Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

NPOV - nomination to be checked for neutrality

The overall undertone of this article is very much pro-Japanese. It is not consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I would appeal to all pro-Japanese editors please be fair and make this article more balanced and readable. We are not fighting a World War here! STSC (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No such ground at all. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

These Pro-Japanese editors just a bunch of bully boys and hooligans! They are a disgrace! STSC (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

STSC (talk · contribs), please refrain from WP:Personal attack. Or you will be blocked from editing. Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

phoenix666 - Have I directed my comment to you personally? STSC (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Terminology Used in the Alleged PRC Map

For the curious, the map uses both Chinese and Japanese terminology.

尖阁群岛 is Chinese; the Japanese would be 尖閣諸島 or 尖閣列島. 群岛 is a term in Chinese, not in Japanese at all. You may check this using WWWJDIC. Similarly, 諸島 and 列島 are defined in Japanese, but used in Chinese usually only to refer to Japanese territory or terminology.

黄尾屿 and 赤尾屿 are Chinese terms only; in Japanese, they are respectively 久場島 and 大正島. It's very clear in the Japanese version of this article.

鱼钓岛 is usually a Japanese term; the Chinese term is 钓鱼岛. Interchanging them, however, would not be grammatically or historically incorrect as the first two cases would be.

Both sides use the term 北小岛.DXDanl (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Change to "China Claim"

Please add these. Feel free to edit to fit into existing pages.

Counter to Japan's claim

1. When Japan claimed to have incorporated the islands On 14 January 1895, the First Sino-Japanese War was almost over. Japan had crushed the Qing Navy in Weihaiwei, and marched into Korea and Lushunkou (near Dalian, Liaoning) by November 1984. While there were small skirmished after November. Japan were just expanding the spoil while negotiating for the formal treaty of Shimonogeki. The fact that the Treat was signed in April does not change the fact that the Diaoyu islands were taken during the war, after Japan's major victories 3 months ago.

2. Letter of thank you from ROC in 1921. ROC recognized Taiwan as part of Japan as a result of the Shimonogeki. Of course it recognized Diaoyu as part of the islands ceded and hence belonged to Japan during those years.

Japan's own map in 1985

1. In (三国通覧図説 / 林子平 図並説) the book called "General Illustrations of Three Countries by Shihei Hayashi in 1785 and its accompanied maps, the Diaoyu Islands were colored in red, same as those of China, while Ryukyu (Okinawa) was colored in Yellow. This confirms the Japanese view then that these islands belonged to China, not Ryukyu.

2. In the same book, the islands of Ogasawara (Iwo Jima) were labelled un-owned, while Diaoyu was labelled Chinese. This contradicts the Japanese claims that Diaoyus were un-owned in 1885. Since Japan had the concept of "un-inhabited" and "un-owned" back in 1785 but labelled the Diaoyus as something else.

source: 1. http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/look-out-for-the-diaoyu-islands/ 2. http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2010/09/17831785-ryukyu-map-by-japanese.html 3. http://record.museum.kyushu-u.ac.jp/sangokutu/page.html?style=a&part=2&no=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's original research, and I'm not sure what points you're trying to make anyway. John Smith's (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really original. All discussed in the linked pages. The existing wiki pages listed some points but are incomplete. I think what wiki does is to try to get as many points for each side as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The points you made are crystal clear and very valid. The pro-Japanese bullies would throw at you with anything including kitchen sink just to suppress your finding. STSC (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

John Smith's, his points are, as follows: (not introducing my own opinion, just clarifying what I think he is trying to say)

1. the islands were taken before the signing of the treaty
2. the argument within the article about the "letter of argument" isn't quite solid, because the ROC recognised Taiwan as part of Japan, and the islands belonged to Taiwan.
3. the 1785 map had the islands in the same colour as China
4. the Japanese argument of terra nullius is not solid becuase another map shows Iwo Jima as terra nullius, yet shows the Senkakus as belonging to China. He argues that since the concept of terra nullius was around then, the map shows that the Senkakus were not terra nullius.

I'll stay out of this one for now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(1. the islands were taken as the spoil of the war.)

We cannot use blogs as source. Oda Mari (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not suggested that blog to be used as a source. The blog links were provided just as an indirect link to various other sources. The blog referred to the book written by a Japanese Cartographer in 1785, and published research by a professor of Kyoto University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.120 (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which Japanese cartographer? You mean Hayashi Shihei, someone who lived at the opposite end of Japan from China? John Smith's (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"John", if you don't read Japanese, you can use google translate or just keep silent on this issue. Otherwise, go search the academic websites in Japan you will know Hayashi's book. BTW, where is the "opposite end of Japan from China"? Which end of Japan is the non-opposite end? Hokkaido? or Kyushu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to censor me, please. Hayashi was a member of the Date Clan, not exactly near China. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese names for the islands

The article currently uses forms like "Uotsuri Jima" etc, but that's not the Japanese name, which is Uotsurijima (or Uotsuri-jima, if you insist). The Japanese word for island is shima, and it only becomes jima when attached directly to another word. Any objections to changing this? Jpatokal (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Msvt, 1 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Below part should be corrected as here is page for Senkaku island, not others. Whatever you call it, you need to create another page in each language separately. The Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島 Senkaku Shotō, variants: Senkaku-guntō[1] and Senkaku-rettō[2]?), controlled and administered by Japan since 1895, but also claimed by both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China as part of Taiwan Province. The United States controlled the islands as part of its occupation of Okinawa from 1945 to 1972. Msvt (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you saying? BTW, is the template box necessary?DXDanl (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Stickee

add reference

this article from Durham University

http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk/resources/docs/senkaku.html San9663 (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Need a reliable source for PLA J-10 intercept JSDF planes

I have searched about PLA J-10 intercept JSDF planes in both Chinese, English and Japanese, but could not find any reliable source. The article I have found appears to be fabricated by Chinese nationalists... Could anyone supply a reliable source (preferably both in Chinese and English, at least from Chinese official source)? Otherwise please delete this part since it could not be verified. 76.10.141.117 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything for this, except copies of the Wikipedia entry and posts on forums - possibly also using this. I have added a citation request tag to formally call editors' attention to this. John Smith's (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The information is very dubious. I could find nothing. As far as I googled, F-2 fighters were never stationed at Naha. It was F-4 and replaced with F-15 on March 13, 2009. [1] I suggest to remove the information. It's not too late to restore it when the RS is found. Oda Mari (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the information. Please find a RS before restoring it. Oda Mari (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaming the system is an improper use of Policy and is forbidden

WP:GAME - Encyclopedic content must be neutral and verifiable. Any editor who manipulates the process to avoid NPOV and verification is gaming the system. Gaming the system is blockable by any administrator as stated in the Policy. STSC (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and this post is relevant how? Is there a specific concern you have here with someone gaming the system? Your comment is somewhat confusing as it merely states policy without explaining why you are stating it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have identified 3 editors who have been gaming the system with many issues on here. They may think they're clever but Wikipedia has the special policy to deal with them. STSC (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks for letting us know. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

YouTube Video in Japanese

This video shows up as source 3 times but is entirely in Japanese. It's a YouTube video. The channel originates from a Japan pride group, their motto 草莽崛起. I can't think of any way to defend this source.

ref name=sakura20100924>5:00 【直言極言】情報戦・尖閣が日本領である証拠[桜H22/9/24 SakuraSoTV 2010-09-24</ref

The editor(s) contribution(s) can stay for now because the second source used is ... less questionable.

ref>http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/senkaku/testimonial1920.jpg</ref

DXDanl (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See [this] Ryūkyū Shimpō June 15, 2005. The letter is on exhibit at Yaeyama museum.--Bukubku (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You can make changes to include your new source, but I'll remove the SakuraSo source for you.DXDanl (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mattsoubala, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} To edit the Senkaku Islands. 釣魚島 is rightly owned by China, not from Japanese. Posting this article will lead confusion and anger from Chinese audiences which takes a quarter of population of the whole wide world.

http://big5.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/gzdt/2009-02/27/content_1245749.htm This website illustrated that 釣魚島 is in China's hands, not the Japanese. Mattsoubala (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't follow the directions. Please resubmit your request. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

PRC and ROC perspectives

So far I've done some tagging. I would like to split the PRC and ROC perspectives section into governmental and non-governmental, similar to the sections for Japan, but there is a lot of other problems that must be resolved before possibly splitting into 2 sections.

(a) A lot of material that can be combined into the Beginnings section.

(b) More references are needed and dead links fixed.

(c) Can we remove the following paragraphs, unless they're used by a source in a way that is actually related to this article?

However, more importantly, none of the Allies recognized any transfer of the territorial sovereignty of either Taiwan or any nearby islands to the ROC at any time during the 1940s or 1950s. In a 1959 court case in the United States, the US State Dept. was specifically quoted as maintaining that: " . . . the sovereignty of Formosa has not been transferred to China . . . " and that "Formosa is not a part of China as a country, at least not as yet, and not until and unless appropriate treaties are hereafter entered into. Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China."[43]

However, the United States, as principal victor over Japan, has consistently maintained that there was no "return" of island territories to China after the close of hostilities in World War II, either due to the Japanese surrender ceremonies, or according to the specifications of the post-war treaties. The Starr Memorandum of the US State Dept., issued in Oct. 1971, is often quoted as an authoritative reference on this subject.[47]

DXDanl (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a rather problematic statement, especially as it asserts it as fact rather than someone's view. The court case is being spun backwards to somehow support the whole point, which is wrong.

On a separate note, I'm also a bit concerned by the bit on the "Tokyo court case". There's no citation for the fact there was a court case, and although the entry obscures it a bit, the matter boils down to "30 years ago, some guy said that....." I think that's too fringe to be included, though it might come under something other than WP:fringe theories. John Smith's (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Winstonlighter's last edit

Winston has inserted some material at the start of one line, stating "As the Treaty of Shimonoseki was nullified when Japan lost the war in 1945". First, this claim is not substantiated with an explanation as to why the treaty was nullified and there is no citation to support that. At the very least we would need more information.

However, even if the Treaty was "nullified", it does not explain why the Japanese, Chinese and Taiwnanese governments disagree as to whether the Senkaku Islands were implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa". "As the Treaty........." suggests that the "nullification" of the Treaty is the reason for the dispute. I see no evidence of that.

Perhaps, Winston, once you can help answer the points in the first paragraph of this comment, you can help me help improve the text by explaining what it is you want to say. With all due respect, I guess that English is not your first language and whilst you are quite able in it, your grammar is not always good enough to accurately convey the point you want the text to make. John Smith's (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan has lost the War; that's the important background for the dispute. It seems that some Japan supporters trying to hide this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STSC (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What? How is anyone trying to hide the fact Japan lost WWII? And please explain how that creates the dispute as to whether the Japanese, Chinese and Taiwnanese governments disagree as to whether the Senkaku Islands were implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa". That is the point being made in the article. John Smith's (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently removing a badly phrased sentence now equals with being a Japanese supporter who tries to hide the fact that Japanese lost WWII. I don't even know what to say...  Dr. Loosmark  23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't twist my words, Mr Smith. Japan has lost the War; it's the major background on the issue. Me and others tried to get a more balanced content, but you and your Japan supporters are trying hard to suppress it. STSC (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith please - I am not taking sides in the territorial dispute. There is far too much lazy language in the article. If you have trouble saying something properly you can ask me or another fluent English speaker to make the point for you. I won't do that if you make personal attacks. John Smith's (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Mr Smith, please excuse my French! So where's my "personal attack" on you then, Mr Smith? Please tell. We can see you and other pro-Japanese editors having a hidden agenda on here. And why is it 'Japan lost the War' is bothering you so much? STSC (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The personal attack is repeatedly calling me a "pro-Japanese editor" and having a "hidden agenda". You are criticising me on personal grounds, not my editing. Please stop this. John Smith's (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr Smith, opinion on your behaviour is not a personal attack at all. STSC (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It demonstrates a severe lack of good faith on your part, I'm afraid. But if you want to keep denying it, fine. John Smith's (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

John or in any other names, your removal on the fact that Japan lost the world war II is obviously disputed. The edit is recovered. Please feel free to rephrase it instead of removing this significant important backrground. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability

I would like to contend the verifiability of 2 sections and suggest them for removal.

