correctly interpreted the PD article being some sort of protest against U.S. occupation of Ryukyu Islands. I think this is important because the assertion that SI ∈ RI was done at a time that RI ∉ Japan. There might be a way to work this in without violating WP:SYN and yet allow the reader this important bit of clarification
• A few references justified their interpretations with RI = Okinawa. I think it wouldn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:SYN if this is included and correctly attributed to the appropriate secondary sources

Personally, I don't think the English usage itself is this important for now. It's better to first make a decision on what's in and what's not. Point form works well. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian, I am disappointed your shortsighted discussion. MOFA and Asahi shimbun discuss why the Senkaku islands are part of Japanese territory throughout the articles. The sentence discussing the PD article is one of the evidences that support the claim of Japan. If you pick that particular sentence and insist the sentence does not include the claim of Japan, I must question your reading comprehension ability. If you really wish to gain consensus, you should be a neutral mediator instead of a Chinese editor's spokesperson. Otherwise, this discussion is a waste of time and never settled. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the actual quotation from the articles in question. Yes, the overall point of both articles is to argue that the islands are Japanese, but they never actually state that the PD article said that the islands are Japanese. You're interpreting the words--all we can do is report what they say. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2011

ENDORSE each word Qwyrxian wrote here plus two words only -- "in context". --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. However MOFA claims it is an evidence that China recognized in 1953 that the Senkaku Islands belonged to Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2011

ENDORSE the helpful sentences and intention of Phoenix7777's diff, but without one accurate, but insufficient word -- without the coordinating conjunction "however". The best response to Qwyrxian is not a construct that is an exclusive disjunction, "either-or", binary, etc. Rather than the word "however", An arguably better alternative would have been a phrase, perhaps something like "and also at the same time". This is not a quibble. --Tenmei (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick note: After thinking it over, I actually do understand your point, and it makes sense. I have an intuition about how to rephrase, but not the exact details; I'll take a stab at it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I briefly scanned through the MOFA article. If I understand the article correctly, then it did two things of interest:

• Claimed PD said SI ∈ RI
• Listed above claim as supporting argument under What is the view of the Government of Japan on China's (and Taiwan's) assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands?, which is in turn under The views of the Japanese Government on China's (and Taiwan's) assertions

Unless I missed something (in which case, do make sure to provide the appropriate supporting evidence), I don't think User:Qwyrxian was wrong at all - MOFA did not explicitly say that PD said SI ∈ Japan. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Phoenix7777 wrote this

"Yes, you are right. However MOFA claims it is an evidence that China recognized in 1953 that the Senkaku Islands belonged to Japan."

Better, more precise words

"Yes, you are right . However and also at the same time, MOFA claims it is an evidence that China recognized in 1953 that the Ryukyu Islands include 7 island groups, including the Senkaku Islands belonged to Japan."

Best in context of Q&A

"Yes, you are right . However and also at the same time, MOFA claims it is an evidence that China recognized in 1953 that the Senkaku Islands do not belonged to Japan China."

This is a post-1996 counterargument; and our Wikipedia article reminds us,

To speak of counterarguments is not to assume that there are only two sides to a given issue. On the contrary, for a given argument, there is often a large number of counterarguments, some of which are not compatible with each other.

In other words, the validity relevance and weight of the Rinmin Ribao article does not depend on Japan nor on any interpretative gloss. It is not contingent. It is a fact, not an opinion. The interpretation or analysis of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) or any other entity neither diminishes nor enhances the irreducible fact of it. --Tenmei 16:01, 17 February 2011

The comments of Qwyrxian here and here suggest that the issues in this thread will be sharpened by having ready reference to part of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site.

Counterargument/Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)

"Q&A, Senkaku Islands", Q4. In this question-and-answer format, MOFA summarizes and restates what is more fully developed at "The Basic View on the Sovereignty 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. "

The explicit question-and-answer format helps make plain that some parts of the disputes which have unfolded in talk page threads since October were, in fact, arguments about the wrong questions or disputes about non-issues, e.g., "fraudulent translations", etc.

