Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


OK, I have placed this article on indefinite protection. I tried to avert this for a while because the article's undergoing a major reconstruction, but the edit warring has continued, and I see no other alternative. As such, any major edits will have to receive compromise before they can be inserted. My suggestion: start an RFC or mediation immediately. Perhaps major changes can be placed at Senkaku Islands dispute/temp; friendly jockeying on that page will be permitted (e.g., several reversions of different items with a day); unfriendly jockeying will not (reverting the same item more than once). If there are pressing uncontroversial changes or whole-scale changes that have received consensus, you may use the {{editprotected}} template, and an administrator can add the content. If the edit war has calmed down and all sides come to an agreement to stop edit warring, feel free to request removal of the protection at that time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A good solution would be to simply ban those who have been maliciously removing edits of others. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:BAN, only a community consensus (which would have to be established at WP:AN or WP:ANI), and Arbcom decision, or Jimbo Wales fiat allows for the banning of editors, either site wide or from topics/pages. Generally speaking, we would have to show that we've tried to fix the problem ourselves first, and there's so many steps we haven't taken that I doubt you could get consensus for that. Note that the ANI thread that Magog opened is already marked resolved, and no admin indicated that this is anything other than a highly contentious content dispute. In any event, since right now no one can "maliciously remove" any edits under full protection, that problem is basically solved.
While I resisted before, I guess mediation is a fair step. I recommend informal Mediation (the WP:Mediation Cabal). To do that we two things. First, we need to craft a clear, specific explanation of what we want out of Mediation. My suggestion on that regard is "We need the help of an independent facilitator to keep discussions focused, and with the goal of achieving an article which meets the requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:V." The second thing we need is the agreement of all involved parties--the Cabal won't mediate unless everyone agrees to participate. So, I guess a quick step would be for everyone who intends to continue working on this page to state whether or not they will agree to Mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What a pity.
I agree with the choice of mediation. Some authority figure from an independent background may help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with mediation, and the outstanding issue that requires mediation is that of the Title/name. Reason is as we discussed before in the "Island page" (not located in the "dispute" page though), that previous analysis (google search) was shown to be flawed.San9663 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The title issue would be much more suitable to an RfC. And fixing the title doesn't fix the underlying problem--the page was protected because of edit warring and a disagreement, particularly over how to represent and choose sources. No edit warring has actually occurred over the name. At this point, we're actually making constructive progress on the name--we agree that the previous study was flawed, and we're still in the process of collecting new data to move forward. It's very possible that we are going to run into an impasse soon if some people adamantly stick to the old results and refuse to consider new ones, but that's why I'd prefer that the mediation be open ended, so that it can address the overall issue of POV editing and poor editing behavior on the article, not just a single aspect of NPOV.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. btw, what is RfC? San9663 (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
An RfC is a "Request for Comment." Basically, someone neutrally describes the issue being disputed in short terms in a new section, then adds a special tag. Adding that tag automatically adds a note on the RfC page, which is an indication to other editors not currently involved that there is an issue here which needs wider community input. In addition, it's not unusual to canvas (following a very specific set of rules listed at WP:CANVAS), particularly on relevant Wikiprojects (here, for example, the Japan, China, and Taiwan Wikiprojects, plus possibly some more general ones like the Geography Wikiproject). That message stays active for 30 days. The idea is that it's a recognition that in our insular group of editors, we've reached something of an impasse, so we're wondering if the rest of the community has input. In instances like this page, it sometimes causes as much harm as good, if the people who show up just shout jingoist slogans without actually looking at the data. But it still doesn't hurt to try. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S., I assume everyone's watching the other article to, but, just in case, I just added some new data regarding the name over on Talk:Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I seems the's site entry is less "POV" than this English one, surprised me a bit. In fact, the history/chronology chart in is much better than this one. Even the POV comparison section would put the same section here in shame. I would suggest taking the common parts of the jp/zh wiki sites to start with.San9663 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, but, in any event, I oppose on principle. Other wikis do not follow the exact same pillars/policies/guidelines that we do, and they don't interpret the shared ones in the same way. We have no way of knowing if just because something is approved there, it should be approved here. We should just evaluate based on our principles, understanding, and consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sure all wiki's have similar rule, just different editors with different motives and different history of evolution. I found the structure of presenting POV in the jp version pretty clear and good. I am just suggesting there are lesson to be learned from there, and some ideas about how to fix the problems in this entry here. The wiki principles and understandings are similar. It is the "consensus" history that were different. San9663 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with San9663 that the jp version is better organized, and I wish that we could revise this site based on the strcuture of the jp site. Xjian77 (talk)18:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to unprotect when the parties agree to come to consensus and not revert war with each other. I seriously doubt that the jp wiki rules are so different that a translated text would be incompatible with en's. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Bump. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to wait until a decision is reached regarding the naming of the article. Qwyrxian, myself, and perhaps other editors would open submit a RfC on that issue in the neat future. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright. I was mostly bumping to avoid bot archival. No further response needed for now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To the editor posting in Japanese