First, PRC map

After checking the source, I have found that

A. There is no evidence suggesting it might have been a classified PRC government map from 1969.

B. The map does not refer to the Senkaku Islands as Japanese territory.

In addition, the exhibit is not itself in English. If you wish, you would have to say the Washington Times considers this to be an evidence. Yet, the neutrality and verifiability of the Washington Times is questionable to say the least.

Second, The People's Daily of PRC

Again, it does not write Senkaku Islands is a part of Japanese territory. It says Senkaku Islands, among others, make up the geographic Ryuku Islands, the same way the term means in English; hence, it lists all major island groups there, including ones outside of Japan's Ryuku Shoto. It does not refer to Japan's Okinawa Prefecture, whose area is actually called Ryuku Shoto. An analogy would be saying Papua and West Papua, 2 provinces of Indonesia, make up a part of the island of New Guinea. That does not mean, however, Papua or West Papua is a part of Papua New Guinea, a separate country. Similarly, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, none of these have truly American names, but they are still parts of the United States. Refer to this page for more information. DXDanl (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the removal of those sections which are clearly misleading. STSC (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove these pictures or the sections that discuss them. If the map honestly doesn't refer to the islands as Japanese territory, the text can be tweaked. However, that they are called the "Senkaku Islands" can be taken as recognition of that, given that Chinese newspapers and officials currently refer to the islands by their Chinese name. There is no reason to suspect the Washington Times of inventing this or otherwise being unduly "biased" that means we shouldn't use the image of the map.

As for the newspaper article, there is no assertion that it says they are Japanese territory. But again the use of the Japanese names is significant. John Smith's (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user:John Smith's. These PRC 1953 maps don't include the islands. [2] and [3]. OP says "The map does not refer to the Senkaku Islands as Japanese territory." Then are there any PRC maps in the 50s and 60s refer to the islands as Chinese territory? ROC maps and textbooks in the 50s and 60s say clearly the islands are Japanese territory. See this. Oda Mari (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you uploaded those pictures with the proper references, descriptions, etc. John Smith's (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to assume good faith in John and Oda. However, I would also like to point out that for one, whether PRC maps in 50s and 60s refer to the islands as Chinese territory has nothing to do with the outcome of this discussion. Two, if Oda were to upload any picture as a primary source, it would clearly consitute original research. John is aware of such scenario, so please be consistent with how you enforce Wikipedia policies.99.69.163.90 (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Names may or may not be significant (see the new Terminology of the Alleged PRC Map section), so we can keep the pictures if you really want to and can put them to better use. The deciding factor remains, however, that the CURRENT SOURCES & CLAIMS are not acceptable for the following reasons.

I. A source should be reliable.

... Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ...

... Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. ...

II. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

III. A source should preferably be in English or have reliable English translation.

... When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. ...

The CURRENT SOURCES are Asahi.com and the Washington Times. Both fail as "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Neither has "Translations published by reliable sources" or, in fact, any translation at all. The CURRENT CLAIMS are not acceptable, because they do not have any source that "directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and [...] appropriate to the claims made". Because the claim that the Chinese (whether the Mainland regime or the government in Taiwan) recognize the contested region to be Japanese constitutes an exceptional claim, it would require "exceptional sources" in any case.DXDanl (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't they reliable or third party? I also don't see it as an exceptional claim, because it refers to the regimes prior to their 1971 declarations. If they suggested they were saying one thing and thinking another, that would be different. But it's far from exceptional that prior to 1970 they didn't actually dispute Japanese control. John Smith's (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's very clear to everyone that Japan did not control the islands from 1945 to 1970, during which both documents allegedly originate.

Asahi is not third-party; it is modern and Japanese. Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? We don't know. As for the Washington Times, it could be considered third-party, but you can look up the article on it yourself regarding reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In addition, neither provides reliable translation. They do not directly nor appropriately support the claims made. If a source or claim does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, then it should not be included, because the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.DXDanl (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't leave big gaps between comments.

Apologies, I meant ownership/sovereignty. The islands were controlled by the US as part of their occupation of Okinawa. They weren't sovereign US territory. But in any case, whether or not the US was in charge was irrelevant. The suggestion is that these documents support Japan's claim to the islands because (allegedly) neither China nor Taiwan had a problem with regarding them as being Japanese.

The Asahi Shimbun is an independent Japanese newspaper. It is not the mouthpiece of the Japanese government (or political party), unlike say the People's Daily in China. So it shouldn't be automatically suspect. As for being "modern", what does that mean? Books are often modern, yet I don't see people ripping references using them out of any articles on that basis. But to be clear, can you identify (again if you already have) the Asahi article you're talking about?

In regards to the Washington Times, you can't use a wikipedia article as evidence - sorry.

If there are any concerns about translations, text can be modified. Concerns over reliability can easily be addressed by saying "the X reported that......." John Smith's (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If a source does not meet guidelines, then its claim should not be included. What you're suggesting is to leave something alone even though the source does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Doing so clearly contradicts the established burden of proof. Without evidence suggesting that a source (especially from one of the parties directly involved) ACTUALLY is third-party AND have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy AND have reliable translation, its claim should not be included.

By "modern" I meant contemporary. Any source from contemporary Japan, Taiwan, or the PRC is suspect, because governmental or not, they're all living and have a direct economic interest in the outcome of the dispute. The link to the Wikipedia article on the Washington Times was provided so that people can go see for themselves all the references regarding the paper's inaccuracy (Alternatively, I could list them all out; the effect would be the same.). Some claim that China or Taiwan "had no problem" with regarding the islands Japanese, yet their documents fail to even show that China or Taiwan actually regarded the islands Japanese in the first place; whether either party had any problems with Japan is therefore irrelevant.DXDanl (talk)

You keep talking about "the burden of evidence", but this is no court and you are no judge - I mean that with all due respect.

This is Wikipedia. If you don't know where "the burden of evidence" comes from, then you shouldn't be editing.DXDanl (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having this map because the picture profile makes it clear where it has come from. If there is an issue with the caption, fair enough. But that is not grounds for it to be removed from the article.

There is NOTHING RIGHT with having this map either. It shows NOTHING in English. That is sufficient grounds for it to be removed. Read this again. No one has any obligation to keep any questionable materials or repair them so that they could comply with Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to keep the picture, you can move it, along with its source the Washington Times and anything else you might want, to an article that is clearly regarding the dispute over the islands. Since this article is on the islands themselves, its contents should support facts about these islands. Anything disputable should not be here.DXDanl (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your assertion that a source must be third party and have a fact-checking reputation, in that case why are you not demanding that the "Japanese" map from the 18th century be removed too? The sourcing is from a Japanese institution and therefore "suspect" in your own words. John Smith's (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I might ask them to be removed too once I get to everything here.DXDanl (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dan, please stop introducing massive gaps between the comments. Also please don't reply within my comment because it makes it harder for me to reply to you. I know what the burden of evidence is. I am pointing out that as you are no "judge" it is not for you to decide whether that burden is met or not. Of course there is everything right with having this map. It's a useful indication of how the Chinese story about the islands is arguably inconsistent. That it is not in English does not matter, as it can have a caption and a description on the image's page. I see nothing on the verifiability page that says images with only non-English writing cannot be used on the project. If you're still not satisifed you can always raise the issue on the noticeboard to get some outside views. You could also raise the issue of the 18th century Japanese map, as it would seem silly to potentially have one decision about one map and another for the other. John Smith's (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think having 2 empty lines between each point of argument amounts to anything massive. Replying to every single points of argument all in one block of text, per your suggestion, would actually make it harder for everyone to keep track of what is going on.

Keep in mind that we're not talking about the arguments for or against the various claims. We're talking about the islands themselves. The caption assumes a "classified PRC map from 1969 that refers to the 'Senkaku islands' as Japanese territory." Does the map suggest it is classified? No. Does it say it is from the PRC? No. Does it say it's from 1969? No. Does it say "Senkaku Islands"? No. Does it say anything about Japanese territory? No. What difference does the map make regarding the islands? No difference at all.DXDanl (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

John, you keep saying this or that shouldn't be removed. I don't care as long as it's not included. As I have said before, however, no one is obligated to do the move or rephrasing instead of a removal.DXDanl (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this so-called "classified PRC map", I don't think the person adding the image has met the WP:BURDEN of proving what they claim that image to be. All the image shows is a map, titled 尖阁群岛, and a few of the islands. Just by looking at the image, we do not know that the map is governmental; we do not know the year it was published, and we do not know the actual source of the image, as they are not shown on the image. We also do not have a copy of the full map. Assuming that it is so because it is claimed so according to a Washington Times article does not meet WP:V. Now, if the full map was given, then we wouldn't have such a problem; but by only providing this small portion, we cannot confirm that it was made by the PRC government (anyone could have published it), or that it was made in 1969, and relying entirely on one article seems a bit dangerous to me, as any journalist can claim an image to be something. We cannot assume that one newspaper source is correct. Additionally, given that it is claimed that the map is "classified", then it does not belong to { {PD-China}}; Wikipedia is not Wikileaks, and classified documents are not public domain. If (and since authenticity cannot be firmly established) the map is not what the article claims it to be, then given that the date is unknown, it can be argued that either the portion is copyright of the Washington Times, or that the entire map is copyright of the original creator. Either way, the image would be a copyvio. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the map may be classified does not stop it from being in the public domain. As far as I can see it complies with the PD-China tag (administrative). John Smith's (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But it is still not verifiable, you haven't addressed that. You are unable to prove that the image is what it is claimed to be. As an analogy, I could go down to a nightclub or my university, strip a drunken woman nude (and I swear they are everywhere on Tuesday nights), take a photo of everything excluding the face, and claim her to be Angelina Jolie. But without the face, how can I verify that this naked girl is Angelina Jolie? Similarly, without specific details, how can we verify the authenticity and source of this map? If the image was a high-res scan of the full map, then we might be able to check for its authenticity. It might list a publisher and date down the bottom, or if not, would leave other clues regarding its origin. But only a tiny portion of the map? That's just like leaving out the most important part of a scandalous celebrity photo - the face. Without the face, the photograph has little value (I mean, how many people know the exact nipple shape of Angelina Jolie so that they can recognise her right on the spot?) The image of the map portion, by no means, is verifiable in the same manner. Publishing a map isn't difficult if you have the correct machinery and techniques, and the PRC government isn't the only entity that can do these things. And don't give me this "Washington Times is an independent paper" rubbish - newspapers aren't immune from factual errors, and there was an incident some time ago where an article cited a claim from Wikipedia itself. Anyone with a GPA above 3.0 can transfer to a course offering a degree in Journalism. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have in my discussion with DXDan. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. And please don't remove the image until this discussion has been finished and it's clear what consensus on the talk page is. I say that because Oda Mari also objected to fit being removed. John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're reversion edit summary doesn't quite cut it; there's no consensus for it to remain in the article, let alone be removed. I could argue in the exact opposite manner, since consensus works both ways. Also, you can't just claim something that it is something as you have done, that's not how WP:V works. I repeat, the image you have provided fails to meet verifiability standards; it would be synonomous with finding a telegram that says "HEIL HITLER" on it, cropping the sides that provide sender/reciever details, and claiming that this was a telegram from Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt. You have not proven its content. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can draw a map like that with my CorelDRAW software. STSC (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the removal of the image from this article which is clearly not verifiable. STSC (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the image.  Dr. Loosmark  10:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such guideline to require the verifiability of the Primary source referenced by the Secondary source as long as the Secondary source meets the requirement of WP:RS. If it were the requirement of the edit, we would virtually unable to cite the Secondary source. Such an insistence is equivalent to insist the PRC map was forged by the Secondary source. Please provide an evidence for such an insistence. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. If it is proved to be a hoax, I will willingly agree with the removal. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy states that "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." The reliability of the primary source is being challenged here; as discussed above, it's up to you to prove that the map wasn't the one I drew with my CorelDRAW and was reliably published. STSC (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, you admitted the reason of the removal is the PRC map was forged by Washington Times by CorelDRAW. Unless you prove your insistance, I will never permit the removal of the map. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice try! I have been asking you to prove the map (the primary source) has been reliably published. You're avoiding my question, aren't you? STSC (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would remind John Smith, Loosmark and Phoenix7777: "Gaming the system is an improper use of policy and is forbidden." WP:GAME. STSC (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have been told a number of times already to stop with your bad faith accusations.  Dr. Loosmark  12:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr Loosmark, I've just found out (from reliable primary sources) that you were blocked for 1 week for personal attack recently? Huh? STSC (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

