User talk:Oda Mari

RE: Nagisa Oshima edits

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

Can you tell me which part violates the "neutral point principle" in the vassal state

Hello, Oda Mari. Thank you for your comments. Can you tell me which part of my edit is not neutral? But I think the content you put down is indeed biased. You said the central government's troops "invaded". The term "invaded" itself is biased. Moreover, the way it describes things is inaccurate. The PRC troops entered Tibet and central government's administration was reestablished under the 17 Article Treaty 十七条协议. Later, part of the Tibet regional officials fled in 1959. But you said "PRC troops entered and forced them to flee". Your edit is biased at best and malicious at worst. Can we come back to FACT? I just added facts. Please show me concrete evidence that the facts I show was wrong. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerRat (talk • contribs) 06:27, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to en:WP. Because your addition was only the Chinese POV. The rest of the world does not think so. If you think it was not an invasion, please provide non-Chinese reliable sources in English, use the article talk page and ask for consensus to editors. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Oda Mari, I appreciate your voicing your opinions about the Tibet section in Vassal state. However, Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to constantly reverting it. Your revertion violates WP:POV. Here is some detailed evidence I collect at your request. They speak for themselves. I've highlighted the entering term in case you cannot find it.

• History of Tibet (1950–present) says: The history of Tibet from 1950 to the present was heralded by the People's Liberation Army entering Tibet in 1950-51. The first sentence. This is a good example of neutral POV.
• History of Tibet says: In October 1950, the People's Liberation Army entered the Tibetan area of Chamdo, defeating sporadic resistance from the Tibetan army. In 1951, Tibetan representatives participated in negotiations in Beijing with the Chinese government. This resulted in a Seventeen Point Agreement which formalized China's sovereignty over Tibet.
• TIBETAN HISTORY: TIBET UNDER CHINA IN THE 1950s AND 60s says: Chinese forces, carrying portraits of Mao Zedong, peacefully entered Lhasa in 1950 to liberate the city. and The Dalai Lama was 16 when the Chinese entered Lhasa in 1950..

They are just the top 3 results returned from Google. None of them say it's invasion. Please stopping spoiling the article by introducing your biased POV. Out of the less than 200 sovereign nations in the world, landsliding majority recognize Tibet as part of China. I really don't know what your biased point come from. What you insisted on the article is just the separatists sympathizers' POV, which shouldn't be put on wiki. The rest of world think it's entering instead of invasion. In case you want more evidence to refute your biased POV, I would be happy to provide. Thank you so much. (I am also moving this to Vassal state's talk page. SummerRat (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop Violating POV

Please stop your Wikipedia:Twinkle. Per POV, Ryukyu is not indigenous Japanese territory. The name Chinese: 中琉界沟 is original before Ryukyu Kindom was annexed by Japan. Removing "disputed" modifier before Diaoyu Islands violates Wikipedia:POV. It's only a claim made by JCG. Please look into my references carefully before vandalizing the article. Thanks.SummerRat (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand. The older name is not necessarily used in English speaking countries. The name of the trough is Okinawa Trough in en. See WP:COMMONNAME. Adding the Chinese name to the Okinawa Trough article is WP:UNDUE. Using Diaoyu Islands is also CPOV as the name of the islands is Senkaku Islands in en. Stop pushing your CPOV. This is en:WP, not zh:WP. Oda Mari (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand. I just put the old name in the "a.k.a." part, not changing the entry's name. Ryukyu Kingdom used to use Chinese characters before annexed by Japan in 1879. The trough's name in Chinese is legitimate. It's widely used in Chinese literature. If you have difficulty in reading Chinese sources or any legitimate reference I provided in Chinese, feel free to let me know. Thank you.SummerRat (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If the name is common in en, the inclusion would be acceptable. But it is not. Provide en RS that the name is common in en, please. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Oda Mari, can you explain the case in Ryukyu Kingdom where both Japanese and Chinese names are provided in parentheses? Many thanks. Ryukyu Kingdom used to use Chinese as the official language in writing. The name Chinese: 中琉界沟 is widely accepted in Chinese and Ryukyu historical records.SummerRat (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As the article Ryukyu Kingdom describes, the Chinese names, Lewchew and Luchu were historically used in English, and that is why the name is included in the article. But the Chinese name or its translated name of Okinawa Trough has not uses in en historically, currently, nor commonly. Even though the Chinese name was used in Chinese and Ryukyu historical records, it was not in en. Do you understand the difference? Oda Mari (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems you don't understand and I see the need to reiterate. "Include Diaoyu Islands" is a unilateral claim made by JCG. This is the very place that violates POV. My edit that adds "disputed" and balance it with the fact (CMS frequently cruise those waters and JCG is unable to keep them off) provide a full picture that the general public deserve to learn. If the article goes without "disputed" or "CMS's presence", the picture is distorted in that people either think JCG is cruising in undisputed waters. The way that I added this neutral term is common on wikipedia. Same for the South Kuril Islands where JCG is unable to cruise those waters (though they claim so). Without "disputed" people may think JCG is effectively cruising those waters (actually no way). If you find any difficulty in reading Chinese sources (but I guess you shouldn't since average literacy Japanese learn a large volume of Chinese characters), would you please feel free to let me know and I can explain to you? Many thanks. Hope it helps SummerRat (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your request to Arbcom