As DXDanl suggested in September 2010, my guess is that we can all agree that one of our shared goals is to

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

For example, perhaps some of the alternate re-framing proposed by Qwyrxian or Phoenix7777 and others may benefit from a fresh look at Question 4 in the MOFA summary and overview. --Tenmei (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion

I have a suggestion. Why not explain how the PD article made a reference to Japanese control? E.g. "An article in the P-D...organ of.... on DATE acknowledged Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands, when it said that QUOTE." John Smith's 19:32, 17 February 2011

In case people have missed my suggestion, please take a look at it. I think it could assist in moving things forward. John Smith's (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion has not been overlooked. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that that sentence appears to be wrong--PD never acknowledged Japanese control, it merely acknowledge that SI was a part of Ryukyu. That's a fairly different thing. Japan then interpreted this to mean it was a recognition of Japanese control. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the details of your response to this fantastically new suggestion appears to have recurred dozens of times in this talk page. I must be having some vision problems. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please note that "Ryukyu Islands belong to Japan" is an indisputable fact.[14] It is not an opinion which some researchers claim. Please replace the words with "Maui", "Hawaiian Islands", and "USA". Then you can understand how the attributed sentence looks weird. Please compare the following two sentences.

• "A newspaper wrote that Maui is part of Hawaiian Islands. Some researchers such as A and B have further claimed that this meant that the newspaper recognized Maui belonged to USA."
• "A newspaper wrote that Maui is part of Hawaiian Islands. This meant that the newspaper recognized Maui belonged to USA."

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A - Ages ago, a John Smith from the British government wrote "Gibraltar is part of Castile".

B - In 2008, another scholar wrote "Castile is part of Spain"

With this, it appears as though one can say that *"A John Smith from the British government declared Gibraltar to be part of Castile. This meant that the Britain recognized Gibraltar belonged to Spain"

Suppose that's the case, it may be for the best. Cutting cost from Empire maintenance can be a sound course of action especially when the British Isles is at the risk of facing economic collapse. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok bob that's it, I'm reporting this. John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Tenmei: except that, at the time, the United States occupied and controlled the Ryukyu Islands. At that point in time, there was no evidence that the US was going to give those islands back to Japan. So maybe the article should say that the PD meant that Senkaku Islands are a part of Ryukyu which are a part of the United States. Or maybe they supported Ryukyuan indepence (i.e. reverting to the pre-1879 state of affairs). In any event, does the PD article say anything at all to state or imply that they viewed the Ryukyu islands to be a part of Japan? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, do you know at what point China did not recognise Japanese sovereignty over the Ryuku Islands? John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John Smith's. Qwyrxian, please note that the PD article denounced the United States' "0ccupation" of Ryukyu Islands since 1945, it is apparent China never acknowledged the Islands as part of United States. Moreover unless there is an evidence that China supported Ryukyuan independence, it is mere your speculation. So unless there is an evidence that China opposed the Japanese sovereignty over Ryukyu Islands, There is no reason that China never recognized the Ryukyu Islands as part of Japan. Anyway I am convinced that it is quite difficult to come to agreement over the wording of the sentence. This began on 30 January 2011 Bobthefish2's disruptive edit blanking the sourced content.[15] Since that incident, it took almost a month. This should be considered as "no consensus". This is clearly a waste of time for all involved editors except a fish. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

These hypothetical questions are straw men which conflate what is being disputed and what is not.

No -- The counterargument to which the People's Daily article is a response has no arguable relationship to the speculative issues Bobthefish2 and Qwyrxian put forward. Bluntly, this tangential set of questions has no discernible foundation.

No -- The principal purpose of our collaborative editing is substantially frustrated by yet another instance in which WP:AGF is misconstrued by Qwyrxian to validate, legitimize and encourage smoke and mirrors. This is "original research" hypothetical, which means "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources." There is nothing wrongful in simply identifying this for what it is and giving it a name. In rejecting the invitation to discuss hypotheticals, we do nothing to stifle discussion; rather, this is appropriate, timely, and unavoidable if we are to move forward constructively.

No -- We have seen this before. No good purpose is served by equating or conflating fact (as confirmed by WP:V + WP:RS) with factoid (which is not confirmed by WP:V nor any citation whatsoever which suggests even a tenuous connection with WP:RS). This tactic has been shown to be naked, without substance, fraudulent -- like the children's story of The Emperor's New Clothes.

No -- WP:AGF does not require us to overlook the history of discredited gambits Bobthefish2 put forward -- specifically, I mean the "fraudulent translation" gambit and the "totally wrong" gambit. In each of these, we are obliged to recall that Qwyrxian bent over backwards to give every benefit of doubt, even to the extreme willingness to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him." We do well to applaud Qwyrxian credulity, but enough is enough.