24 hours - 1 week was deemed too long. Please address the issues - don't make it personal. John Smith's (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want another edit war like the one between Benlisquare and John. I'm prepared to compromise if it indicates "Washington Times claims that it is a classified map from PRC". I think DXDanl has already done that on the image. The main text should also reflect this. STSC (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why in the inclusion of images is so controversial, but I do note that calls to remove imagery is consistent with Chinese government policy. Wikipedia's text, for example, is not blocked on the mainland but images are, such that mainland users wouldn't see the images anyway without using evasion tools. Youtube and Facebook, of course, are blocked completely. --Bdell555 (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about that it there not for mainland see anyway, it there for entire world see it. That why everyone fight with each other just to put/remove it in/from there.Tnt1984 (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought we're okay with the map already ... ?DXDanl (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bdell555, I hope you're not accusing me (or anyone) of being a communist dog funded by the party here. What are you implying? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

American Intervention?

I've read a few Chinese sources that suggested the U.S. military would hold a war-game with the Japanese military to practice the scenario of "retaking" the Diaoyutai Islands from an "illegal Chinese invasion". It was also alleged that USS George Washington (CVN-73) would participate. However, I have been unable to locate a reliable English source. If this piece of information is true, I believe it is notable because it is a sign of American intervention. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that by itself, the event is too removed from this article on Senkaku Islands. It's probably a sign of American prevention/deterrence, like it did regarding Taiwan a long time ago (1950s?) and North/South Korea just recently. But I don't want anyone's, including my own, interpretations, opinions, and original research to start popping up here. Even if a news report or blog article were to claim relation between the U.S. exercise and the Senkaku Islands dispute, the event of the exercise itself is still too unrelated, unless it were actually to turn out to be significant.DXDanl (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

New section

I created a new section "Historical background" in order to clarify the issue. As far as I know, both PRC and ROC didn't assert their sovereignty over the islands officially and internationally till 1971 and there was no dispute. It is clear to me the dispute began in 1971. Oda Mari (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rolled back the changes because Winston is once again edit-warring over having everything as he wants it. However, perhaps we could discuss this idea further - it's interesting, and might be a good way of presenting information historically. What do others think? John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this because by chronography, Chinese names and records will go ahead of the Japanese ones. Considering the recent futitle efforts on breaking the stable name order and implicitly pushing Wikipedia to endorse the Japanese national point of view, would you contest the time sequence in the new history section? By the way, the changes on name ordering have been reverted by adminstrators, me and many others in the past whole year. You're just another latest one to push forward your "Pro-Japan" naming ordering. SIGH --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus on Name ordering

In recent days there's a lot of edits that attempts to do nothing but only change the stable name ordering in this article, by placing the paragraph on the etymology about Senkaku above the Chinese Diaoyu name, changing the name ordering in a new table in Geography section , and putting Japanese arguments above the Chinese ones.

Those Pro-Japan or Pro-China futile efforts are not new. The name ordering in infobox (currently Japanese names go first) has also experienced a lot of changes in recent months. All those edits have been reverted to the long-time stable name ordering to avoid stirring up endless waves of edit wars.

While Wikipedia guidelines states that it doesn't favour any national points of views over these disputed issues, is there any guideline on solving the name ordering in these disputed issues? --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's called "common sense", which would suggest that as the islands are controlled by Japan, their names and claims go first. Really, Winston, it's you that's manufacturing this dispute. No one else has been edit-warring over it recently. John Smith's (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure if Japan actually controls the island even though its navy patrols the surrounding water. Since the island is uninhabited and the Chinese military also patrols there further weakens the notion of "Japanese control". Personally, I am inclined for the island's article to be named "Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands" until the dispute has been resolved. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you stopped stirring up this contentious move some time ago, and have stirred up again since 1 Oct. that's what you mean "recently"? Anyway, "common sense" is a popular weasel word in breaking the guidelines. Then why do we need a guideline? --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make bad faith allegations. I did not change the ordering of the claims on 1 October, that was someone else. It was you who started changing things around when you came back to the article.

Who says that we need guidelines? As I said earlier, there was no problem until you decided there was one. John Smith's (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

you mean the user who has been inactive for two years and becomes extremely active in this week on this article? Before you said there is "no problem" (within the first 1-2 days), you better triple check the revision history of this article. This article has experienced countless pro-japan or pro-china changes on name ordering. It may have no problems in one or two days, but they were all reverted. Your edits were of no exceptions.

Seriously, why do you feel obliged to change the name ordering by compromising the Wikipedia guidelines and putting this article under the risk of edit warring. How would it improve the article significantly? It seems that you're trying to push Wikipedia to endorse the Japanese sovereignty, am i wrong? --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia does mention that alphabetical order should be used in a controversial article. So, the C (Chinese) is before the J (Japanese)? STSC (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I can't find out the guideline on this but in wp:name, it mentions that a name is used when it's common and states clearly that Wikipedia shall not support any national point of views. My research on the notabilty of names for smaller islands shows that none of them are popular than others.

However, in the recent two months, some edits not only tried to change the name ordering of a few islands, but placed every Japanese claim above the Chinese. Some changes seemed to cause a confusion ( Name Section) , others seem touchy and don't improve the article but unofficially launch an edit warring that will give a lot of workloads to administrators and other editors in the future. --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The name should be Pinnacle Islands per Winstonlighter analogously to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks in my opinion. -Selket ^Talk 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent suggestion to do that, but no consensus was reached. The matter is closed at least for the moment. John Smith's (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care about which names go first, although I would be okay with having the Chinese names in front. At least the writing is supposed to be very neutral at the time. Japanese themselves often used the Chinese names in writing & maps during the late 1800s. The Chinese names appear to have originated earlier than both English (1840s) and Japanese names (1860s). On one hand, Japan controls these islands; on the other hand, we're discussing only their names.DXDanl (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

What is the appropriate name ordering of the islands in the article body? Oda Mari (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Check Here to avoid duplication. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is my firstresponse, based on just a quick overview of the article. Please note that I'm an editor prone to changing position over time though, so don't hold it against me if I do. But it seems to me that, if the name of the article is Senkaku Islands, then that means we are by default arguing that the Japanese names should always take precedence in the article. In that case, in the text, Japanese names for each individual island should always be listed first. Now, if the overall article name were to change (say, to Pinnacle Islands, as was done with Liancourt Rocks), then I would support the default idea that we list things alphabetically. This would mean the first list in the article would be Pinnacle (as the article title), Diayou/Diayutai, Senkaku; then, for consistency throughout the article, we would list "English" names first, then Chinese, then Japanese, omitting English names where they do not exist. At the moment, I have no (justifiable by policy) opinion on whether the article name is appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo court case

I've removed the bit on the supposed court case given that it is uncited (that China and Taiwan refer to it in part as justification for their positions) and in any event it states that this is all based on one person's claim from about 40 years ago. I raised my concerns about the claim a few days ago. It doesn't seem sensible to include a vague assertion like that. If it was the case that it had been made by a member of the Politburo or something, that might be a notable claim even if it wasn't backed up by anything. But an unnamed leader of a fishermen's association isn't notable. John Smith's (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Image captions

The image captions have got far too large. Some of the information included in them needs to be shifted into the main body of the article. Per the Wikipedia MoS for captions, they should be succinct. What we have now in several cases is far from succinct. John Smith's (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The foremost goal of a figure caption is to accurately describe a figure's significance. Ideally, it should be short and concise as well. But in some cases, an accurate description requires more than a couple of short sentences. In which case, the shortness criteria has to be sacrificed. If you've read published scientific articles, you'd find that a lot of them have moderately long caption and that's not necessarily due to bad writing style. In our case, I edited 2 figure captions to keep its tone neutral and wording concise. However, I don't find it possible to shorten them further without making the caption sound misleading, if you know what I mean... Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does the MoS say that the captions don't have to succinct? Can you show me where it supports your position? What the MoS does say is that More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting (which is the case here) and that information can be saved for the image page itself. Currently the captions look ridiculous - they need to be shortened. John Smith's (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the captions should not be succinct. But nowhere in the MoS does it say succinctness takes priority over everything else. Now, I see that you have omitted something from your quotes, let me requote the entire text for you: "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting. Sometimes increasing the pixel width of the image brings better balance: superfluous wording can also be removed from the caption instead. Save some information for the image description page, and put other information in the article itself, but make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture.". Now, that's a good suggestion. At the same time, if that's not a possibility, then I am afraid there's nothing that can be done unless you want to start removing crucial information from the captions. However, if that's what you wanted, I will strongly advise you to put this up for a vote and ask for opinions from numerous independent users. By the way, let me be clear, I am only speaking for the 2 captions I recently redid. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of length of image captions. Bob, your additions were WP:SYN. Please see my posts in the NPOV dispute section. Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Explain "controlled and administered" or strike it out

I find this section of the opening statement highly questionable "... are a group of disputed uninhabited islands controlled and administered by Japan since 1895". In fact, I find it outright incorrect!

Can the author define precisely what it meant by "controlled and administered", especially with the time modifier "since 1895"?

1. control - I looked up Webster dictionary, not sure I can directly apply the definition from there. So let me try to interpret. Does it mean Japan has had military presence in the area that people could not access the area without Japan's permission (from 1895 to present)? If that's not the case, then please provide an explanation for this part of the statement. If there is no acceptable explanation, then the "control" part should be removed!

2. administered - Does it mean Japan has for over a hundred years exlusively managed some sort of resources (natural or man-made) on the islands? For example, managing the forest, protecting the river, or managing some man-made resources, such as building structures, railways, schools, postal, legal or societal resources? If not, then can the author explain how has Japan administered the islands since 1895 to present (for over a hundred years)?