This is the English Wikipedia. The majority of editors cannot read what you wrote. Since I have no easy way to know if what you wrote is useful, balanced info, or hatred and attack speech, I have to remove it from the page. If you have something you want to communicate, please get someone to help you with posting it in English. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"五毛党のみなさん" most definitely refers to the 50 Cent Party, so I'm positive that it wasn't something that was necessary. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If this guy is saying the Chinese Cyber Army has invaded this page, then I don't know what he's smoking. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper article

Can an admin remove the "proposed deletion" tag from the newspaper article image? Or maybe someone can insert the correct template to request this is done. John Smith's (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Youtube video

John Smith raised a concern about the posting of this youtube video being the same as treating this talk page as a forum. I have reverted a few of his recent edits, but I don't mean to antagonize him or make this personal. I don't quite agree with his reason of deletion and it would be nice if he or someone else can explain why it is a legitimate reason. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There is now an entry of the collision incident and the video links are available there. Shall we just provide and link and do whatever related to the recent events there? btw, can the administrator add the collision entry link to this page? San9663 (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{edit protected}} In the "Historical events" section, in the 2010 section, please change the first line from "7 September 2010: A Chinese fishing trawler collided with two Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats in disputed waters near the islands." to "7 September 2010: A Chinese fishing trawler collided with two Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats in disputed waters near the islands." In other words, please add a wikilink to the new article. I don't believe that there is or could be any controversy about this edit, since it just updates to make sure the new aricle is linked. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


しらないひとから恥知らずと罵倒されましたので丁寧な言葉でコメントしますが。中国はサンフランシスコ条約に署名(参加)していませんので、サンフランシスコ条約にもとづくかのようなアメリカの視点で記述してはいけない。日中間にサンフランシスコ条約は関係がない。1)日中共同声明と日中友好条約にふれるべきである2)日中共同声明では「台湾および澎湖諸島」にかんする中国の立場を日本はみとめたのだから「台湾の一部である尖閣を返還せよ」が中華人民共和国政府の見解である。これは台湾の帰属に関する微妙な外交関係を含んでいるのであるから、ろくな資料も読まず感覚的に編集することのないように。英語のお上手なわりにおべんきょうや調べごとがお好きではない五毛党の方もたくさんいらっしゃいますのでご注意くださいませ。敬具あらかしこ。-- (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)ノートの記述を勝手に削除するひとがいますがやめてください。-- (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please communicate to this user in Japanese that he needs to have proficiency in English to communicate here? Or that he might be better off at ja:? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and that we don't want conspiracy theory junkists posting here anyway? Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe Oda Mari gave him an informal warning, which the user proceeded to ignore. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
(removed communist conspiracy theory bullshit and personal attacks) -- (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Riveting exposition there, 118.18.x.x (Osaka, Japan). What was your intended goal of calling Oda Mari a "communist party sympathizer"? To make foes? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
From now on, I think we should adopt a policy of deleting all non-English posts. Since a lot of us cannot understand Japanese, such posts would generally be useless. And by the way, Oda Mari has a very pro-Japanese position in this issue (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Just because he has the sense to play by the rules doesn't mean he is a communist sympathizer. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted them before myself. If this were an article about a music group, or a kind of fish, or something else relatively non-controversial, I think we could leave it up until a native speaker sees it. But I'd be willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases, someone who posts here in non-English is not providing us with helpful insight into the article (anyone who was would either be working on their native language's wiki, or they'd be taking the effort to try to get a translation, at least a machine one). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
And another one just appeared. Deleted and user blocked. If it's too big of a problem, I can softblock the whole /17 range for a bit, as there doesn't appear to be too much activity coming from it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It's the same idiot. Maybe block all non-registered users from posting will help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Request edit to "Sino-Japanese co-development on the disputed islands" section


In 1997, a Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement regarding the fishing management and rights of sea area between China and Japan has been reached. It was "entered into force in 2000, the waters of the East China Sea are divided into four jurisdictional zones: (a) undisputed territorial seas; (b) exclusive fishing zones within each country’s EEZ; (c) a shared, intermediate fishery zone within the EEZ’s that straddles a hypothetical median line; and (d) high seas. While the principle of coastal-state jurisdiction applies in the former two zones, the principle of flag-state jurisdiction applies in the latter two. Crucially, with an enlightened view to immunise bilateral commercial fishery rights and related issues from sovereignty-related contestations, the territorial waters adjacent to the islands were excluded from the application of the fisheries agreement. Instead, the extant fisheries dispensation (the 1975 Japan-China Fishery Agreement), which deemed the areas around the islands as part of the high seas, was allowed to prevail.[44]
^ ANU East Asian Forum, by Sourabh Gupta, Samuels International