Getting back to a meaningful issues:

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

Answer: "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 ...."

Hypotheticals (which are possible, but unsupported) distract us from the verifiable MOFA counterargument.

MOFA presents facts (not factoids) which are select illustrative examples which contradict and rebuff the PRC's post-1970s allegations. As we know, these include:

• a letter dated 20 May 1920
• an article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953 which "made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands"
• an atlas published in China in 1933
• an atlas published in China in 1960

In other words, the People's Daily article is identified as refutation in the context of an argumentative dialogue. The article is presented as one among several illustrative examples which are inconsistent with the PRC's post-1970s position on the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands.

FACT: The questions of Qwyrxian serve only to trivialize.

Analysis: IMO, this is unhelpful.

FACT: The questions of Qwyrxian serve only to exhaust us all.

Analysis: IMO, this is unhelpful.

This thread begs a question -- cui bono? Who benefits from muddying the issues? Wikipedia does not. Collaborative editing does not. The academic credibility of this article does not. --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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

IMO, the relevant context is established at Rinmin Ribao translation.

If there is consensus for it, Nlu has offered to assist us in the process of translating from Chinese to English. What do you want to do?

This should not be permitted to distract from the main point -- that is, the Rinmin Ribao article is one of a number of illustrative examples which rebut a Chinese counterargument.

For emphasis, it may be helpful to set my concerns side-by-side with an observation Bobthefish2 posted in early October last year. He mentioned "a distinct lack of counter-arguments ... which I believe should exist (otherwise, this wouldn't be a dispute)." --Tenmei (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

While walking to work today, I realized that Phoenix7777's analogy above shows the exact problem with this sentence. If, today, someone wrote, "Maui is a part of Hawaii", then you are correct that such a statement would pretty clearly imply that Maui is US territory, because the geopolitical status of Hawaii is not widely in dispute (although it is in some dispute). However, if someone had written such a claim between 1880 and 1900, when ownership of the islands was in dispute, then, in fact, it would not be clear that that person was asserting that Maui is a part of the U.S. Since, at the time the PD article was written, the possession of the Ryukyuan Islands was in dispute, I don't see how it isn't an act of opinion/interpretation to say that the PD article obviously meant that Japan owned Senkaku. As a side note, I want to clarify something—I actually agree with the Japanese interpretation on this, and that this is good evidence of implied Japanese ownership. But I recognize that this is an interpretation, an opinion, and that it is false to state that the PD article actually says that SI are Japanese territory. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On a side note. Don't forget political/geographic entities (i.e. Ryukyu Islands and Castile) can be subjected to geographic changes over time. See my example on Gibraltar, Spain, Britain, and Castile. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Sigh... this is getting incredibly stupid. Can you please stick your conspiracy theories elsewhere? Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is baiting or poking (here, anyway). I am legitimately trying to explain why I believe that, unless PD explicitly says "Japanese territory" or some similar word, that it is a matter of interpretation, and that we are thus required by WP:NPOV to attribute the interpretation, and cannot state it as a "fact". I'm not trying to exhaust anyone. I actually think you're the one trying to trivialize everything, by transforming our claims into strange and impossible to understand abstract frameworks that don't actually address the issue. You state above that MOFA claims to be stating "facts"--well, that means nothing. If I state "It's a fact that the ruling party of Japan is incompetent," that doesn't actually make it a fact. Wikipedia, for instance, doesn't allow "facts" stated in newspaper editorials to be used as if they are in a reliable source.