If the author cannot explain this statement, then I request this part of the statement be removed!

If the untrue statement is left unchanged, it will severely affect the objectivity of wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.161.201 (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The section of the statement in question is certainly true. If you can't understand a statement that simple, then your grasp of the English language is in question, not the veracity of the statement. "Controlled" means that Japan exercises physical control over the islands and the area around them. "Administered" means that it manages and is responsible for the running of the islands on a day-to-day basis. Keep in mind that the islands have no people living on them, and very little in the way of forest, rivers, man-made resources/buildings, etc. Most of the administration is on paper. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely speaking, there were people living on the islands from 1897 to 1940. See [4]. And a team of people from the University of Kyushu and the University of Nagasaki surveyed the islands in December 1970. See [5]. Oda Mari (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I do find the original writing less than ideal. See the edit now.DXDanl (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding Content Split/Removal

It's been posted on WikiProject China's noticeboard, WikiProject Japan's discussion page, and WikiProject Taiwan's noticeboard. If interested, please take time to read it, since it's not exactly the same as the discussion in the tiVerifiability section; all 3 posts are the same, however.DXDanl (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved posts from the noticeboards (not exactly active) to their respective WikiProject Talk Pages--China and Taiwan.DXDanl (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you also please repost your proposal below with a new heading, or below my post so that it's clearer to people here what you're proposing. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here it is.

Hi everyone. I would like to discuss the Senkaku Islands article, specifically (a) all sections i, ii, and iii that give the actual arguments used in its dispute, (b) the one section on the history of the dispute, (c) and the one section that is not about the islands themselves.

(a) Moving all of the disputable contents to a separate article would help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not.

(b) Although the current list of historical events is more on the factual side, it is centered on the dispute over the islands. As such, it would disproportionately distract from the islands themselves and may be better combined in a separate article with the sections mentioned in (a).

(c) The information in this section might be related to the islands outside of Wikipedia, but as far as how articles are organized, it has nothing to do with the topic--in fact, it does not even mention the islands.

Lastly, although I would love to move around or rephrase any content so that it could be agreeable to Wikipedia guidelines, I don't think it would be the best practice if questionable edits were practically to become a burden for other editors. In which case, I would think that removal--following discussion on the relevant Talk Page and Noticeboard--should be justified despite loosing the questionable contents.DXDanl (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Comment I agree to what you proposed in the noticboards. This article just looks so silly. STSC (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment (a) I think that's a bit extreme, as an awful lot of stuff may be disputed, not just what's currently highlighted. Also just because something is disputed does not mean it should be moved elsewhere.

(b) I agree that the timeline isn't very helpful. It should be re-worked to have just a few key dates, or moved elsewhere as you suggest.

(c) It is the duty of a Wikipedia editor, as far as I can see, to improve material if it's clear what the person is trying to say or what the mistake is. I don't think we can just pull something because it's a bit wrong. However, we don't have to hunt for citations, though sometimes it's easy to grab a few. John Smith's (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to John Smith — No text is to be deleted, only moved; and a summary of the dispute will remain part of this article along with a section headnote hyperlink. Compare Liancourt Rocks dispute, Spratly Islands dispute, etc. --Tenmei (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to John Smith this wiki entry is very problematic, a lot of controversies starting from the title all the way down. yes, the best way to do this is to first list those information with NPOV, then that of each side, instead of making this an edit war from one side to the other. Just a total waste of time for everybody. San9663 (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment The (a), (b), and (c) only apply to their respective sections specified in my post's introduction. I'm not sure whether you're using the lettering the same way as how I've been using it. Regarding disputable contents, in this case, they are clearly regarding the islands' sovereignty only. We could make a new section that's actually about the history of the islands themselves, without referring to any dispute over their sovereignty.DXDanl (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse — I support and join DXDanl's point-of-view expressed in the comment above. Compare, e.g., Liancourt Rocks#Role in Japan–Korea relations, Spratly Islands#History, Bonin Islands#History, etc. --Tenmei (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Not everyone is interested in politics or nationalistic issues. The full details of the territorial dispute should be moved away from the main article. STSC (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse — I support and join STSC's point-of-view expressed in the comment above. --Tenmei (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert

the recent edits actually leaves more for cleanup rather than cleaning up the mess and it also stirred up a new wave of competition for new ordering.

John Smith, you owe an explanation why you change the existing and stable name ordering while you obviously know that you haven't reached a consensus on your "Japanese-name-go-first" rule. Please gain the consensus first before trying to do it again.

Also, by removing the stable sub-heading and replacing them with the very long one like this[6], it significantly worsens the article.

I'm particularly concerned about the behavior of some editors who have registered an account long time ago but only becomes very active in this article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment You reverted 2 hours of work just because you don't like the section names. You reverted back all the passages with missing citations, dead links, incorrectly placed references, banners, and claim it was better the way it was before. Sorry, I do not believe you.

The original, shorter section names were very vague, referring to "Japan's perspective" and "PRC and ROC perspectives". I used names more relevant to the contents, such as "Japanese government's argument", "Non-governmental arguments from Japan's perspective", and "Governmental and non-governmental arguments from PRC and ROC". If you don't like the length, change only the headings.

I would love to dig up your history too; unfortunately, it's only 2-month old.DXDanl (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My edits here introduced the term "perspective." I wonder why those trivial changes were not perceived as a good step in a constructive direction?

I equate "vague" with "neutral" or non-controversial. I construed the word "perspective" as non-judgmental, non-argumentative, and non-assertive. When I tweaked the indents and section headings, I had hoped to smooth the way for consensus to develop.

I wonder if someone might suggest how I might more effectively encourage consensus-building? --Tenmei (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the use of Japan's perspective and PRC & ROC's perspectives headings, just nice and easy. STSC (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I just thought that when the heading says "perspective", it's not clear what is actually being presented--are these going to be the arguments used, or the historical animosity among the parties involved, or their political & economic motives?DXDanl (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Winston, I note that you keep demanding that people gain consensus, but you're not using the talk page. Ergo I assume that you're not the consensus we formed to have it in the current fashion. If you're unhappy, you can try to reach consensus having it in a different fashion. John Smith's (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Winston, there was no edit-warring. Everyone was happy, it's you causing the conflict. I challenge you to leave the current format as it is and see who, if anyone, starts edit-warring because of it. As things stand you're causing the edit-conflict. John Smith's (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

John Smith's, I think you're going too far by pushing your "Japanese go first" criteria in this article. Some of your changes were straightforward - change the name ordering without doing anything and those changes were reverted. The latest efforts were to remove all sub-headings and implicitly change the name ordering without gaining consensus. Keep the weasal word everyone in the discussion but don't miss this discussion[7]. It seems that not "everyone" agree with your Japanese-go-first rule. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I glanced through this page and I realize that there is a subtle pro-Japanese tone resulted from how the article and arguments are presented. Here are a few things to consider:

1. Some of the figures have a very strong pro-Japanese overtone. When I cross-checked some of the captions with the Chinese page using a translator, there appears to be some discrepancies. The Japanese page has no figure, so I can't do the same comparison for their PoV.

Chinese version: In 1919 a group of Fujian fishermen on the Diaoyu Islands stranded by the Japanese Koga good times to rescue the following year, the Northern Government in Nagasaki, Consul General Feng Mian to Koga issue of appreciation, which in that "the Empire of Japan Okinawa Yaeyama-gun, the Senkaku Islands," and other words, the present Japan This is recognized as Diaoyutai in China owned by Okinawa's position. However, at that time the Taiwan, Penghu, Okinawa, Diaoyutai are already in the hands of the Japanese, the Chinese did not intervene in any administrative division of the Japanese empire.

English version: Ryuku Shimpo claims that a letter from the Republic of China (中華民國) consul to Nagasaki on May 20, 1921, referred to "Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, the Empire of Japan".[42][43][not in citation given] The letter is on exhibition at Yaeyama museum.[42]

Also, I find it strange that the figure showing the Chinese newspaper Reimen Ribao is on there because it does not seem to be a strong piece of evidence. Texts from a newspaper, state-owned or not, is not of the same authoritive caliber as a government document. For example, if BBC is to claim that the Folkland islands belong to Argentina, should one even take that seriously?

2. The PRC and ROC argument section is very disorganized and does not effectively layout the Chinese PoV of the issue while the Japanese section is much more organized. At the same time, a number of the Chinese claims have been disputed throughout the article but I find a distinct lack of counter-arguments to Japanese claims, which I believe should exist (otherwise, this wouldn't be a dispute). Also, the "Non-governmental arguments" section is basically "Non-governmental Japanese arguments" given the volume of pro-Japanese arguments there. While some might argue that the Chinese can present no other valid argument in this issue, I am rather skeptical about that.

Suggestion: This page needs to have a big clean-up and writing style has to be made uniform to minimize the bias caused by writing style and argument presentation. I'd also a more balanced representation of arguments from both sides. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For a quick fix. May I suggest to first create 2 sections. One as "Non government pro-Japanese view" and "Non government pro-Chinese view"? This should not be controversial by make it more organized. San9663 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob, no offence, but I note your account was created on 10 September - not very long after the recent dispute over the islands started. I therefore have to question whether you're a neutral party in this, especially as you're complaining about "pro-Japanese tone".

I have no idea why you're raising the Chinese and Japanese pages - they have no relation to the English page.

The BBC is not State controlled, whereas the Remin Bao is. So again I have no idea why you're making the comparison. John Smith's (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

John Smith, if you think I am a sock, then you can check my list of activities. My activity in wikipedia started with the editing of a science page and later on, commentaries regarding a particular disputed profile. These events took place long before the recent re-ignition of the Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute. As for your argument about Reimen Ribao, I've already addressed it. The fact it is a state-run newspaper implies its contents are controlled by the state but that does not mean it officially speaks for the government. It will only undermine the Japanese argument if it tries to equate a state-run newspaper article with a government document. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet, though I do wonder you know about them despite only having been here for less than a month. In any event, your account was created on 10 September 2010, 3 days after the Chinese trawler captain was arrested, so how can you say that you started editing "long before" the reignition of the dispute?

You haven't addressed the point about the Remin Bao, because no one is saying it was the Chinese government's position. Yet given the censorship that existed in China, and the fact that it was an official party mouthpiece, the article is significant as it wouldn't have been published if Chinese officials had disagreed with it. John Smith's (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, the issue reignited when the PRC decided to harden their stance. Before that, it was just yet another of those minor skirmishes between the Chinese and Japanese.

There's actually little information regarding how much control the state exerts over its state media. At the time of the article's writing, the communist government was only four years old and likely would not have mastered the art of censorship. Granted that they do filter out pro-West and anti-communist opinions, we don't actually know to what extent they control the contents of their newspaper at such a time.

And of course, even if you are right, I'd be interested to see how other articles from the same newspaper in the same decade perceive the dispute islands. Otherwise, this is just another example of selective bias.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that for a political entity to have a certain name, it does not necessarily have to possess a geographic entity of the same name. Even if the article opined that the islands were part of the Okinawa island chain, it did not in fact say the Japanese territory named Okinawa owned it. If that's also the PRC government's view point at that time, then that's even less reason to believe they perceived those islands to be part of Japan at that time. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warring started only a few days after the captain was captured, so with all due respect it's not unreasonable to question when your account was registered. But I'm not going to press the issue further.

The People's Daily is and has always been the CCP's mouthpiece. It has also always been under the Party's control. Therefore what it publishes is in this case significant in that it disagrees with China's current argument that it never recognised Japanese sovereignty and in some ways supports Japan's claim to the islands.