I've actually found what seems to be a text copy of that very same agreement

It clearly is very different from what is described by this Gupta. For example: 第十四条 1 この協定は、その効力発生のために国内法上必要とされる手続がそれぞれの国において完了した後、両締約国の 政府の間の公文の交換によって合意される日に効力を生ずる。この協定は、五年間効力を有する。その後は、2の 規定に従ってこの協定が終了するまで効力を有する。 2 いずれの一方の締約国も、他方の締約国に対し、六箇月前に文書による予告を与えることにより、最初の五年の 期間の満了の際又はその後いつでもこの協定を終了させることができる。 3 千九百七十五年八月十五日に署名された日本国と中華人民共和国との間の漁業に関する協定は、この協定の効力発生の日に効力を失う。

Thus, the 1975 Japan-China Fishery Agreement (the "extant fisheries dispensation" claimed by Gupta) was explicitly stated to have lost its force as soon as this agreement becomes effective.


第一条  この協定が適用される水域(以下「協定水域」という。)は、日本国の排他的経済水域'及び中華人民共和国の排他的経済水域とする。

Clearly, the treaty is never meant to have anything to do with territorial waters, only EEZ waters.

Given this, it would seem appropriate to delete this entire passage, and perhaps include a link to either this copy of the agreement or another equivalent. At the very least, the claim can be clearly attributed to be the opinion of this ANU East Asian forum. --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the conflict between your text and the English quote above. Your quote is about EEZ and about the time period it applies? Can you please elaborate? In the English quote it divided the waters into 4 different regions. Only the first one (a) is "territorial waters" with no dispute where the Fishery Agreement does not apply? In sections 6 and 7, it listed the coordinates of the regions and shows that "the areas near the diaoyu/senkaku excluded in this agreement?San9663 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's start with the one easiest to see. According to Gupta, the "extant fisheries disposition", which according to him is the 1975 agreement, was allowed to prevail in certain areas. This would mean the 1975 agreement still has force, but it is explicitly said to have lost its force in the real 1997 agreement's Article 14.3. You don't think that's a big contradiction, and an outright lie? I mean, the line isn't hidden in some other obscure document, but right in a document whose total length was hardly long. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll also say that BTW, I've actually read an English translation of the 1975 agreement (since it is not in Japanese or Chinese, it is not authentic, but should be accurate) Nowhere does it designate any patch as "part of the high seas". In fact, it mentions explicitly in Article 1 that it excludes territorial waters[1]. Take a look at the reference and see if you agree with me, but that's just a side story since the 1975 agreement has lost its force. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Gupta is correct that you may reasonably summarize the agreement to saying it establishes B and C. However, there is nothing in the agreement that covers A&D. In fact, in explicitly stating the agreement is only about EEZs in Article 1, it leaves the problem of territorial vs high seas untouched. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
One may also note the rather minimalist official Japanese reply, which says the same thing as I do about the the content of the agreement [2], though they neglect to mention that the 1975 agreeement is already useless. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
(The 1975 and 1997 agreements do not differ a lot?) So you are saying that the Fishery agreement is about certain EEZ area north of these islands, and does not say anything regarding (a) 'territorial waters with no dispute" and (b) excludes these islands and the surrounding. So you are saying that there is basically NO AGREEMENT at all around the islands. While Gupta says 'no agreement' implies "high seas", but you are saying he misrepresented the Agreement by (1) not using the word "implies" (2) whether it "implies" or not is still up to interpretation. Is this what you are saying? San9663 (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not too far off, though it'll be more accurate to say that from Article 1 onwards, the Fishery Agreement explicitly does not cover any territorial waters, disputed or not and regardless of its Lat-Long coordinates. The 1975 agreement had to write "excludes territorial seas", but it is not necessary this time because the very term EEZ has been defined to not include the 12-mile territorial sea under Article 55[3] of UNCLOS.
Also, "implies" would mean that the agreement itself does suggest what he's saying, though not in so many words. This is, IMO, and in the opinion of the Japanese government[4] (and I suspect the PRC government) untrue.
As for the general idea that without an agreement, disputed territorial seas = high seas, all I can say is that I don't think any government, especially those with disputed territories, will agree with that idea. Even those that are on the "not-in-present-control" side like China over the Diaoyu Islands or Argentina over their Malvinas, since it'll come to bite them in the butt if they ever get control. What they'll do is argue that the chunk of rock is theirs, and accordingly it is their territorial seas, instead of it being "high seas". So IMO it is hardly a valid interpretation, and not by a light year does it deserve to be enshrined in Wikipedia as an approved fact like it is now. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kazuaki Shimazaki, 13 November 2010

{{edit protected}} Please change

"In 1997, a Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement regarding the fishing management"


"According to Sourabh Gupta of Samuels International, in 1997, a Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement regarding the fishing management"

because text of source document being referenced is so different from what is asserted it is clearly wrong; details have been added to Article's Talk Page. IMO, adding the requested attribution is a proper, minimal interim measure pending discussion to remove the paragraph entirely.