Hello Oda Mari. Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Senkaku Islands: you have not stated what the complaint actually is. If you believe that someone is violating the Senkaku decision you can raise the matter at WP:Arbitration enforcement. Most likely you will get a quicker response there than if you have to wait for an Arbcom decision. If someone merely goes around to articles and unilaterally changes the name of the islands, that is an obvious violation. You can find the original decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! To tell the truth, I was not sure where was the best place to talk about the matter as the original decision seemed not concrete enough to me. I am sorry if I made a mistake. If so, what should I do to fix it? Can I cancel the request? If it is appropriate to bring those edits to the WP:Arbitration enforcement, I'd like to do so. Please give me the advice. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to withdraw your Clarification Request, add a note to your statement that says you are withdrawing your request and ask for an Arbcom clerk to deal with it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Cheers! Oda Mari (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As for AE, when there are two editors with similar edits, can I file a request of two users? Or should I separately file two requests? Please let me know. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If you decide to file at AE, you can include two editors in the same complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Troubled waters

One last note on SoJ: we don't need NC-SoJ to remove instances of "East Sea", because almost zero English-language sources and atlases use it. Zero. The fact that the wider community tolerates your aggressive purges in that area is because (a) the topic is relatively obscure; and (b) the sources are relatively unanimous. Neither condition is true for Senkaku/Diaoyu. It has nothing to do with the sham "vote" that you guys organized on a project page. Your interpretation of NC-SoJ is an abusive overreach on Korea-related articles, but this extension to China-related articles—by analogy—is beyond belief. I overturned NC-TW because it was being abused in a like way. NC-SoJ will similarly crumble if its abuses are brought to the attention of the wider community. Don't give up something that you already have for something that you can't ever get. Shrigley (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Shrigley, how can I say this politely? Back the hell up. There was no "sham vote". There were three RfC's on the subject. Every single one of them upheld the current naming. NC-SoJ can't crumble, for the reason you yourself point out: we have to use the English language sources. Now, I will admit that I actually think Oda Mari is wrong on the use of "Diaoyu" in Chinese specific articles, but I don't think that her approach was wrong--she was using a precedent and attempting to apply it to another situation; even though I think the precedent doesn't apply, and WP doesn't really work on precedent anyway, the changes were done in good faith. As someone else advised Oda Mari above, if you think there's a violation of the general sanctions here, take the matter to WP:AE. Don't make inappropriate snipes on someone's user page. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In case people are not familiar with slang English, here is an explanation. Back the hell up=you the f**k shut up. Qwyrxian apparently favors Oda Mari, whose edits are tendentious every sane person shall agree. His example edits:

He changed the title of David Chan Yuk-cheung's memorial service's name from "Chan Yuk-cheung, Hero for defending the Diaoyu Islands" to "Chan Yuk-cheung, Hero for defending the Senkaku Islands" . If Chan Yuk-cheung strived to defend Senkaku Islands, how could he swam in waters around those islands to assert China's sovereignty claim?

He changed Chinese ambassador to Japan Cheng Yonghua's remark to "Cheng reiterated China's stance that China owns indisputable sovereignty over Senkaku Islands and did not accept the protest." Using Japanese name for Chinese stance is blatant POV and gave a wrong example. If Cheng really said things like that, Cheng definitely should have been fired.

Many more examples follow if you dig into his edits.64.134.235.43 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those edits are wrong. I believe, in fact, that the analogy of NC-SoJ is totally appropriate, which would mean that Diaoyu is the correct term there (though possibly Diaoyu (Senkaku), but the difference is pretty much hairsplitting at that point). What I don't agree is that there is some sort of "sham" vote. Just because someone doesn't like the results of consensus doesn't mean they get to call that consensus a fake, a mockery. As for my term (back the hell up) I was originally intending to use something much stronger, and toned it down as far as I could. Shrigley's message was seriously uncivil, and sometimes that calls for a more blunt approach. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether the way that you speak for Oda Mari is uncivil (say swearing to another user disagreeing with you) and whether the way Shrigley "admonishes Oda Mari not to stir the pot" can be impartially judeged by the general public. Oda Mari initiates a request for arbitration only because his recent attempt to replace every Diaoyu with Senkaku were boycotted by some other users. In the disguise of hearing on both sides, he "invited" involved editors but only was in the hope of obtaining a ruling in his favor to assert his behavior. Unfortunately, he shrink back after seeing another editor argues that his tendentious behavior clearly deserve a topic ban for 6 months.68.236.192.91 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)