If you have some more examples of People's Daily articles from that period, you're free to link to them so that we can discuss them.

China currently recognises Japanese control of the Okinawan Islands. Indeed, did it ever dispute it since the founding of the PRC? Therefore if the Senkakus are regarded to be part of the Okinawan chain that also undermines China's position. John Smith's (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That article does not contradict with the Chinese contradict the Chinese current argument that it never recognized Japanese sovereignty because those islands did not belong to Japan at the time of its publication. It also did not need to dispute the sovereignty of these islands if it expected the U.S. to return the disputed island to its regime at 1971, which was when PRC and ROC started their first protests. And of course, the geographic classification of the Okinawa island chains could've changed within the time period between 1953 - 1971 as a result of research and new findings. However, this doesn't interfere with the issue because the question of Japanese sovereignty did not exist until 1971.

I don't have the resources to dig up the historical archives of the newspaper. But for that article to even be consider as an argument, one needs to show that it is a prevailing opinion from the same source at around the same time period. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the Okinawan islands did belong to Japan - they were being administered by the US at the time. And if China was recognising that the Senkakus were part of the Okinawan chain, it's a bit rich for it to packpeddle when Japan regained control of the latter.

There is no assertion that it was the prevailing opinion at the time. An image serves as a snapshot and/or example, nothing more. If people can't find other People's Daily articles from that period, well it's unfortunate, but we will work with what we have. John Smith's (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is no assertion that it was the prevailing opinion at the time, then the right way of doing this is to note that in either the figure caption or in a related paragraph. As for your claim about the Okinawan islands, I will direct you to the link of a couple of wikipages -> History_of_the_Ryukyu_Islands#Post-war_occupation and Occupation_of_Japan. If you disagree with their contents, feel free to start an edit war in those pages. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The captions are already too large per the MoS (see below), and it is not appropriate to say "we don't know that.....". The articles aren't about what we "know" or "don't know", it's about facts that we can arrange in a way that are helpful to people. That's why, for example, the article on the Nanking Massacre does not have references to the fact that no one is saying all Japanese soldiers engaged in competitions to behead as many people as possible.

Wikipedia articles are not a valid source in discussing how to edit other articles. John Smith's (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If the captions are already too large to comment that, then put it in a related paragraph where the figure was cited. It's not a big deal at all.

We aren't discussing how to edit other articles in an wikipedia article. We are doing so in a discussion page of a wikipedia article. However, I don't see why this point is being raised.

Since you stopped responding to the debate about Okinawa's postwar sovereignty prior to 1971, I'd assume you concede that you've made a mistake in your earlier argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I removed your additions to two images because they were WP:SYN. Image captions do not need commentary. Please educate yourself. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "However, at that time the Taiwan, Penghu, Okinawa, Diaoyutai are already in the hands of the Japanese, the Chinese did not intervene in any administrative division of the Japanese empire". It seems to be your own

interpretation. Or PRC/ROC claim? Japan says Senkaku Islands were already their territories and they were not included in Shimonoseki treaty. The letter said "Okinawa", not Taiwan. If the islands were included in the treaty, Feng Mien would have written "Senkaku, XX Prefecture, Taiwan". See Political divisions of Taiwan (1895–1945). Please explain why the islands were not in divisions of Taiwan. You may think it's my personal interpretation like yours. It's OK. Remember this page is not a forum. So please show RS with your comments. Again please learn more of Wikipedia. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to your first post:

In the first figure, the original sentence was It refers to the islets as the "Senkaku islands in Okinawa" without identifying the rightful owner of these islands. where you removed without identifying the rightful owner of these islands. My opinion is that both the remaining and removed texts were equally objective observations of the figure.

As for the remaining sentence that you removed from each figure, I don't believe it violates the WP:SYN you referenced. The reason being that they only indicate the status of the relevant territory's sovereignty at the date of the respective documents' creation, nothing more. However, is it relevant? Yes.

Consider a similar example from a figure in World War I which detailed a component of a photograph and its background: In the forest of Compiègne after agreeing to the armistice that ended the war, Foch is seen second from the right. The carriage seen in the background, where the armistice was signed, later was chosen as the symbolic setting of Pétain's June 1940 armistice. It was moved to Berlin as a prize, but due to Allied bombing it was eventually moved to Crawinkel, Thuringia, where it was deliberately destroyed by SS troops in 1945.

For others who would like to comment on this, this is what Oda Mari reverted. Instead of starting an edit war, I'd like to have other more experienced editors to decide whether or not what was reverted had violated WP:SYN.

Response to your second post:

Whatever you quoted, was a translation from the Chinese version of the page, which I did not write. Even though your argument's irrelevant to this discussion, I will reply to it since there's something obviously wrong - The fact that islands were part of the Okinawa administrative division after the treaty does not mean they could not have been annexed from another administrative division. But again, this is not related to the discussion.

Lastly, I find your "please educate yourself", "please use RS", and "please learn" comments unnecessarily arrogant and offensive. If you are the professional wikipedia editor you are trying to present yourself as, the first thing you should do is to refrain from making things personal with the person you are talking to. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I apologize if you are offended. I meant well. You came here on September 10 and I just thought you don't know much about what's what at here. In fact, it took more than a year for me to learn it and there are still lots of things I have to learn. But Wikipedia is not a RS. Oda Mari (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The second part of those captions is unquestionably WP:SYN. It's exactly what WP:SYN was created to address. It takes two facts, from two different sources (one of which still needed to be added, but I'm willing to assume it could be), and puts them together to imply some sort of connection. Unless you have a reliable sources that states both "It refers to the islands as 'Senkaku islands in Okinawa'" and "the Japanese territory were disputed by the USA at the time this was written" then you cannot add the information. If you look at the second example of WP:SYN, you'll see (hopefully) that the sentence prior to Oda Mari's removal to be quite similar. If you aren't persuaded by this (or other editors), probably the next easiest thing is to post on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and ask for their opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to disagree. Trivially, one can claim the same about any compound text that contain multiple independent facts from multiple independent sources (and there are lots of that in Wikipedia). However, WP:SYN did not strictly forbid this from happening. So the part about "implying some sort of connection" is ultimately a matter of subjectivity. Since omitting important context from a figure/source can often lead to gross misrepresentation of facts, this WP:SYN can easily be exploited by anyone in cases like this.

The second part of that disputed sentence is even less relevant to WP:SYN, since both the retained and remove parts are, again, equally direct observations of the text. Since I've already posted a tag for commentaries, hopefully, there will be other editors commenting on this.

By the way, I don't mean to pull the race card, but DxDanl does make a good point about the amount of pro-Japanese editors around. While John Smith's stance may be ambiguous, both Oda Mari and Qwyrxian have very strong Japanese connections according to what I read from their profiles. Not that I'd dismiss their arguments as non-sense based on that, but I would hope there will be more commentaries coming from those who are more culturally/nationally independent of the issue itself (if you get what I mean). Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this article has been a work-in-progress. We all know editors are not paid full-time to contribute here, so sometimes they need to take care of their lives. The first step IMO is to separate the dispute contents from the more factual contents. I'll be working on that first.

There are more Japanese & counter-Chinese claims then there are their counterparts. There's little anyone can do about that, since there seem to be more editors who are supporting Japan's claims. But eventually, everything, regardless of its position, should meet verifiability, NPoV, English-translation, etc. guidelines.

The "Non-governmental arguments" heading was briefly something like "Non-governmental arguments from Japan", but Winstonlighter wanted something shorter. It's not perfect, and neither is much of everything else here; feel free to come up with a better heading.

Regarding the People's Daily (& that map from the Washington Times), I guess none of you above can read Chinese? They definitely contradict whoever's claims put in English (hint: check all the island names in Kanji; the paper was not talking about Okinawa; what was put under U.S. trusteeship was not only Okinawa). But right now I don't have time to translate characters into English, provide proof, and organize an argument. Feel free to tackle it if you want to. Lastly, an image associated with text should come from the same source; else you'll go through a lot of trouble verifying whether it's actually the one referred to.DXDanl (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DXDanl that it really needs to separate the 'disputed information' from the 'undisputed', and put a label to those which are disputed, either pro-Japan or pro-China descriptions. This should be easy to do. The problem now is that some of the pro-China and also some of the pro-Japan statements were listed as if they were NPOV. A simple rule is: if the statement is disputed in the talk page, we should label it or move to the disputable area (or at least add a note to it) Secondly, the Chinese POV section is really in a mess. Would someone go clean it up please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Diaoyutai/Tiaoyutai

Regarding the most recent edits, Tiaoyutai = Diaoyutai. There is no name difference, both mean the same = 釣魚台. Taiwan's media has no uniform spelling rules for romanizations, as there is no law that defines it. Some may use Wade-Giles, whilst others use Tongyong or Hanyu Pinyin. Officially, the ROC government uses Hanyu Pinyin. I don't think "Tiaoyutai" should be included, as it is merely a spelling variation; why not include "Romeyo and Juliyet", "Romyo and Juliet" and "Romeo and Jooliet" as alternate names for Romeo and Juliet? In Shakespeare's time, there were no fixed spelling rules either, which is why we have doth, does, dith, glitter, glister, glistens, A Midsummer Night's Dream, A Midſommer Nights Dreame (As it hath beene sundry times publickely acted, just so you know), etc. The WP:COMMONNAME of Diaoyutai applies here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See also Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All that I ask is that when the ROC-gov uses a term over and over again in their own English language pages that we have one tiny mention of that term in wikistan. How many dozen refs will it take to satisfy you as to Taiwan's use of this spelling when they generate English language material? Hcobb (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You could have it in the lede as "also known as the Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyutai/Tiaoyutai Islands" if you feel that it's really necessary, or in the "Names" section; but you can't write it as if it is an entirely different name to Diaoyutai, when it is just a variation in spelling. It's not refs I'm worried about, it's just that there is no difference at all between Diaoyutai and Tiaoyutai as they both render the same characters, and it seems a bit extra to include it since Hanyu Pinyin is supposed to be the official romanization in Taiwan anyway. Recently we've renamed a large number of battle articles and Taiwan location articles following the switch from Tongyong to Hanyu Pinyin (e.g. Tachen Islands moved to Dachen Islands); non-standard romanizations aren't supposed to be used systematically. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Benlisquare's suggestion makes things easier. As far as I know, the new Taiwan romanization system (launched in 2009?) for the names of disputed islands is also Diaoyutai rather than Tiaoyutai. Need an expert. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The easier way is to say it up front that Diaoyutai=Tiaoyutai=Diaoyu=Tiaoyu in Chinese. In fact, this also applies to the google search return comparison. These different spellings are the same in the original language and should be treated as the same. San9663 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

References Removed for Another Attempt

Regarding this paragraph,

According to Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara, an edition of the Communist Party of China-controlled People's Daily published 8 January 1953 described the islands as part of Japan's territory as did a world atlas published in China in 1960, with competing claims to the islands only appearing after 1970 when natural resources in the area were attracting attention.

the following 4 references were all put only at the end of the aforementioned paragraph.