So, in summary, unless PD actually says the phrase or equivalent, "Japanese territory," to state that it does is to state opinions as if they were facts. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I go back to an earlier question that I didn't really see answered (my bad if it was). Did China at any time, or more specifically in the 1950s, not view the Ryukus as Japanese territory? The fact that the US was occupying Okinawa at the time doesn't necessarily mean much. Japan was occupied generally by the US, UK and other Commonwealth members after 1945. Does this mean Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu and Hokkaido were not considered Japanese territory at the time? John Smith's (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I don't see how it matters. According to the translation that Tenmei posted, the PD article asserts only that SI is a part of Ryukyu. It does not assert that it was a part of Japanese territory. For Wikipedia to claim that it says that is simply false. For Wikipedia to claim that certain, specific, named/attributed sources have made that analysis is completely correct. I really cannot understand what is wrong with a format that says "PD (mouthpiece of Chinese govt) says SI=Ryukyu in 1953.(PD ref) A variety of sources, including MOFA, Japanese journalists, and US researchers, have said that this was an implicit recognition that China considered SI Japanese territory at the time.(ref everybody worth reffing)" I guess I'm going to have to raise the issue on a noticeboard, probably NPOV. Once I write it up, I'll give the link on this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated before, RI was a traditional client state of China until Japan annexed it shortly before the first Sino-Japanese War. I am not going into the details, but it was part of a phony war in East Asia the led up to the 1894. Even nowadays, many Chinese view RI as Chinese territory being stolen away by the U.S. and Japan, but that's a completely different matter. Hope this is the last time I have to repeat to the same individuals. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to take that discussion to Ryukyu Islands, or, better yet, History of Ryukyu Islands, because that's not the view that our article (based on RS) expresses. Not saying that it does or doesn't bear here, but it sounds like that other article then needs some additions of an alternate point of view. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll give this a pass. My feeling is that making such edits there would be like pulling teeth. Not worth the effort. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Another new suggestion

How about this:

"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 are a part of the Ryukyu Islands.(reference the article directly) The Japanese government and some researchers (including researchers in the United States) have stated that this statement by this statement constituted an indirect admission that the Chinese government at that time believed the Senkaku Islands were a part of Japanese territory.(whatever refs we feel like including)"

Thus, we distinguish here--the PD article explicitly said that SI=Ryukyu. That much is indisputable. Then we state that this means, to a variety of people, that China was implying that Japan owns the islands. Is this better? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The part about the Japanese government does not seem right. My impression from the MOFA article is that it simply listed the SI ∈ RI proclamation under some headings that roughly mean "What's the Japanese government's position on China's Territorial Assertions?". A more elaborate post about this was made a few paragraphs above (just below your capitulation to Phoenix7777 arguments on MOFA).

Also, "indirect admission" can be considered as WP:SYN especially for MOFA. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

NO consensus for draft sentence

Qwyrxian's sentence is "original research". In other words, it is an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

A. Qwyrxian contrives a so-called "compromise" according to Bobthefish2 here. This re-write is unreasonable and it is

• (a) harmful to our on-going collaborative editing
• (b) harmful to the academic credibility of our article
• (c) harmful to readers who wrongly credit this misinformation

B. The complex sentence here is a Straw man. In other words, a straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation. Qwyrxian's words substitute superficially similar yet unequivalent propositions (the "straw man").

C. Qwyrxian compounds this mistake by explicitly stating the intentional function of the revised words.

• Purpose of draft sentence: This, I think, would show clearly that this is an opinion, not a "fact" ....

Qwyrxian's sentence must be rejected as written. In its short-term effect and long-term consequences, Qwyrxian's proposal is unhelpful.--Tenmei (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how it meets the definitions of WP:Synthesis or WP:Original research, as Wikipedia means them in our policies. You've said several times that it is synthesis, but have never once explained how it does so. As far as I can see, it states exactly what is in those sources, far more accurately than the current sentence does. Please understand, I'm not doing this out of some sort of sense of compromise--I'm doing it because I believe that the sentence is actually more accurate to the sources that way. However, it's always possible that I'm missing something. If you think it's OR, please explain. Since no one else seems to think it's OR/SYN, it's up to you show us what we are missing. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Illustration of "The Emperor's New Clothes", 1837

Acknowledging in the manner of Hans Christian Andersen and "The Emperor's New Clothes" -- the so-called "compromise" sentence is naked. It is Unsupported and insupportable and embarrassing. WP:Original research is recognizable by its nakedness, by the absence of verifying and confirming support. In this instance, it is the analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources and advance a novel position—called original synthesis. --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, I'd advise you not to spam. Posting the following:

Acknowledging in the manner of Cato the Elder: This is an example of framing. This spin is crafted in ways which marginalize. The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated.

... is not helpful especially when you are doing it 5 times in response to 5 different posts of mine. My suggestion for you is to focus more of your efforts in elaborating on your complaint about WP:SYN violations instead of writing unproductive responses. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- The lessons learned the hard way in the context of this thread are difficult. Any attempt to engage in reasoned colloquy has been and is likely to continue to be problematic.

