![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
So, for a long time, this article has bothered me, both as a reader and as an editor. As a reader, it aggravates me that some claims in the article are repeated multiple times, and that it's really hard to see how all of the pieces fit together. As an editor, it bothers me that we're not following the instructions in WP:NPOV, which states,
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
This undesirable structure is clearly what we have going on here.
As such, I have been working, for the past several weeks, on a draft version of a wholly reorganized article. You may see the current version of such a version at User:Qwyrxian/SI dispute reorg. First, please note that I am by no means claiming this to be a final version--at a minimum it still needs a full copy-edit. But I do think that I have it to a point where the goal should at least make sense to other editors. Let me point out a few things:
If anyone is still watching this, I would very much like to hear input on this. I really believe that this type of format, broadly speaking, would improve this article. I'm not tied to any of the specific details, although I may certainly argue for them depending on feedback. Let's try to use this as a way to move forward on this article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The dispute over the islands began in 1970, just before Japan handed over control of the islands. Japan claims that it has controlled the islands since it claimed them in 1895, prior to which it claims they were terra nullus. China, on the other hand, claims that the islands were historically a part of China, with Japan only gaining control of them as a result of the First Sino-Japanese war. China further holds that control of the islands reverted to Japan as a result of the Treaty of San Francisco.
I added a new section designed to capture the problem that Oda Mari identifies. Does this help? My feeling is that the historical background section may now be too long, but I'm not sure what could be taken out. Also, I admit to not being certain that the changes I made fix the problems that Oda Mari was raising, as I may not have understood them correctly. Regarding the pictures (the issue John Smith raises at the end), I can handle them staying in for now, as they're more of a side issue, not directly relevant to the overall reorganization. We can discuss them later. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The most important elements of each are (a) the inline citations which are presented in collapsed blocks below; and (b) the absence of a significant "References" section like our English-language
Senkaku Islands dispute -- see
here. Compare the "References" section of
Senkaku Islands
here. --
Tenmei (
talk)
22:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
|
|
This talk page size is now very long with a size of 256K. I made this archive edit change to get the size a reduced by archiving threads that hasn't got any response within 60 days (old value 90 day and at least 10 threads visible). Having a too long talk page becomes hard to navigate and edit. Users on slow internet connections will have serious issues. User Tenmei reverted my edit, but without reasonably explanation. I want to hear reasoning why this talk page needs to be kept this long. Any important information can be sumarized and old threads can still be found in the archives. -- Kslotte ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not simple; but among the lessons learned the hard way is that conventional archiving has proven to be problem-producing. It has been counter-productive in this unique setting. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Lessons learned the hard way = avert what has already failed more than once. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have done an archive and attempted to restart the auto-archiving. The talk page was so long that most browsers would be struggling to open the page. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The top image is captioned as "Senkaku Islands or Diaoyutai Islands aerial photo..."; however, it's patently obviously a photo of only one island, namely Uotsurijima/Diaoyu Dao. Can the caption be changed to "Aerial photo of Uotsurijima (also known as Diaoyu Dao), the largest of the disputed islands, ..."? Jpatokal ( talk) 07:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to the ongoing discussions on Talk:Senkaku Islands. STSC ( talk) 06:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Endorse the parsed reasoning of Phoenix7777 in the diff above. -- Tenmei ( talk) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Any concerned editor should not feel uneasy on this tag because it is not a judgement notice on the current title. It is an indication that the neutrality of the title is disputed, and I would invite inputs from other fair-minded editors because there's a large faction of pro-Japanese editors editing this article. If the mediation can resolve the dispute, then, no one should reasonably tag the article in the future. STSC ( talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
STSC -- In the absence of talk page responses to reasonable questions, the POV-title "tag" is unjustified. It has been removed pending the necessary engagement in discussion threads in this venue.
Mere "contradiction" without support is unpersuasive per WP:Dispute Resolution. This is not an evidence of bias, but rather a pro-Wikipedia stance in the face of your uncooperative strategy.
According to WP:DR, we are able to parse the different types of arguments in terms of their strategic content. In other words, WP:DR helps us to recognize and acknowledge categories of constructive comments, such as:
WP:DR also identifies argumentative strategies which are unhelpful:
In the very clear context WP:DR creates, we are compelled to recognize that your strategic and needlessly provocative addition of a POV-title tag was, in this instance, not justified, not reasonable and not constructive. It is only a variant form of contradiction without substantial explanation or verifiable foundation.