<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703793804575512543702131502.html Wall Street Journal interview with Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara] ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' 2010-09-25</ref>

<ref name="GlobalSec"/>

<ref{{Cite web|url= http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html |title=The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan}}</ref>

<ref>{{ cite news|url= http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201009220480.html |publisher=Asahi shimbun |title=Why Japan claims the Senkaku Islands |date=2010-09-25}} (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5t0H8uo0C )</ref>

First of all, if you were to write Maehara said such and such, then everything must be what he has said. Only one (the WSJ) of the references refers to Maehara, and that reference still needed a quotation. The MoFA reference represents the government, so if you were to replace Maehara with Japanese government, then you've got only 2 references (the WSJ needs a quotation). Second, please keep each point separate (as written, there are 3 points). Third, do not treat Global Security or the Asahi Shimbun as the Japanese government. Leave them out or put in the non-government section. Fourth, as I've said before, if you want to make edits, then make them reasonably correct. I've copied down all the references for you except for a few < and > in the code. Please try again.DXDanl (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with intact code.DXDanl (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Need reasons for some reverts

John Smith's (or any other?), why did you revert the change on this sentence? Since 1971, the sovereignty over Senkaku islands had claimed by Japan, the PRC & ROC though Japan had controlled those islands actually.

The sentence is poorly phrased and has very obvious grammatical mistakes. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In the ROC and PRC section, there is a massive use of {{verify credibility}} tag without further explanations. The tone in that section is to state the official national views of China and the People's Daily, no matter reliable or not in its nature, is a reliable source for official views. Those tags were removed with this explanation in edit summary but it were reverted back without any explanations. The relentless use of this tag would imply that all government sources could be regarded as unreliable even if they merely mentions how the governments think of the issue. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In the PRC and ROC section, it mentions that both the states argue that they have sovereignty over the islands for two reasons. First... . This sentence was previously edited out because it obviously contradicts with the section which states many reasons proposed by both government. Can you explain why you reverted it? --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not replace "Senkaku" with "disputed" throughout the article. It is confusing. Furthermore, please do not remove the argument that The Japanese government argues that the disputed islands were not implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa" in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. You were asked by Magog the Ogre not to revert (e.g. remove text) from the article without getting consensus first.

As for the comment in the lead that you added about the first record of the islands, I don't think that's appropriate to add in yet. We need to discuss it first. John Smith's (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a number of people (including you) reverted my contents without asking for a consensus. I don't see you making a fuss about that for some reason. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather depends what edits you're talking about. I'm not a Wikipedia policeman. John Smith's (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of being a wiki policeman, but a matter of general standard of being a good editor. A good editor is one who scrutinizes (what he considers as) mistakes in anything he sees regardless of context. A bad editor can be one who scrutinizes (what he considers as) mistakes only in texts that express viewpoints that are not to his liking. And of course, objectivity is generally encouraged in Wikipedia. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think John Smith's is getting touchy with any changes on the article and assume all those changes targets his pro-Japan stance.

The sentence The Japanese government argues that the disputed islands were not implied to... was added by me a few days ago but this sentence is obviously redundnant. Look at this paragraphy:

There is a disagreement between the Japanese, PRC and ROC (Taiwan) governments as to whether the Senkaku Islands are implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa".[8] The Japanese government argues that the disputed islands were not implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa" in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

The second sentence talks about the same thing, same idea, same fact in the same paragraphy.

Please use common sense and don't exploit an advice from an adminstrator. When you're asked not to revert, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't touch anything in the article.

Anyway, thank for your efforts in checking what's edited and haven't reverted my grammar fix again. --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Winston, if you're going to accuse me of being biased all the time I may choose to ignore you sometimes. You have a choice, either act like an adult and stop handing out vague accusations, or carry on as you are and don't bother talking to me at all. I don't accuse you of being pro-China/anti-Japan or anything else like that.

I take it that you accept that spamming "disputed islands" everywhere was unhelpful.

We need to say why the governments disagree. It's not enough to say that they disagree if their positions aren't clear. John Smith's (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

John, your recent reverts have been disputed by not just me and your reverts has edged yourself on WP:OWN.

Your recent reverts, as far as I can remember, include:

1. Remove the important background information that Japan lost the second war in 1945 and the treaties signed by the miltant Japanese governemnt before 1945 were nullfied.
2. unconsensed move to futitely chang the name ordering, revert others' reverts, and ignore adminstrators' previous efforts on maintaining the stable name ordering.
3. revert the change on poorly phrased sentence Since 1971, the sovereignty over Senkaku islands had claimed by Japan, the PRC & ROC though Japan had controlled those islands actually. -- it doesn't even match wikipedia writing style.

Aside your fancy accusation that other people don't "act like adults", "refuse to gain consensus", "don't assume good faith", I seriously suggest that you read other comments about your reverts and act like a serious and neutral editor instead of being touchy with all changes in the article.

I was worried that you may be led into ban by violating WP:OWN. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert on the lead

An editor today edited out the background information in the lead.

The first record of those islands dated back to the Ming Dynasty of China.Japan controlled them from 1895 until her surrender in WWII. The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972....

The lead has been edited a lot of times in this month. I think editors are expected to explain why they feel right that the lead should talk about when it was administrated while removing the fact about when it were recorded. Both of them significantly contributes to the sovereignty dispute. --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder if any of the other editors here would correct this if this change is left alone. It would be nice if they apply the same standards for pro-Chinese and pro-Japanese contents, not that I am accusing them of the contrary. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, John Smith is the one who made the change. What a surprise! Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any article on Wikipedia about disputed islands (maybe there are and I don't know them) that include the first description of the islands in the lead section. In any event, I don't think that it's relevant enough to put in the lead section. So what if there was a record of them from the Ming Dynasty? John Smith's (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to a translation of the Chinese page, there were actually numerous administrative documents from the Ming Dynasty. I don't know the details of them, but I believe it does indirectly contradict a minor belief that the Japanese discovered the islands. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does the article claim Japanese people discovered the islands? John Smith's (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw articles that made a reference to that in a number of prominent newspapers. I haven't checked the entire contents of this wiki page, but I believe it should occur around texts involved in the first Sino-Japanese wars or Japanese arguments. A version that's common in media is that the Japanese "discovered" the islands near the end of the war and occupied it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proved by the comment above, I think John Smith's change by effect mislead other editors to think that Japanese discovered the islands. Even though the word in the lead is "Japan has administrated the islands from..." , it still makes the chronology vague and unclear but this is a staple ingredient in this territorial dispute between China and Japan. I propose to remove John Smith's revert because it has worsened the article rather than improving it.

But the article doesn't repeat those assertions, so there's no need to have a counter-claim. John Smith's (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment in this sectione has clearly shown that an involved editor felt misled by the current lead and I have the same feeling. Like many of your reverts, you were the only one to dispute this. (Check WP:OWN)--Winstonlighter (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Then treat it as a claim? Although, someone fluent in Chinese has to provide the references to those documents. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to look for a source now. :> --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

For other articles on disputed islands, see Liancourt Rocks (aka Dokdo aka Takeshima), which is pretty stable now (they basically had the same knock-down, drag-out fight about how to handle the contentious issue several years ago. 22:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-governmental arguments

This section is very messy and very badly organized.

It would be clearer if divided and labelled as the following sub-sections

1. pro-Japan non-government views 2. pro-PRC/ROC non government views

then under each sub-section label and arrange clearly each person/organization's view, and also arrange these view either alphabetically or chronologically.

I tried to put a label for "Lee Tenghui's view" but then his view pops up in the beginning and then somewhere near the end, while some other views (e.g. some newspaper) interspersed in between.

Also, these are better called views/opinions rather than arguments. As they mostly overlaps with the government arguments above. -- unless we remove the repeated portions of the argument and only list the truly new arguments. San9663 (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi San9663. Welcome to the discussion. There is another section that's related to what you are talking about. Maybe you can direct the discussion to there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

San, with all due respect, those edits you've made are really untidy and not very clear. If someone doesn't action this before me, I will see if I can pull the wheat from the chaff and sort it out. There's also original research in there, amongst other problems. Overall it needs urgent attention. John Smith's (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

John Smith. You are welcome to help tidy things up. But please refrain from applying POV there and explain your reason here. I had made suggestions and received various feedbacks in talk pages before going ahead to edit. I wish you will be respectful and do the same.

I found the chronology sequence was messed up (e.g. 1895-1945 events were inserted in between events in 1700-1800) and there are things that were close to vandalism (e.g. paragraphs that were totally irrelevant such as those that should belong to Taiwan entry, and definitely not part of the PRC/ROC argument) which I have edited. Since such POV vandalism have been tolerated all these times I would like to see them addressed before you propose anything else. Thank you. San9663 (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I restored the sections to the original section. It was divided by Winstonlighter without any reasonable explanation. I don't think there is any rationale to split the Japanese section to Governmental/non-Govermental sections. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It was divided by an editor (not me) who pushed his unconsensus "Japanese-should-go-first" rule. I agree the recent divisions actually worsen the article, however the involved editors claims that it's a result of consensus. He divded the section, removed all sub-headings, and in the middle of it, he changed the ordering structure and claimed that everyone is happy with it. His previous attempt on changing the name ordering in doing nothing but changing existing table in Geography section were disputed and no consensus has been reached. Thanks Phoenix777 for coming back to deal with those stubborn and disruptive edits. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is much better than before. But the section still look like a spaghetti of event strings, without proper ordering or organization. IMO all the views (whether pro-Japan or pro-China, governmental/official or non-governmental, need to be better organized, and qualified). The "best practice" is the Japan government view, where it was listed at points 1,2,3,4. simple, direct, and easy to read. San9663 (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

San, I have a concern about your recent edits. You tried to put back all sub-headings to the China and Taiwan perspectives section and they were removed by John recently. You probably need to explain to him because on my record, he's reverted many edits without discussing it first.

As a new editor in Wikipedia, you seem to only focus exclusively on this article. I was worried that you're not familiar with the recent edits and would be unfortunately banned.

Also, I'm not an English expert but I can see your recent addition contains many avoidable mistakes in the parts of speech, tenses, and spellings.

PRC/ROC both claim that as a result of Japan's surrender in WWII and its acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. The Treaty of Shimonoseki is nullified. On this basis, they argue that since the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were ceded along with Taiwan in 1895, therefore when Japan returned to China all territories it had obtained from China since the First Sino-Japanese War at the end of World War II, the Senkaku Islands were returned along with Taiwan and all other territories (such as Manchuria) to China.

The main rationales are 1. Claiming based on history and discovery (See below). 2. Claiming that Senkaku/Diaoyu were ceded as a result of the First Sino-Japanese War, and therefore should have been reverted as the war ended in 1945. 3. Claiming that Potsdam Declaration stated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the island

Those additions only leave the article with many un-wikified sentences and more grammatical errors. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above Winstonlighter's indications, The most serious problem is that San9663 added the descriptions without any sources. I will review the edits and remove all the un-sourced descriptions recently added. This article is a contentious article. So un-sourced additions are strictly prohibited. The un-sourced additions and the removal of sourced contents will be punished by blocking the editor from editing. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree on this one. Any claims that are unsubstantiated by a reliable source should be deleted. While I believe that the sources that correspond to a lot of those "citation needed" texts are out there somewhere, it is simply sloppy and unprofessional to have whole paragraphs devoid of citations/references. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to organize and rearrange what were already there, since no one was doing anything. I added many sources in subsequent edits. 90% of those material can be found in many of the references listed in this same wiki page, and in particular the one from Japanfocus that was linked. I would be happy if you can all help to improve it, isn't this what wiki is for? San9663 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Countless efforts have been played at improving the section you're editing today - doing grammar fix, removing irrelvant content, making the chronography easier to read. In your edits, you tried to put those arguments more systematically and it was also done by other editors before.

