Generally, I'll reply here if you post here, so please watch this page if you want to see my reply. If replying on another page, use the {{ping}} or {{reply}} templates to make sure I notice your reply. If I don't reply within a couple days on another page where you replied to one of my comments, feel free to drop a message here. Thanks! ···日本穣
I've got another proposed change to the guideline here. Your opinion on the matter, rather than me hearing Mujaki's, Jpatokal's, and Jfgslo's incorrect uses of other policies, would be helpful in determining a new consensus on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
End of year awards
The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
I award you this BarnSakura in recondition of your contributions to anime and manga articles during 2010 and because everyone deserves a little recondition every once in a while. ;) —Farix (t | c) 18:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's shameful that there's no 10th Anniversary event in Tokyo. Is there any way of determining and contacting the most active contributors in greater Tokyo (expats and Japanese) and seeing if there's interest in organizing something? LittleBen (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that most editors in Japan are not aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Tokyo. Wikipedia can surely do Geolocation [presumably this was used to advertise (to the general public in Japan) the visit and tech. talk by an Wikipedia infrastructure guy]. Surely the same mechanism could be used to advertise to logged-in users in Japan "if you're interested in a meet-up in Tokyo to celebrate Wikipedia's 10th anniversary then add your user name to Wikipedia:Meetup/Tokyo". I'd think it more productive to bring together active editors — experienced editors and new editors — than to hold a party for the general public that would attract lots of people, most of whom will never get involved. Advertising on both English and Japanese Wikipedia with the aim of bringing together English native speaker editors and Japanese native speaker editors could encourage people to team up to translate some of the more important articles on Japanese Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleBenW (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder where I might best ask about that (the advertising to people based on country/area they login from) and suggest that it could be used to organize 10th anniversary events and build local user communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleBenW (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent problem edits question
What does someone do re: edits that appear to be making more issues than they are solving? A user came to my attention last night/early this AM with an apparently automated "cleanup" of a page which wound up in refs backlog. I saw that the user has removed many links to non-free images due to lack of rationales. While I realize all must have a rationale, many editors who work on articles are not the original uploaders of these images, have no idea why they have disappeared and possibly not know what to do about the issue. These images then may wind up as redlink non-free in backlog and be deleted, depending on the experience level of the user who is trying to solve the problem.
Would it be possible for some type of change in policy re: these images, such as placing a notice on the article's talk page stating the problem and that the image may be deleted in X number of days unless corrected? This would provide all editors of the article fair notice of the issue and afford them the opportunity to correct the matter.
This will be my first try at policy--will list it there but might need to bother you again re: fine points on it. :-) Thanks again! We hope (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for future reference. Lists are copyright, which is why we don't copy out entire lists, but use a sample - I think 10 - 20% has been seen as acceptable, while this article copies out the entire list. The link at the bottom of the page doesn't give a source, but a site where any individual can create their own list. It's worth looking closely at what is given as a "reference" before declining a Prod as "has a reference". If you do a search on Ranker for the list you'll come upon the person who made the list a 13 year. SilkTork *YES!12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
since you were involved with the RFC/U in 2009, concerning Docu, I've noticed he is back to not signing his signature properly. look at the edit history of User talk:Docu as he removed a notice i made requesting him to sign properly. LibStar (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
apologies, I was looking at the top of his talk page which had some 2009 messages, it appears his recent use of signature uses date and time. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jpatokal
Jpatokal has seen it fit to revert my removal of your bit on the namidash and replacing that example with the star glyph. Do you have any issue with my changes, particularly concerning the fact that for the past year I have been trying to get some discussion as to whether or not we should allow the closest possible derivative of the namidash into article titles?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the 'crat who does most of the changes there, just thought I should introduce myself :p You may have seen me do a bit of clerking there, not that there's much to do - you take care of most of it (and good job there!). I do some clerking at CHUU too, there's a bit more work there. Anyway, if you see me doing anything wrong feel free to tell me and be as harsh as you want. dmz22:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Also, do you have a convenient template somewhere for the messages you leave on user's talk pages? (The "Your attention needed at WP:CHUS" one) dmz21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nihonjoe! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Apologies if I made an error when renaming. Is that sanction still open? It seems from the wikilink above to be six months from last January. --Dweller (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalize the first letter in the first and last words in the titles of English compositions (books and other print works, [...] etc.). The first letter in the other words is also capitalized, except for [...].