In future, WP:AGF encourages us to hope that you will decide to confine yourself to constructive contributions.
As a good first step, please acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented. Please recognize mild language and non-provocative tone in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777. -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Acknowledging and responding to your diff above, please note that my diff here modifies "POV headnote" to mirror the explicit term you use in your edit summary here. Regardless of quibbles about noun usage, the content of the "tag" is construed to function as a headnote or "value-added" component. The development of our talk pages informs a heightened alertness to "value-added" "spin". (See WP:FOC)
Delay in responding to points raised by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777 is uncooperative. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis -- Think again. Please consider the following:
The answer to Qwyrxian's broad rhetorical question has to be "no". We have already learned the hard way that this is unworkable. Two factors inform this point of view:
In other words, experience informs the sad recognition this ameliorative gesture is primarily designed to marginalize. It falls short precisely because already been around this mulberry bush.
In this instance, Qwyrxian's impatience may derive from parsing the relevant factors in ways which are like his mis-appraisal of Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972 ... with similar unintended consequences and adverse effects? -- Tenmei ( talk) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Obvious?
I would use the adjective "obvious" to describe the diff of Phoenix7777 above.
In contrast, perhaps Qwyrxian would do well to delete the word "obvious" from his vocabulary. He argues unconvincingly, "But it's obvious that there is a good faith dispute here, based on different interpretations over which policy takes precedence and how to interpret the gathered evidence. This is not just 'simply being of an opinion'." The use of the word "obvious" forces each of us to reconsider a catalog of what we learned from talk page edit histories?
What was it that became obvious? The question reminds us of what developed in the past as a result of this kind of "re-framing" and "spin".
These term "obvious" fails along with the other words which go with it; but Qwyrxian's earlier prose serves us better.
Whatever credibility Qwyrxian may have once enjoyed is squandered; but the force of clear reasoning remains effective. The persuasive arguments of Qwyrxian in February are mirrored in the diff of Phoenix7777 in May. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Although Qwyrxian thinks the current title/name is NPOV one and I think it is POV one, but now Qwyrxian understands the WP:NPOV policy about the NPOV-title tag and the current dispute situation almost same as I have recognized. I appreciate this quite much and think this is very important for responsible Wikipedians no matter how many dispute points we have or we will have. Phoenix7777, you deleted the NPOV-title tag when the dispute is ongoing and the mediation is about to start or has just started. Your deletion violates WP policies. Please review my message when I resumed the tag:
The dispute on the title has been ongoing and has reached such extent that a formal mediation has to be called (see page Talk:Senkaku Islands. So the tag shall stay. -- Lvhis ( talk) 06:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix7777 you signed "Agree" in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. What do you agree? Agree on a mediation regarding NO Dispute? If all of you agree there is/are dispute(s) here, do not make a big deal of this tag, which shall be on there when there is dispute. Once the tag stays there, please let us focus on the preparation for more evidences to convince others this is NPOV one or POV one. How soon will this tag be removed shall depend on how soon a resolving result about this dispute come out base on what states in WP:NPOV. Thanks. -- Lvhis ( talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You have not yet acknowledged serial issues posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777 and by me. Why? This non-response cannot be an oversight. Now would be a good time to respond with specificity.
If you construe Qwyrxian's diffs as validating procrastination as a tactic, it reflects poorly on him and you both. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Credibility?
Please stop commenting on my motives (as you did when you claimed I was being impatient) and please stop commenting on my overall effectiveness (by claiming I have squandered my credibility).... I would ask that you have the courtesy not to engage in what are not quite attacks but are clearly intended to cast disrepute on me as a person. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That said, I do not pull back from anything I have written. I will address them in reverse order
Tenmei: I'm almost out of good faith assumptions regarding your " WP:DR triangle" edits (as I shall call them). If you cannot find a different way to rephrase your comments without always bringing up the WP:DR triangle whenever you are trying to make a WP:POINT, I will ask for the community to step in and ban you from using the triangle in your disputes. Your continuous reminders to other editors to follow the triangle are bordering on disruptive and exhibit tendentious editing. Please don't do it again. – AJL talk 01:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
AJL -- Think again. WP:DR is axiomatic -- not disruptive, not tendentious, not counter-productive.