However, they were relentlessly reverted to a messy version you tried to edit today. Anyway, I think you're bringing the article to a right direction now. --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Need clarification

This newly added paragraphy is quite confusing. It seems to mix up the status of Taiwan and Diaoyu Islands. Can anyone help clarify and improve it? However, the United States, as principal victor over Japan, has consistently maintained that there was no "return" of island territories to China after the close of hostilities in World War II, either due to the Japanese surrender ceremonies, or according to the specifications of the post-war treaties. The Starr Memorandum of the US State Dept., issued in Oct. 1971, is often quoted as an authoritative reference on this subject. In September 2010 Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs Jeffrey Bader said that, "we do not take a position on the respective territorial claims of China and Japan towards the Senkaku Islands. But... the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty covers all areas administered by Japan, and since the reversion of Okinawa from the U.S. to Japan in 1972, the Senkaku Islands have been administered by Japan."

In a 1959 court case in the United States, the State Department of the United States was specifically quoted as maintaining that: " . . . the sovereignty of Formosa has not been transferred to China . . . " and that "Formosa is not a part of China as a country, at least not as yet, and not until and unless appropriate treaties are hereafter entered into. Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China." --Winstonlighter (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Msvt, 7 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} You need to see the point of view from English native people. Basically if you want to have a chinese name here then you must create another page in Chinese. We have got too many Chinese name here instead of Japanese name making us confused. We do not care about "Diaoyutai Islands" here at all, all we want to know is about Senkaku Islands in this page. Msvt (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This request appears to mirror the thinking of those who suggest moving the territorial dispute to a corollary article, e.g.,

Main article: Senkaku Islands dispute

Msvt's diff implies that this may be perceived as a constructive step.

It does not yet appear that a consensus has solidified either for or against this editing strategy. Compare Spratly Islands dispute, Liancourt Rocks dispute, etc. --Tenmei (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline. I don't see it a problem at all. The island itself is disputed in sovereignty and along with it, its naming. For an average English reader who has read the first two sentences of the page, he should instantly realize the few aliases this island can take. At the same time, one must realize that the Japanese language is derived from the Chinese language. As a result, at least some of the "Chinese names" written on the page are actually what the Japanese would write in their Japanese articles -> example. However, I do appreciate that you raise the question first without blindly removing contents from the page (unlike certain editors here). Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This request seems to be related to a current dispute. --Stickee (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that it particularly matter, but it is 100% false to say that the Japanese language is derived from the Chinese language. It is correct to say that the Japanese writing system is derived as a complex synthesis of Chinese characters imported in a series of waves in complex and contradictory waves (some characters imported for phonetic reasons, others for semantic, etc.). On the bigger issue, I definitely believe that the dispute should be split off from the main article, just like in the other examples given above. This article would still mention, even in the lead, the dispute, and probably a one paragraph summary, but this article would focus on the islands themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right in that the Japanese language itself is not derived from the Chinese language, which is a hasty mistake on my part. I am against omitting the Chinese name of the islands on the grounds the islands are a special case in terms of international politics. While the Japanese military had predominant presence in those islands, much of the major powers in the worlds including the U.S. have not openly expressed an opinion about its sovereignty. At the same time, Chinese civilians and, more recently, military personnel have regularly visited the islands without Japanese permission (if that's legally necessary at all). As a result, I believe it is fair to assume a more neutral stance on the naming of the islands, even if the dispute is to be made into a separate page.

As for splitting the dispute off to a different page, I'd agree to that idea if and only if there is a section in the original page that says "Dispute of Sovereignty between PRC/ROC, and Japan" followed by a link to the dispute page and followed by a brief paragraph detailing that the sovereignty status of the islands is still highly disputed (the same would be reiterated in the header of the page).

Now, I do understand pro-Japanese editors may desperately want to somehow convince people that those islands should belong to Japan, but misrepresenting information on wikipedia is generally not the right or ethical way of achieving this end. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I never think all of the Chinese name should be removed. However, the alternative name "Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyutai Islands" should not be used in the body of this article except for "Names" section unless it is an absolute necessity in the context (i.e. direct quote, referring to the Chinese name) because it was described in the lead per WP:UEIA. I have never seen the article which mixed up the title name and its alternative name in the body of the article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment Leave the names as they are. First of all, I disagree with Phoenix7777. 90% of the article already uses "the islands" or "the disputed islands" so that it doesn't have to use the full name in any language. The only times "Diaoyu" is used already ARE when naming is discussed or when quotes are used from Chinese sources. Second, "senkaku" and "sento" literally means "pinnacle." It's a shame that all the media in English used a translation without even finding out about the English name. No one even knew or cared about so-called "Senkaku Islands" until the news started coming in. On the other hand, "Diaoyu" means angling and is actually an original name.DXDanl (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think that's a very fair way of doing it, but that apparently didn't sit well with editors like John Smith. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: "The disputed islands", "those islands", "the islands" have been used throughout the article and it hardly causes any confusion. However, it's until recently that some editors try to put the confusing naming everywhere. One mistake I can see is to use "Senkaku islands" when he quoted the official stance of Chinese governments. I was almost misled into thinking "senkaku" was the orginial word in Chinese documents. I have to agree with DXDanl's suggestion Leave the names as they are and it helps stablize the article too. --Winstonlighter (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Radical (but policy based) suggestion

I just removed about 6-7 References, some just added, some that were in the article before. Wikis (even wikipedia) are not ever reliable sources, nor , in most circumstances, are self-published websites by groups not clearly authorities. To be honest, there's a lot of "information" in this article that is not cited, or is not cited well. My suggestion is that one or more editors go through and remove all references that don't meet the standards of WP:RS, then go through and literally remove everything that isn't clearly referenced. We could keep all of the unreferenced statements on a user page for future work. Then, once we see what we have that is actually legitimately verified, we can consider what other sources we can add that bring back in the other information. This would give us a much clearer picture of what infromation can certainly stay, and what needs to be cited first before it is allowed to stay. Now, this would be a radical move, so I'm not (quite) ready to do it myself at the moment. But WP:V and WP:OR aren't just suggestions--they're 2 of the key pillars of editing policy. Before I even contemplate making such a bold move, I'd like to get a feeling for what other editors would do. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced your removal of citations with {{verify credibility}} tags. It has also been added to the personal homepages of geocities, infoseek and hope this time no one would revert it before improving them. I can observe that there is an ongoing effort from some Chinese and Japanese speakers trying to improve the citations of this article. It would be useful to let them know which source has a problem, and look for those information in proper websites. That is what {{verify credibility}} is supposed to do. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. This page is already grossly overloaded with unverified information I'd much rather to have these materials be stored in a separate place and be added one at a time as reliable sources become available. It's be nice to have a special talk-page where we can have each section being a separate piece of information accompanied with discussions of whether or not it should be added. While this one may serve such a purpose, it's also incredibly overloaded with other stuff. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to re-remove them, Winstonlighter. That tag is only when the link are questionable sources. Here, there is absolutely no question. Open-wikis are never, under any situation, reliable sources--this is stated explicitly in the SPS section of WP:RS (by definition, an open wiki cannot meet the "qualified expert in the field" exception). Thus, those sites must go. The picture must indisputably go, because it can't verify (even if it existed) the statement in question (when the shrine was built); it can't even verify that the picture is actually from the shrine in question. A picture would only be valid if it was part of a reliable source, and then we'd be citing the source, not the picture itself. The taiwanbasic site is the exact definition of a self-published source--there isn't even any author information, so we have no idea who wrote it. All of those sources must go. Re-adding them is a direct violation of WP:RS, and, indirectly, WP:V (because you're claiming that a fact is verified, when, in fact, it is not). The other ones you re-added are not ones I removed, so I have no comment on them either way until I've looked at them

I'd still like feedback on my idea of removing all unverified information from the article--in essence, starting fresh from what we know to be verified, and building from there.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Support. Yes, as I've said, this is a good idea. Again, the unverified information can be copied over to some talk-page, as you suggested. Hopefully, this will make the content management of this page more organized. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some wiki sources is quite easy to improve rather than simply removing it[8]. Anyway, if you insist to remove them and don't have time to look for a better source, let others do it. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Others are more than welcome to improve them. That, in fact, is what the {{cn}} tag is for. I didn't worry about the Potsdam one, since we already had one source, I didn't think it was necessary to get 2 (especially given how many cn tags are running around this article).Qwyrxian (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal homepages as a source

The articles contain several sources from personal homepages of geocities.jp and infoseek. A tag for unreliable sources were added, but they were removed without any improvement on the article. Wondering who made this? Can you explain? --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You should probably trace who added those from the history page. If they were all made by the same user, then you should report it to Magog the Ogre. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"population in 1909"

In the chronology section it was said the population of the islands (most likely the main island as the others were never really inhabited) reached 248 in 1909, and the source linked to a personal website. As I understand, Japanese census data were well maintained and well kept. So the source should be something from the government and should be both traceable and verifiable. Otherwise, I would suggest removing this, or at least add a qualifier such as "was claimed to". San9663 (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the source with a reliable source.

Sakurai, Yoshiko (October 7, 2010). Weekly Shincho (in Japanese) (430). Shinchosha. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) (translated copy of the article) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, this is definitely not a reliable source. It's almost as bad as Ann Coulter's personal blog. Would you deem something like that as reliable? Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems all the links point to the same article and the best it does is to prove the article is published in a magazine? Or did I miss something? All that it said is Ms Sakurai claimed "that as many as 248 Japanese fishermen were living on one of the islands in 1909", without saying whether this is from a census or some older report in Japan, or whereever she obtained it. From the tone of Ms Sakurai, it seems this should be a well known fact and should have other sources to support her claim. He article is more like an opinion editorial rather than an academic research, and highly dubious as a source. I am not disputing the truth of this though I thought 248 people in that small island seems to be very crowded 100 years ago. But I do think you guys should be able to find some literature before Sakurai's essay, something pre-1970s. San9663 (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing both the 1909 entry about some alleged # of Japanese residents and the 1970 entry that claimed it was the first time China proclaimed sovereignty of the islands. Reason if they share the same original source which is apparently a personal blog of yet another Japanese nationalist.

The deletion I did is found here and is done as per an earlier decision made with other editors in which materials with unreliable or unverified sources are removed.

Off-topic. Notice some of the hilarious things that journalist said in her blog -> It was indeed pathetic of Kan to have attempted to evade his responsibility as premier by trying to claim that the decision was made by a small local public office called the Naha District Prosecutors’ Office. This is nothing but sheer cowardice on his part. Needless to say, a prime minister should neither be incompetent nor disengaged. Moreover, for him to be a coward is unpardonable under all circumstances.. Ann Coulter anyone? Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. It is published by Shinchosha and sold all over Japan.[9] The link provided is certainly a blog, however it is simply a translated copy of the article provided as a courtesy. If you don't like it, please ignore the link. However I will provide another reliable academic journal. You can understand how the islands were utilized by Japanese.

Hiraoka, Akitoshi (2005). "The Advancement of Japanese to the Senkaku Islands and Tatsushiro Koga in the Meiji Era". Japanese Journal of Human Geography (in Japanese). 57 (5). The Human Geographical Society of Japan: p.515. In 1908, the reclaimed area reached to 60 chōbu (595,000m2). The number of residents is two hundred forty some. The number of houses is as many as ninety nine. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is Wikipedia's stance on editorials, but that article is still certainly not a reliable information source for this kind of purpose. It's way too opinionated and will only be useful for sections like "Japanese reaction" (if any should exist). My inclination is for it to be removed as a citation for the 1909 entry since you already have a supporting reference there.