(My emphasis.) Nothing about what's not in English.
One part of WP:MOSJ promises to give guidance on capitalization for Japanese, but actually the section is devoted to the reproduction of text that's already in roman script (though NUttiLY caPITalized) when in Japanese, and therefore is irrelevant here.
What I don't see is any instruction that romanized versions of titles not in English should use the "up" style of capitalization in English (an instruction that would lead to indisputably bizarre results if applied to, say, German) or that glosses in English of titles in other languages should do so.
As you may have guessed from the number of places that you had to "correct", I was pretty sure of what I was doing. I was sleepy, so I may have made mistakes within it; and also you are free to dislike or disagree with it, but here it is (where "up" and "down" styles -- terms that I believe are used in the Chicago Manual of Style -- mean respectively "capitalize where doing so is not bizarre" [e.g. A Dictionary of Modern History 1789–1945] and "don't capitalize where not doing so is not bizarre" [e.g. A dictionary of modern history 1789–1945]):
Actual titles in English of books and so forth use the "up" style.
Titles in Japanese of books and so forth use the "down" style.
English-language glosses of titles in Japanese use the "down" style.
This or something like it is what I've done in a fairly large number of articles, adding up to a huge number of titles. (An example: Ihei Kimura.) I don't remember having read criticism of this practice. It's pretty much what's done in "my" (!) "Good Article" Hiroh Kikai, and it was not an issue in either promotion to or reassessment of GA status.
Your preference isn't clearly wrong, but I believe that my system is better, because:
It doesn't subject Japanese to a complex set of rules that are rather specific to English (and, outside WP, not even needed for English)
It may subtly help the hurried reader to distinguish between actual and made-up English titles
In the spirit of "WP:RETAIN" (which is admittedly about US/British spelling and not capitalization), I suggest that the article should stay as it was, and that you should therefore revert your (well-intentioned) edit. -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, no wonder that "General guideline" looked unfamiliar: you added it just days ago. I don't see discussion of it in the talk page, either. (Yes, there's discussion of capitalization there, but it's mostly about WacKY TRADemarKS and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User page I have reverted/rolled back, etc. 7 pages this IP user has vandalized in his/her short time online here today. Can you help--am trying to keep up with him/her. Thanks! We hope (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tokiwa is a documentary photographer. While the notion that photography can be art has been around for well over a century, the notion that all worthwhile photography is art is rather a new and controversial one.
As you're sure to know, infoboxes are far less popular among editors of articles on photographers, or artists, or other "creatives", than they are among editors of articles on footballers and so forth. The string "infobox" does not appear in the Featured article criteria. FAs on photographers that lack infoboxes include:
There are cogent arguments for infoboxes for certain kinds of people. (I wouldn't dream of removing them from articles on hurdlers, cheesecake models, and so on.) The arguments against them for people such as photographers are hinted at by your infobox for Ken Domon: Yes, Tokiwa was influenced by Domon, but so were dozens of photographers who have articles (or at least crappy substubs) in en:WP. Yes, Tokiwa can be added; but why Tokiwa in particular? And this "Influenced" field is a well-used way in which bios of living people of (unlike Tokiwa) borderline notability can get themselves linked to and thereby look a bit more impressive. In short, infoboxes here invite simplifications, exaggerations, and mere repetition; arguably they also insult the intelligence of the reader.
You're a bureaucrat and an exceptionally vigorous and good editor, with an excellent command of Japanese. I'm sure you have lots of WP stuff on your plate. If you've suddenly developed an interest in Japanese photography, I'm happy to know it. Do please add material. (A huge amount of non-trivia could be added to the article on Domon, for example. There are entire books about him.) If you haven't developed such an interest but anyway notice mistakes (such as my recent and idiotic one, caught by another editor, of transcribing 奥村 as "Okamura"), then do please fix them. But as it is I'm puzzled by the new salience of your conversions of one style to another. -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you have a question in your comments or not. Was there something specific you were trying to ask? I will note that {{infobox artist}} specifically mentions photographers as examples of who the infobox is meant for. Just because some photographers don't already have an infobox doesn't mean it should be used on any of them. Taking good photographs is an art, so I would definitely consider any photographer who is notable enough to have an article here to be a photographic artist regardless of their chosen photographic field.