QED — see the illustrative diff of Qwyrxian above The premise of the key sentence in the excerpt below is unsupported by WP:V + WP:RS; and in truth, this factoid is insupportable because it is explicitly contradicted by WP:V + WP:RS

"We achieve a neutral article by making each individual statement NPOV, which we do by carefully distinguishing between what is verifiable fact (i.e., things agreed upon by all/most), and what is interpretation of one side or the other. Let me provide a counter example. Later, in the Japanese argument section, it says, "A world atlas published in November 1958, by the Map Publishing Company of Beijing, treats the Senkaku Islands as a Japanese territory." This statement does not need a "Japan claims that," because this is a statement of fact. It is fundamentally different from the claim about the Remin Ribao article, which is an interpretive act." Qwyrxian 00:14, 16 February 2011

For emphasis and for enhanced clarity, the word factoid is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact".

On one hand, this is simple. The underlined sentence is simply wrong. It is 180° at variance with what reliable sources state plainly. However, explaining why it is wrong has proven to be very, very difficult -- perhaps impossible at the moment. This is because there are none is so deaf as who will not hear.

In our Wikipedia context, collaborative editing does not require me to explain more. It is enough to show that this is "original research". In other words, it is enough that we now identify the underlined sentence as an example of analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. This underlined sentence is an inextricable false premise of the so-called "compromise" ... and the house of cards constructed on this foundation is fatally unstable.

In the process of revisiting the definition of the word "compromise", I found a timely quote:

• All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take. — Mohandas Gandhi

This is not a "give and take" situation. --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, what you have just posted here is an undeniable example WP:Tendentious editing. You posted a whole bunch of links and quotes to thing that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia (for example, Ghandi's views on compromise have nothing to do with WP, because we actually don't work on a compromise making model, we work on a consensus building model). I read what you posted, but will not pursue a single link for things that don't make sense to me. Second, you completely failed to do what I asked in any way. You did not even try to show that the sentence in question is synthesis or more generally original research. Since you are asserting that we reject the sentence as a violation of that policy, you must explain how it is OR or SYN. I'm fairly certain that nothing in my sentence is synthesis or original research. Unless you can give a clear reason why it is, then your argument holds no merit. If you, perhaps, need help, there is a noticeboard that deals with OR issues where we can get advice.

Wait a minute, I just realized something. You say the "underlined sentence is OR." Who cares? That's not the question, because that sentence isn't going into the article. You have been told over and over again that WP:OR applies to the article, not to arguments made on the talk page. So not only did you refuse to do what you have to do, what you did has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, you've been repeatedly told that these policies do not apply to the talk page, and you even acknowledged that. Thus, I can only assume that you are being intentionally disruptive. This disruption is unacceptable.

At this point, you must either explain why the sentence I have proposed adding to the article is OR/SYN, or you must stop insisting that it is. Furthermore, you must cease being disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses, Qwyrxian -- I do deny categorically that there was anything tendentious about the diff above.

Threats are unwelcome and undeserved. Don't make threats.

FACT: Threats reveal more about the threatener than the threatened.

Threats ≠ WP:AGF ≠ Intimidation

The principal purpose of collaborative editing is substantially frustrated by intimidation or attempted intimidation. This is fundamental, axomatic.

Gandhi quote

Qwyrxian -- My words were responsive and explicit and moderate — including the Gandhi quote. As you know, Gandhi is an exemplar of patience and calm and the moderating effect of language. It was seemly to encompass a Gandhi quotation in a diff which tries to move towards a fact-based argument in contrast with a factoid-based one. In the contrast with the extravagant language which has become commonplace in this talk page and at Talk:Senkaku Islands, it was a prudent gesture. In light of your extreme comments above, it was foreward-looking.

Collaborative editing

Qwyrxian -- In specific, you yourself drew attention to the word "compromise" here and here and the same term is construed more by Bobthefish2 who used the word here. When I adopt your vocabulary, I demonstrate precisely the kind of collaborative editing which conventionally builds a structure of cooperation.

• FACT. It is on-point when I respond to a specific inquiry addressed explicitly to me. I show cooperative participation when I acknowledge and engage arguments you yourself have put forward.
• FACT: It is on-point to consider the intended and arguable unintended consequences of any edit; and I show cooperation when I address the specific intended consequences which you yourself have identified.

This was praiseworthy -- not tendentious, not disruptive. As you know, both of these are loaded words. My tone is mild when I urge you to use these accusatory adjectives with greater care.

Serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources

• Qwyrxian -- you argue that the purpose of re-worded sentence "would show clearly that this is an opinion, not a 'fact' ...."

• WP:Burden requires someone -- not me -- to identify a one-to-one correspondence between the so-called "compromise" sentence and the meaning, result, conclusion, implication you describe as intentional.
  This is not possible because your words and your explicit intention "serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources"

• Qwyrxian -- you argue that the a statement about a published map "does not need a "Japan claims that," because this is a statement of fact." and this is married with a follow-on sentence "It is fundamentally different from the claim about the Remin Ribao article, which is an interpretive act."

• Again, WP:Burden requires someone -- not me -- to identify a one-to-one correspondence between the so-called "compromise" sentence and the meaning, result, conclusion, implication you describe as intentional.
  This is not possible because explicitly the proposed sentence "serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources"

Qwyrxian -- In this teachable moment, I learn to be less patient. Tolerant restraint appears to have engendered the counterintuitive opposite of what a "reasonable person" would have predicted. --Tenmei (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Bob has posted a message to my talk page. However, on visiting here, I find kilobytes of discussion which seem to be only tangentially related to the question we professed to want resolved. I'm tired right now, but will come back again when I feel more intellectual. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I thought we probably want to discuss this among the two of us (i.e. in your talk page). -_- Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, I don't have to show any correspondence. You have to state how the sentence violates policy. It's that simple. You have still refused to do so. As such, your objections have no merit. Otherwise, I could just say, "Take out the 7th, 18th, and 39th sentence of the article, because they all violate WP:NPOV. It's obvious, you figure it out how, and it's up to you to prove that they're neutral." Sorry, that's not how it works. Explain how it violates policy. Explain what position it's advancing. Explain what is "OR" (that is, what is in the sentence, especially the newest version I posted above) that isn't in the sources. I've clearly laid out above why the sentence as written is not only OR, it's also false, because it says things that aren't even in the sources. You do the same here. Otherwise, we are all free to just ignore your concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- The sense of ultimatum is disquieting. The tone of you diff sounds more like a demand than a series of questions. If that were the case, the only constructive response is to ignore you. On the other hand, your questions would seem reasonable if they were not clothed aggressive language. I will answer in parts; and we'll see ....

Sentence I: "Tenmei, I don't have to show any correspondence."

• This cannot be accurate or valid, else WP:BURDEN would have no meaning. These are your sentences, not mine. You drafted them with a purpose in mind.

Sentence II-IV. "You have to state how the sentence violates policy. It's that simple. You have still refused to do so."

• No, I don't know what you mean. I have explained above, and I repeat the explanation below. What justifies the verb "refuse"?

Sentence V: As such, your objections have no merit.

• No. The merit of my observations are in themselves, nothing to do with me.

In fact, I did responded to your most recent inquiry. This is not refusal.

In response, I did use your vocabulary, your phrases (with hyperlinks to the context of your words) and your organization. In other words, I simply parroted your own words; and then I matched them with the text of the cited sources. This is bending-over-backwards to work with you. How else can it be interpreted.

The following is a cut-and-paste reprise:

A. Qwyrxian -- you argue that the purpose of re-worded sentence "would show clearly that this is an opinion, not a 'fact' ...."

If a "reasonable person" were to examine your initial revised sentence in the context of our article, and if that reader were to reach a conclusion which is consistent with "A"-above, then your revision would fairly be described as serving to "advance a position not advanced by the sources"

B. Qwyrxian -- you argue that the a statement about a published map "does not need a "Japan claims that," because this is a statement of fact." and this is married with a follow-on sentence "It is fundamentally different from the claim about the Remin Ribao article, which is an interpretive act."

If a "reasonable person" examined your initial revised sentence in the context of our article, and if that reader were to reaches a conclusion which is consistent with "B"-above, then your revision would fairly be described as serving to "advance a position not advanced by the sources".

As for your newly created, second revised sentences above, that will have to wait until tomorrow. I have no more time today for this. --Tenmei (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's synthesis at all. You're saying that if Source A makes a claim, and that claim is purely opinion, but they never explicitly say "this is an opinion," and then we say "In Source A's opinion..." that we're committing synthesis, because Source A never said it was an opinion. I don't even understand how that could possibly correct, because it would mean WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV almost never applies. Since your understanding of synthesis is so radically different than mine, I think the only thing we can do is take this to WP:ORN, and ask for input there as to whether or not this constitutes synthesis. I'm going to wait to do so until I work out a wording that Phoenix7777, at least, accepts or comes close to accepting.