I haven't gotten a chance to take a comprehensible look at the new sources, but the two journal articles that are newly posted seem legitimate at first glance. I also appreciate how the December 1970 entry loses its original POV pushing tone. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese Journal of Human Geography article is quite good. (The full text is available in PDF format.) The info on the population is given on page 13 (original 515): 1908年には尖閣諸島で「開墾面積が六十町歩に達し, 移住民の数二百四拾余名,戸数は九十九戸の多きあり…」と報じられている。 There is a cite for information: 琉球新報1908年6月19日付 (Ryūkyū Shimpō, June 19, 1908). There is nothing wrong with this as a reliable source. 124.214.131.55 (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We were referring to another reference written by some crappy journalist. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste from another site

The phrase "East China Sea width is only 360 nautical miles" seemed rather odd to me, so I tracked down the source for it:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm

Thanks. Hcobb (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To: San

While some of your recent addition is well sourced , you seemed to copy and paste a big paragraphy of other articles into this one and ignored what have been mentioned in other paragraphies. This by effect brought the redundancy of the article a new level. I've tried to keep everything you added but merged them into different paragraphy to avoid redundancy. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest to add the picture of the location of Diaoyu Island

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Diaoyu_island_Argument.png

I suggest to add the picture that describes the exact location of Diaoyu Island, and its relative position to China mainland, China continental shelf, Taiwan island, and Japan Ryukyu Island. It will help readers to understand the argument, particularly the China's claiming about the "Diaoyu Island locate at China's continental shelf".

I have no privilege to edit the page. So hereby I request that the editor add the picture on the page, as a part of "Geography" or "Arguments from PRC and ROC" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xijunw (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that image is marked with the correct copyright, but I found another image that also shows the islands relative to the East Asian region as a whole, and I have added it as part of the infobox. For a picture that illustrates China's continental shelf argument, you need to add some shaded line that shows the boundaries of the countries' respective continental shelves [with and without the disputed islands]. Quigley (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Chinese fishing boat incident in the East China Sea

The diplomatic situation that started as an incident between a Chinese fishing boat and several Japanese patrol boats on 9 September 2010, near three way disputed islands in the East China Sea named Diaoyu Islands (Chinese) or Senkaku Islands (Japanese). There are sufficient mainstream article references, three in the NY Times alone, as well as in others. High level ministerial communications between the two countries were broken off at one point, and may still be. This situation at least deserves a separate section in this article, and maybe a separate article should the situation become more prominent. — Becksguy (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, a separate article should be created. STSC (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur, Spratly Islands and Spratly Islands Dispute is a good example of how a situation like this can (hopefully) be managed to everyone's satisfaction. Philg88 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I asking myself, this just very normal event if compare to Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands, where every day countries around capture or even shoot fishing boats of each other like dinner and make same action like this event every time, this event well know just because media made it so hot that all, if make separate article then you can make hundreds or thousands more article with same situation.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear just a normal event. If the dispute is getting worse, the PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy) may just send in the warships. A separate article would monitor the whole event closely. STSC (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the situation is no longer just a fishing boat incident, as it has escalated into a diplomatic, political, and economic dispute between the countries. I'm working off-line to write the new article, and doing my best to keep it as neutral as I can. Does "2010 China-Japan fishing boat dispute" sound good as a title for the new article. I avoided the use of the islands in the title, as that would either result in an impossibly long title, or inherently favor on side or the other (Diaoyu vs. Senkaku). Or maybe the "2010 East China Sea fishing boat dispute". Or "2010 China-Japan East China Sea dispute"? Any thoughts on a title? — Becksguy (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Becksguy - How about "Chinese fishing boat incident in East China Sea, September 2010". STSC (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That works also, except stylistically I would prefer the year first: 2010 Chinese fishing boat incident in East China Sea, or as an example, 2009 Singapore Romanian diplomat incident. I've seen more articles that start with the year, although sometimes the year trails, as in United Kingdom general election, 2010. I searched for name conflicts and there are none, either way. I wish there was a memorable tag that goes with the incident, like the 2010 Suzhou workers riot (not to imply any equating of seriousness for any incident). But the most important thing is to keep any POV out of the title. No one disputes that the fishing boat is Chinese, no one seriously disputes that the waters are called the East China Sea, and no one disputes that the incident took place, and in this year, and it implies nothing about the territoriality of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, or the immediate surrounding waters. So it should be considered a neutral title, either way. I will post a link here to the article when created. — Becksguy (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The title is fine. We look forward to the article then. STSC (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're going for a separate article based on the incident, you might find this useful. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to create the article can it be 2010 Chinese fishing boat incident in the East China Sea please, so that the grammar is correct. Philg88 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the above site has been running slow in the past few days; I should have properly formatted the link.

• Tanaka Sakai, "Rekindling China-Japan Conflict: The Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands Clash," The Asia-Pacific Journal, 39-3-10, September 27, 2010. (English translation by Kyoko Selden)

The translation hosted at Japanfocus.org is based on the original article at 日中対立の再燃 (September 17, 2010, Tanaka News), with follow-ups from Sept 21 and Oct 1. There are also various additional links from within that article as well which are of relevance:

• • Sept 17, 2010, EDITORIAL : The KMT, CCP’s Third United Front, Taipei Times
  • Shih Hsiu-chuan, Sept 14, 2010, Activists scale down Diaoyutais plan, Taipei Times
  • AFP, Sept 17, 2010, Cross-strait maritime exercise held, Taipei Times
  • William Lowther, Sept 15, 2010, US, Japan to hold exercise to recapture disputed isles, Taipei Times
  • (plus a few more non-English media reports, mostly in Japanese)

Also related to the fishing boat incident and dispute:

• Fan Cheng-hsiang, Oct 04, 2010, Japan worried over ROC interpretation, Taipei Times

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

another reference for this event can be found at east asian forum article San9663 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is Sourabh Gupta? John Smith's (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not so hard to find with google these days? http://samuelsinternationalassociates.com/about_us. Are you just curious or trying to challenge the credibility? :) San9663 (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical events section

Eventually, this article will want to switch from use a bullet pointed chronology and instead get all of that information to prose (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)). Yes, I know that the detailed list is better than just a list of links, but prose is still preferable whenever possible. I'm not sure if you all would prefer to do this now, since you're in the middle of hashing out the details anyway, or if you would rather wait until the details themselves are more stable and convert to prose then. Technically speaking, the whole first half of the list should go anyway since it's unverified by reliable sources. So maybe you want to get a better sense of what can be salvaged and what can't be, then make the move to prose. Anyway, I just thought I'd bring that up now so that way we don't get to some future point where people say "But we can't change to prose because it took so long to agree on the list as written, so we just need to leave in this way." Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

chronological list looks fine and is easy to read. almost all the events are sourced well or discussed in previous sections. Not sure what you meant by "unverifiable source" San9663 (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

needs citations for this paragraphy

From 1624 until 1662, Taiwan and some of the surrounding islands, though not the Senkaku Islands, were controlled by the Dutch as a base for commerce. In 1662, the Dutch were driven out by ex-Ming Dynasty general Zheng Chenggong. Zheng Chenggong and his successors established the Kingdom of Tungning and controlled the area until 1683. In the same year, Zheng's grandson Zheng Keshuang was defeated by Qing Dynasty forces led by Admiral Shi Lang. From then on, Qing Dynasty China gained effective control over Taiwan and its surrounding islands, including the islands in dispute today.

After some efforts on looking for proper sources, I couldn't find out any proper sources for this paragraphy. Could anyone help? --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

how relevant is this whole paragraph really to the topic? 222.166.181.195 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bump! Request for comment regarding an alleged WP:SYN violation

I have requested a comment regarding my disagreement with John Smith, Oda Mari, and Qwyrxian about whether or not an old deletion event was legitimate. They argued that the deleted section violated WP:SYN and WP:NOR standards and I posted a number of counter arguments. However, even after posting an RFC on numerous boards, I still got no additional input from anyone else. And of course, none of the 3 editor I mentioned replied to my comments any further. As a result, I'd very much like the rest of you to offer your view on the matter. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had WP:NORN on my watchlist. I added a full explanation of my argument there, as well as a response to the one other person explaining why I believe their analysis is wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a more thorough reading of the Japanese indicates this may not be SYN. If that is the case (I still need clarification from one of the readers of Japanese about what exactly the article says), then I recommend we remove the picture. Having a picture of the newspaper does not add to the understand of the vast majority of our readers (that is, English speakers), and we need a much fuller explanation than we can easily provide in a caption. Instead, I recommend we just turn this into a full explanation in text, and just cite the article as we would any print newspaper. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Images nominated for deletion

Winstonlighter has nominated all of the images in the Japan claims section for deletion. Note that he did not notify anyone of this, he has not tagged the articles and he has not tagged them as used in this article either.

You can leave your comments here and here. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the deletion discussion for the Commons image ([10])? The closed discussion after the above 2 indicate that he made a deletion discussion on Commons, but I have no idea how to find it.

Also, Winstonlighter, as I mentioned there, it is extremely difficult to assume good faith when you explicitly nominated only the Japanese pictures, and did so under extremely specious reasons. The second one especially was entirely hypothetical--you assumed that the Washington Times somehow modified the image from the original to establish a new copyright. I guess I can just assume that you are unaware that the Foundation itself (I don't recall where this is, but it came up in connection to museums claiming copyright over photographs of public domain artwork) has stated that they do not accept that simple reproductions of public domain works can ever be copyrighted. There is nothing in those pictures to indicate that they were in any way altered from the original. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What are the criteria for which paper can be sourced and which cannot (e.g. Washington Post, NYT, vs Washington Time,Global Time, New Epoch)? what are the copyright rules here (e.g. can wiki simply port a picture owned by an external media company? is this map dated over a hundred year so that the copyright expired?)? you guys probably know more about these rule. anyway, if in doubt, we can also use a link pointing there instead of uploading them to wiki's domain? tot he readers this makes no substantial difference anyway. San9663 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The maps themselves are indisuptably old enough to be in the public domain. The claim that Winstonlighter was making is that when the Washington Times (and other examples) copied those maps and republished them, that they must have made modifications (despite the fact that we can't see any modifications), and that the new work must be copyrighted. I guess I should assume Winstonlighter just doesn't understand the issue of copies of public domain works--only changes that themselves involve creative work become copyrighted. For instance, if the map were displayed under particularly special lighting conditions, or put into a new frame, or had additions (say, an English translation), reproductions of those changes may (although aren't certainly) copyrightable. None of that applies to these pictures, as far as I can see. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the whole copyright argument either. Why should that even be a point to argue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am just raising the point that whether wiki should copy a figure directly on to wiki's domain, given that there may be copyright issue. As far as I know, copyright rule goes back to 75 years or more, depending on the country and also type of materials. (although that does not exclude you from seeking explicit non-commerical permission to use in wiki). The map qouted by washington time, according to that paper, was published in 1950s. I am not sure if that is "old enough". To this, I would like Qwyrxian to link us to the source which confirms his "old enough" statement (assuming, as he said, no significant modification has been made on the original map). San9663 (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My second question, which remains unanswered, is how do we differentiate small publisher such as Washington Time, Epoch Time from well known and more credible publishers such as NYT or WSJ? A couple days ago I suggested a link from a think tank and someone challenged me who the writer is instead of who the publisher is, for just suggesting a reference to be considered. I thought wiki should have guidelines regarding this issue and would appreciate if you guys could show where such guidelines are.San9663 (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)