As for my recent edits to a few photographer articles and a couple museum articles, I added links based on the content of the reciprocal articles, partially due to some photographer articles being labelled as orphans. If they are listed as having their photos in the permanent collections of a specific museum, I think it's fine to list them in that museum's article. It helps people find related articles, for one thing. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was and is a specific question: How does a biographical infobox in the article on a photographer such as Domon or Tokiwa so benefit the article as to outweigh the harm done by its repetitiveness, its invitation to exaggerate and oversimplify, and its insult to the reader's intelligence?
It's certainly OK to add the names of photographers represented in museums to the articles on those museums. Again, I welcome your well-intentioned and generally beneficial edit. I just wonder about the best way to choose the photographers, given that (in this example) hundreds are eligible for the treatment. (Those who are held highest in critical esteem? Those who sell the best? Those who have the best articles?) Of course categorization could be an answer, but I don't recall ever having seen "Category:People in the permanent collection of the Whatever Museum", and thus imagine that creating such a category would ruffle feathers. (Of course populating this particular category would be most tiresome -- three-hundred-plus articles! -- or a job for a bot.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an infobox insults a person's intelligence. All it does is provide a quick reference to some of the information in the article; nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like them, that's fine, but they are standard issue for articles about many different people in many different fields. I see no harm at all in including an infobox.
As for who to include in the list of photographers in the permanent collection, I just went through the list of articles linking to the museum article and found those which stated they were in the permanent collection. Pretty simple, really. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the infobox in Toyoko Tokiwa. It starts by telling the reader that this is Toyoko Tokiwa (about which there was no doubt). And then (photo caption aside):
Birth name: 常盤 刀洋子
For Tokiwa, the precise name is a biographical triviality. (It's not so for all Japanese photographers; e.g. Moriyama Daidō actually had work published as by Moriyama Hiromichi, which I presume was the original reading of the characters of his original name.)
Born 15 January 1930 (1930-01-15) (age 80)
Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan
Nationality Japanese
Field Photography
Well, yes, but trivially easy for the hurried reader to extract from the article. (I mean, I cannot read Portuguese, but were this article all in Portuguese I'd be able to infer as much.) And also partly trivial (our opinion of her work would be unchanged if we suddenly discovered that no, she was born in Kagawa in 1929).
Works Kiken na Adabana
Yes, but (i) this is shown in the caption to the photo above; and (ii) by itself it will mean nothing to more than a handful of people. (Arguably this title/book is hugely overemphasized in the article -- which of course would be my fault, not yours -- and this should read "the portrayal of working women" or similar.)
Influenced by Ken Domon
Yes, but I've no particular reason to think that she was exceptionally influenced by him in particular. She was influenced by the realism of the time, which was spearheaded by Domon; that's all I know at this point about the relationship between the two. I do know that her photography was directly influenced by her elder brother (whose name I don't know) and by her husband.
It's repetition and (well intended) simplification. And this kind of thing isn't merely endemic in bio-infoboxes, it's almost inevitable with them.
Infoboxes are useful with, say, cars. You know that for a model of car a number of fields can be provided with data that are usually unambiguous: First revelation to the press; first sale; first sale in the EU; first sale in north America; width; height; length; wheelbase; fuel consumption measured in one way; ditto measured in another; blah blah blah. An infobox is superb for this. It's also good for generic kinds of human: major-league baseballers and so forth. For other kinds of human, it dumbs down at best.
Anyway, the infobox, however well intended, adds nothing to Toyoko Tokiwa, which is why I am about to remove it.