Don't threaten.
May I suggest that collaborative editing requires us to focus on the content of our article.
Please re-evaluate what you construe to be the fundamental factors which ensure the academic credibility and perceived integrity of our Wikipedia project. These are not empty words or hollow concerns. We agree on this, don't we?
Are you suggesting that there is something wrong in hewing closely to principles anyone can read for themselves at WP:DR? My edits are evidence of a "pro-Wikipedia stance" which deserve your endorsement and support. -- Tenmei ( talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:DR is axiomatic -- not disruptive, not tendentious, not counter-productive.
Don't threaten.
May I suggest that collaborative editing requires us to focus on the content of our article. [...] These are not empty words or hollow concerns.
Please re-evaluate what you construe to be the fundamental factors which ensure the academic credibility and perceived integrity of our Wikipedia project.
Are you suggesting that there is something wrong in hewing closely to principles anyone can read for themselves at WP:DR?
My edits are evidence of a "pro-Wikipedia stance" which deserve your endorsement and support.
AJL -- We are each presumed to share a commitment to our editing policy, which states in part, "...on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information — Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable."
We do agree on this, don't we? This is one small platform of agreement from which mediation and talk page discussion threads can build, yes?
— User:Tenmei 01:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei: I'm tired of attempting to discuss reasonably with you. This was a poll to try to see which {{ pov-title}} idea had the most consensus, but your edit conveys you are vehemently opposed to finding consensus in this regard. As such, I've removed the poll, and your objection to it. – AJL talk 08:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
partially restored content; see
this diff for the full edit
|
---|
These grouped
hyperlinks show that the article name is the result of
consensus supported by
policy and redundantly repeated research and extended discussion. In contrast, as
Phoenix7777 pointed out
here, our policy makes plain that
"simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." This is counter-productive because it effectively encourages those who have decided for tactical reasons to continue to try to marginalise questions and issues raised in this thread by John Smith's, by Phoenix7777, and by me. -- Tenmei ( talk) 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC) |
This is counter-productive [...]
— User:Tenmei 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, AJL feels unappreciated, but correlation does not necessarily imply causation ( ja:相関関係と因果関係).
A cascading failure of communication does unfold in this thread, but not "attack". This word has significant implications in our wiki-context; and Qwyrxian's use of loaded language is unjustified.
Perhaps Qwyrxian trying to show empathy for what AJL was feeling?
The full version of my diff is restored below so that the concluding sentence can be read in context. I have added the word "POLL" in all-caps in order to mitigate the thrust of one part of AJL's misinterpretation.
- Text deleted by AJL above
- AJL -- This POLL is untimely and unhelpful.
As you know, polling is not a substitute for discussion.
A mere straw poll conducted among a few active editors who demonstrate intensity of preference is not meaningful progress.
Many threads have focused on the subject of "article name", but none have developed fact-based data which are inconsistent with Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, e.g.,
- Archive 1: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
- Archive 2: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, hre, and here
- Archive 3: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
- Archive 4: here and here,
- Archive 5: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
- Archive 6: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here,
- Archive 7: here
- These grouped hyperlinks show that the article name is the result of consensus supported by policy and redundantly repeated research and extended discussion. In contrast, as Phoenix7777 pointed out here, our policy makes plain that "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."
This POLL is counter-productive because it effectively encourages those who have decided for tactical reasons to continue to try to marginalise questions and issues raised in this thread by John Smith's, by Phoenix7777, and by me.
- This POLL frustrates collaborative editing by contriving another stumbling block which impedes meaningful engagement which remains our best and only way forward. -- Tenmei ( talk) 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The use of the word "attack" contrives a spurious relationship ( ja:擬似相関) which must be rejected. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I feel very sorry for AJL's leaving. I am very grateful for his sincere and hard efforts in helping resolving the disputes here. Some treatments he encountered here is unfair. I have less and less confidence in the environment of the dispute and mediation on this topic (the name/title). -- Lvhis ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you perceive something to be uncivil? When did it occur? By identifying whatever it is you perceive to be "unfair" or inconsistent with WP:Civil, you help to minimize the possibility of a recurrence.