References cited in support of edit request

Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay that can't hurt.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


I'd like to add portal links to all of the involved countries. Would this be controversial in any way? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe -- IMO, this is not controversial. It is not so much an issue of creating or causing controversy; rather, the proposed portal links simply acknowledge an on-going controversy which is already followed by individuals and groups. Compare Talk:Spratly Islands dispute or Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute, both showing multiple protal links.--Tenmei (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems uncontroversial to me, as long as all of the relevant countries are included, of course ;) Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed section and table

Just after the introduction and before the dispute discussion begins, would it be helpful to add a "Geography" section with the following table? Note that Chinese names come first in this table.

Table of of disputed Islands, Chinese first
Table of of disputed Islands
Chinese name Japanese name coordinates Area(km2) Highest elevation(m)
Diaoyu Dao (釣魚島) Uotsuri Jima (魚釣島)[1] 25°46′N 123°31′E / 25.767°N 123.517°E / 25.767; 123.517 4.32 383
Huangwei Yu (黃尾嶼) Kuba Jima (久場島)[2] 25°56′N 123°41′E / 25.933°N 123.683°E / 25.933; 123.683 1.08 117
Chiwei Yu (赤尾嶼) Taishō Jima (大正島)[3] 25°55′N 124°34′E / 25.917°N 124.567°E / 25.917; 124.567 0.0609 75
Nan Xiaodao(南小島) Minami Kojima (南小島)[4] 25°45′N 123°36′E / 25.750°N 123.600°E / 25.750; 123.600 0.4592 149
Bei Xiaodao(北小島) Kita Kojima (北小島)[5] 25°45′N 123°36′E / 25.750°N 123.600°E / 25.750; 123.600 0.3267 135
Da Bei Xiaodao(大北小島/北岩) Okino Kitaiwa(沖ノ北岩)[6] 25°49′N 123°36′E / 25.817°N 123.600°E / 25.817; 123.600 0.0183 nominal
Da Nan Xiaodao (大南小島/南岩) Okino Minami-iwa(沖ノ南岩)[7] 25°47′N 123°37′E / 25.783°N 123.617°E / 25.783; 123.617 0.0048 nominal
Fei Jiao Yan (飛礁岩/飛岩) Tobise (飛瀬)[8] 25°45′N 123°33′E / 25.750°N 123.550°E / 25.750; 123.550 0.0008 nominal
Three lines indicate the express POV of Japan, the PRC and the ROC ... and "feasible region" is the intersection of disparate data sets which are undisputed in our article about the Senkaku Islands?

Maybe this is not the way to handle this. Could this be a consructive step? --Tenmei (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the disputed aspects of this section are mirrored at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Dual-name usage in text, captions and table. --Tenmei (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Geography section intro sentences

The previous sentence said that a dispute about the names is a proxy for a larger dispute. Unless there is a reliable source making this claim, then it's original research and cannot be included. Furthermore, I don't even think it's true--it makes it sound like the main public debate is about the names, and that that debate is hiding the deeper territorial debate. But in every bit of research I've done for this and the main article, the actual issue is always portrayed as a territorial dispute, with the name dispute being secondary. That is, this debate is not the same as the Sea of Japan naming dispute. China does not go to international conferences, diplomatic settings, or news reports and argue "These islands should be called Diaoyu!" Instead, they go to these settings and say "These islands belong to China!" Thus, there's no "proxying" going on here. If someone has a reliable source that uses that terminology, then I suppose we can consider including that, although it probably belongs in a section other than Geography. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I also raised this point in the Tenmei's thread in Talk:Senkaku Islands. As you said, the naming is only a dispute amongst we editors and is not actual matter of dispute between China and Japan. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 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.[9]".
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.
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 [1]. I think the answer to the current problem is this. It is a hard fact the Japanese government says " 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 [2]. 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.

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.
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

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


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:

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 outcomescompare 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.

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.


This clause illustrates a fundamental misconception.

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)

Alternate approaches

This diff should not be archived.
This thread diff needs to remain on the active talk page despite conventional archiving practices. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)