I do appreciate much of your other work on that article, notably your separation of "references" and "notes". Welcome to the world of Japanese photography (apologies if I didn't notice any earlier contributions by you). Actually I think that Japanese photography is going through a longish period of relative uninterestingness, but excellent work came out just last year (with far less fanfare than what greeted the humdrum work of the hyped), and we can always root around the more distant past and have hope for the future. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the infobox is detrimental as the whole point of the infobox is to offer a summarization of the most important elements in the article. It's meant to duplicate information in the article (and, in fact, should not contain anything not mentioned in the article). If you have a problem with infoboxes, perhaps you need to open an RfC on whether to exclude them. They are very widely accepted in many different kinds of articles (including biographies of all kinds), so I think you will have an uphill battle. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even putting aside the question of the relative importance of elements for a moment, no, the infobox does not summarize elements but instead merely repeats them. Here's one sentence from the article, as it was when it had the infobox:
Toyoko Tokiwa (常盤 刀洋子) was born in Yokohama on 15 January 1930.
Here's what the infobox said:
Birth name常盤 刀洋子
Born 15 January 1930 (age 80) Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan
Unsurprisingly, this isn't as concise as the text. (And anyone who does use it and doesn't happen to be fluent in kanji will be baffled by 常盤 刀洋子. This of course could be fixed, but via more repetition within a "Nihongo" template.)
Well, it calculates her age for us.
But let's return to relative importance. Are you saying that your opinion of her work would be unchanged if it were suddenly discovered that no, she was born in Kagawa in 1929? -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I have know idea why you're so hung up on this, and I have no idea what in the world you are asking in your latest post here. A summary will always repeat information. Always. Your post makes this seem as if it's something new to you, or that you're surprised by this well-known and ancient concept. Infoboxes are an accepted standard in biographical (and many other) articles here. That's a fact. That you don't like them is irrelevant. If you don't think they should be used in biographical (or other) articles here, then pop on over to the Village pump and make your case. Edit warring on this article isn't going to help your case as removing the infobox is considered vandalism. Please stop this stupidity now. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because I look at Hoary's contribs page from time to time. This happens to be a pet peeve of mine. What, I'd love to know, does an infobox add to this article? To any article, actually. It reduces a topic to uncomfortably packaged factoids (which surprisingly often turn out to subvert the truth—round pegs in square holes); it hogs the critical space at the top and precludes the use of a prominent image, flexibly positioned. In its compartmentalisation, it imposes a sameness about WP's treatment of topics. No wonder editors won't allow them on classical music composer pages. Tony(talk)12:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syabi
When I wrote the above, I hadn't been aware of this edit of yours. It's a helpful one; thank you.
It is a little problematic, though. For example, while it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Tamura is represented there (and I think I've read that his namesake is), the article on him doesn't say this. The print that was used for the catalogue cover shown in the article was borrowed from Pentax's camera museum, as were all the prints by Tamura that were shown in that exhibition -- or so we are told on p.282 of this (very handsome) catalogue.
It's tempting just to say that the museum has holdings of work by a number of Japanese and non-Japanese photographers and also every Japanese photographer whose tedious little article here starts robotically with the statement that he or she is or was "a renowned Japanese photographer". (Remember this?) But I suppose we must be civil about the encyclopedia itself, as well as about each other's stylistic and other preferences. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reread Tamura's article and found I'd misread it previously. It was a one-time exhibit, not a permanent contribution. I've removed Tamura. Se the section above for more info on why I think it's a good thing to include links to photographers and artists whose works are in the permanent collections of the museum. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if Tamura were in the collection. The last time I looked, though, there was no online catalogue of holdings or even list of people whose works were there. This information was very patchily available in terminals within the museum. The (Japanese-language-only) 日本写真家事典 = 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers is effectively a miniature encyclopedia of all the Japanese photographers who were in the collection 11 or more years ago, plus a tiny handful who weren't -- this, I think, is the closest that somebody who's not physically at the museum can get to a catalogue. -- Hoary (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A note on my talk page might have helped avoid this, I am an editor in good standing after all - aren't I? In particular, the wording "the same editor complaining there" jars a bit with my opening words at the RFC/NAME thread of "Posting here for comment" and indeed the entire tenor of my comments in that RFC. The apparent lack of even cursory examination of the history is troubling, since everything needed is right there on the subject editor's talk page. Really, could you talk to me first please? I have user talk and email and everything. (Sorry, I'm a little pissed right now) Franamax (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the user's talk page and found nothing there which explained why you went against consensus at RFCUN (to me, that talk page is a bit confusing, all around). However, the ANI thread explains the issue much better. I'm sorry if my comment came off as rude as it wasn't intended that way. I was merely trying to point out what I saw as a possible issue. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you were right to question what happened and for sure trying to sort through the user talk page and AN/I thread would be a bit daunting to say the least. I certainly was prepared to accept the consensus on the name - except that my initial vague concern turned out to be right in almost the worst way possible, and in my opinion became a direct violation of UNAME which had to be acted on immediately, as there was potential for real-world harm (in the reputational sense, not the physical). It was just a little disconcerting to see the issue pop up at the end of my night and be thinking "geez, didn't you read all 250KB of this crap?". :) My blood pressure is back down now, though I still have a dozen annotated diffs in Notepad I was constructing my defense with. ;) I do understand the basis of your concern though, and if you still do have concerns I'm happy to work through them with you. It was an unfortunate situation and if I could have handled it in a better way I'd like to discover that. Franamax (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. About a day ago, you changed Arvin.limpoco.247 → Kuroi.Namida. That was done at 06:41, 13 January 2011. But now I'm seeing that the original username made some edits a bit after that, at 03:07, January 14, 2011 and 3:09. Are they socking, or is this a false positive? — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)13:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked, but it could be a SUL thing. Maybe the user forgot to sign out of the old account, and the edits happened here? If it keeps happening, a SPI case could be opened. Anyway, Nihonjoe would probably know more :p demize(t · c)14:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they forgot to logout before coming here and recreated the account. Just let them know on their talk page and leave it at that unless it becomes abusive. There's no reason to open an SPI case unless they start abusing the second account. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding CHU
I've seen and dealt with a couple superseded requests, and was wondering if the policy/guide to clerking could possibly be changed to allow clerks to close obviously superseded requests, sort of going along with xeno's comment on Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Simple/Assistance. It would be more convenient for the 'crats, and not too much trouble for the clerks. Not that typing {{Not done}}, superseded ~~~~ is very hard :p Anyway, if you think it would cause too much trouble, that's fine, I just thought it might be helpful. demize(t · c)15:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm guessing the bot keeps a list of users that it'll pay attention to templates from. Anyway, I'll bring it up at the noticeboard in the morning (er, probably afternoon, but whenever I wake up is morning :p). demize(t · c)05:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone from Deseret News wants to interview me and a couple other Wikipedians from Utah for an article he's writing about Wikipedia's 10th anniversary. If you're interested, let me know, and I'll email you the number. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs15:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you double check and make sure that the transliterations are correct at Gosick#Episode list? I used the Kanji Converter tool to transliterate the titles, but have little faith in its accuracy. And if you can, could you also translate the remaining titles? —Farix (t | c) 12:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If you have time, I'd be happy if you could have another look at this featured list candidacy. Remarks are added for all treasures so the only outstanding issue are the Image columns. As I wrote, I am not too fond of adding empty columns. Also feedback here was rather negative about adding such columns. Adding image columns later as images become available is not a big deal. Somebody not familiar with table syntax could always ask for help (at wikipedia help, wikiproject Japan, me or any other place). bamse (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think that Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is not a part of the Studio Ghibli's films. I understand your point of view but, nowadays, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is considered to be a part of Studio Ghibli since without Nausicaä, Studio Ghibli might not exist. Not only it, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind nowadays belongs to Studio Ghibli (distribution rights, copyright, animators, directors). Please, do not be purist in these terms because Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is very important for Studio Ghibli. Because if Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is not in the page of Studio Ghibli, it would remain unhooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.128.253.83 (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, I only wanted to create a tree from the English article for display. Now I find that a well-researched version of his family tree of this great family exists. It would be good to have this made into a tree. It's also highly topical at the moment, because of the drama surrounding Stanley Ho, who is related. I'm not used to looking at these diagrams, so any help you could offer to translate that into a wiki-standardised format would be fantastic! Cheers, --Ohconfucius¡digame!09:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the name change for me. I'm asking you because you were active a few minutes ago and I think you might be active. Generation of Youth for Christ is experiencing an edit war of sorts atm. There's a person trying to make it promotional in tone and another that is very antagonistic towards it, I reverted quite a few edits and tried to start a discussion on the talk page but I will be in violation of 3RR if I keep on. (They're both putting their edits back in, etc)
I think the page deserves semi-protection, I'm not sure how to ask since there are no 3RR violations, (unless I've reverted more than three times trying to combat the changes and asking for comment in the talk page).