Qwyrxian -- No -- absolutely not. I don't know whether it is more constructive to label this spin as a straw man or a red herring; but perhaps a label is unnecessary. Perhaps a clear, direct "no" will be a sufficient acknowledgment of another missed opportunity. Tenmei 17:20, 17 February 2011

The collapsed excerpt from the MOFA Q&A webpage illustrates the "original research"-problem at "B"-above. In response to Q4, four bullets identify selected illustrative examples: a letter, a newspaper article and two atlas maps published 30 years apart. Yes, we agree when you acknowledge that a published map "does not need a "Japan claims that," because this is a statement of fact." In contrast, nothing can be construed as verifying this: "It is fundamentally different from the claim about the Remin Ribao article, which is an interpretive act.". This very, very carefully considered, narrow, WP:V-based and WP:RS-based objection is not a quibble -- not tendentious, not disruptive. --Tenmei (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Counterargument

Graphic representation, select elements of a dispute.

Counterargument is an essential concept in our talk page venue and in the subject of Senkaku Islands dispute. For example,

• Bobthefish2 commented in early October 2010, "... a number of the Chinese claims have been disputed throughout the article but I find a distinct lack of counter-arguments to Japanese claims, which I believe should exist (otherwise, this wouldn't be a dispute).... I'd also a more balanced representation of arguments from both sides. [underline and bold and italics added for emphasis]

Parsing elements of a dispute

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

This working hypothesis includes terms which are presented in a triangular graphic representing a "hierarchy of disagreement" — note graphic pyramid at right and at Dispute resolution page.

Elements of a dispute

Parsing disputes which are the subject of our article

Parsing disputes in talk page threads

• Refutation

---

• Counterargument

People's Daily article,
January 8, 1953?

---

• Contradiction

"fraudulent translation"? "totally wrong"?

"fraudulent translation"? "totally wrong"?

---

• Responding to Tone

---

• Ad hominem

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Engrish?

---

Other arguably useful terms which may help framing issues

• Confirmation bias
• Attitude polarization

The analysis and terminology and argumentative dialogue of this talk page do mirror some of the parsing factors of our article about the Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The wall of text above is written in a confusing manner that encourages me not to spend more than 10 seconds reading it. However, my impression is that it is some form of protest about my editorial standards that cites a post I've made about 5 months ago. Interestingly enough, I believe the same individual has also made about 5 other threads that basically contained the same rhetoric. *yawn* Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- No criticism implied or intended; no words of explicit commentary about you.

The undeveloped structural components of an article about Senkaku Islands dispute were identified. Your relevant POV and analysis was acknowledged in this newer context. --Tenmei (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I have no idea what this table is supposed to mean, or how it helps us decide what to put in the article or how to phrase it. I feel like Tenmei is trying to abstract either the discussion about the article or the article itself, and show that there are holes in one or the other of these. But it's too abstract to help me. If anyone else finds value in this, or can interpret it, I'd appreciate it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a well-defined abstraction. On the other hand, this is also not relevant to what we are doing at the moment. It is best not to let this lead the discussion astray.

Discussion opened on noticeboard

I have raised the question about whether or not the current wording of the sentence about the People's Daily violated WP:NPOV as I and others claim on the NPOV noticeboard. You can view the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute. It's not the most active noticeboard, but it is the one most matching to the concern raised. Let's see if we get any useful help there. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that every single uninvolved editor who has commented at WP:NPOVN has said, in a variety of different ways, that the sentence is not correct as currently written? Is anyone supporting the current wording willing to consider that, just maybe, you're not looking at this sentence properly from an NPOV perspective? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

ENDORSE hopeful comment response by Qwyrxian. These hypothetical questions are straw men which conflate what is being disputed and what is not. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1st draft of sentence

Sentence, 25 Sept 2010

The first appearance of this sentence in our article seems to be here, 25 September 2010. The sentence was written by Yunboo who contributed for a short time from mid-August through mid-October 2010. Is this correct? Has anyone come across something else in our edit history which pre-dates this?

Image, 18 Sept 2010

The image of the article in People's Daily seems to have been introduced in our article by John Smith's here on 18 September 2010. Is this correct?

Both the sentence and the image have been deleted and restored several times. --Tenmei (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)