Thanks for the protection, do you mind rolling the article back to the version it was before the edit war began? The current version violates WP:MISSION, has external links in text and lists that make it seem like a directory. Also, the editors removed third party sources during the edit war and it reads more like a promotional now after the war. WikiManOne03:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last revert I made to the previous version until I gave up due to the 3RR rule. [1] If you make a rollback, I think that would be the most appropriate one to take it back to. Of course, that is your decision. WikiManOne03:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, protection doesn't work that way. You will need to discuss the issues on the article talk page and then come to a consensus as to how things should be in the article. Then we can talk unprotecting it and making changes. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but by locking it down at the version they made after refusing to stop making changes and talk about it, you're just giving them what they want. I tried to discuss with them regarding the changes but they continued to make them anyway. Basically, what I am trying to respectfully say is that you are rewarding them for edit warring and refusing to reach consensus before making the changes, at least to me it seems logical that the article should be taken to the version that existed before two new users showed up and began the unilateral editing. Again, your decision. WikiManOne03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (2)
Hi, Thanks for changing my username. How do I merge the old and the new account in the Sister Projects like Commons or Wiktionary? Will it happen automatically or do I have to manually do that? Thanks again --ashwinikalantritalk05:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to completely disable the old account? Twice now I've logged in to the old one and accidentally made edits on it without realizing my error. WikiManOne01:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing which could be done to prevent you from logging in to it as even blocked editors can still login. Unless you are using multiple accounts on various WMF projects, you shouldn't ever be logging in under the old username. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, yeah, the reason is I still have "Salegi" as my account on the commons and some of these web-tools connect to the secure server which seems to be automatically logged in as the old account whenever I use commons. I'll figure out something. WikiManOne01:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for locking the page. I was in the process of making such a request for similar reasons. It appears you've saved me a lot of time. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe -- the diff above makes plain that you now have two problems. One of them is addressed below. This part is easy.
The more pernicious problem is created by the extent that you are construed to endorse the strategy and tactics Bobthefish2 has employed in this unique context. You encourage what should be discouraged. --Tenmei (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the context your action serves to quash. Here is one sentence and Bobthefish2's response to the invitation to it.
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.
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. ISBN0824824938. 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. ISBN978-4-00-022778-0. 「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)[reply]
Archived threads address the same issue. As you can see for yourself, Bobthefish2's problematic role is consistent with the views expressed in the diff above.
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)[reply]
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:
"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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1 — 16 Wrapping up some old issues
"... 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)". [2][3][4][5][6][7]"
"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
"... 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
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)[reply]
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."
Phoenix7777's diff was a measured response to the proposed status quoQwyrxian sought to contrive; and indeed, I join Phoenix7777 in believing that WP:V+WP:RSmust trump empty words.
We were 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?
The article needs to be unlocked.
In this highly unusual situation, IMO, you need to apologize to Phoenix7777 -- not because you were mistaken. I don't think that's an issue for anyone. I'm thinking of the best interests of the project when I suggest that you need to explain to Phoenix7777 that just because it looked like something was wrong, that doesn't mean that he was insensitive or unjustified or incorrect or ... I don't know what.
In other words, you need to remember that the word "steward" in the real world has useful connotations. In our wiki-context, the question becomes: "What are you trying to make better?" --Tenmei (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a nut-shell, User:Tenmei's trying to convince you that I was lying and all his buddies are as innocent as Jesus. As for myself, I feel a need to write pages of rhetoric. If you feel like getting into this mess, all you need to do is to read a couple of recent threads on my talk page and compare to what I tried to delete in Senkaku Islands dispute. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