After closer inspection, perhaps you will re-think your opinion. Perhaps you will decide that there was no cause for concern nor complaint?
Now would be a good time to acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented by other participants in our talk page threads. Please recognize the mild language and non-provocative tone in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777; and I would hope you will reply in the same way.
Your active engagement with specifics is needed. If not now, when? If not now, why not?
We need to ensure we are moving forward and not just spinning around in circles, repeating the same discussions over and over again. -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have again reverted Lvhis's reversion of someone else's removal of the POV-tag; and the edit summary explains succinctly:
In the absence fact-based data which are inconsistent with Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, there is no arguable justification for this tag.
Our engagement with specifics can assist us in finding our way forward . If not now, when? If not now, why not?
We need to ensure we are moving forward and not just spinning around in circles, repeating the same discussions over and over again.. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's actually the name most commonly used in English...and the issue has been discussed numerous times, with a consensus (although not 100% agreement) for the current name. But, anyway, the issue is actually going to be discussed in detail in formal mediation very soon, which will hopefully fix the issue. If you have any relevant arguments about what the most common English name is, you can leave them here, although you may want to look through the talk page archives first for previous discussions on the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Qwyrxian, I do NOT agree with you because that: (1) the Japanese name "Senkaku Islands" is actually NOT the name most commonly used in English compared with the Chinese name "Diaoyu Islands". Using google search, there came out 178,000 results for "Senkaku Islands" while came out 288,000 results for "Diaoyu Islands", though this search included redirecting each other's name. (2) this issue has been discussed numerous times BUT with NO consensus, and kept being raised again and again as long as this POV and one-sided name/title exists there. I ever suggested to put a NPOV-Title tag along with the current name/title together based on the guidelines and policies of WP if a real consensus cannot be reached in a short time. ... ... . As long as the dispute has not been resolved, the edit action removing the NPOV-Title tag is very impolite and is absolutely against WP policies including Wikipedia:POV Cleanup. --Lvhis (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The tag was placed in good faith. There is a clear dispute here, based in policy. I believe that, once we work our way through mediation, it will become abundantly clear that policy supports the current name. But there is a dispute, and those disputants are not just asserting an opinion--they are legitimately interpreting data and policy differently than you and I. Please, there is no harm in the tag being there while mediation is under way (presumably it will start once the Mediator comes back to editing). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- In order to answer your post on the talk page, I would have to make their argument for them. I would prefer not to do so. But they do have a policy based argument--several, in fact. In that very section, STSC advances a policy-based argument. Previous discussions also were based on policy, based on how exactly we interpret the search results. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
In our well-developed context of this talk page, the blue boxes above are not helpful. The expository prose is not responsive. As initially explained by Phoenix7777 and as explicitly repeated more than once:
This is a pattern which frustrates our hope for effective collaborative editing. It is intensity of preference married with an opinion. In terms which are explicit and clear at WP:DR, the POV-title tag lacks the foundation it needs. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"Repeating yourself doesn't change the facts" -- yes
Qwyrxian -- I can agree with your axiom-like edit summary
here. Your words marry well with "simply being of the opinion ... is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" which was highlighted by
Phoenix7777
here:
This phrase invigorates our attention to the differences and similarities which distinguish " fact" from " factoid".
As was made explicit here, a personal belief that opinions are arguable or possible or reasonable causes tension when contrasted with the explicit requirements of our collaborative editing venue. Wikipedia is not an opinion-based project.
These may be your opinions, but each sentence in the diff above is problematic, e.g,
Yes, opinions are clear, specific reasons; but any opinion remains just that -- a mere opinion, because fact-based data cannot be adduced which confirm or contradict the elements of a specific array of assertions, e.g.,
In other words, I can only guess about what you mean; and you can't point to specifics. This sentence is not of a type which may be subjected to refutation or addressed with counterargument. As clarified by the sole graphic at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, this is contradiction without substantial support. This sentence expresses a personal point of view, yes -- but ours is not an opinion-based discussion group.
Am I wrong in presuming that you understand this American maxim: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts".
This diff appears designed primarily to marginalise.
These sentences are counter-factual:
Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that these provocative sentences diminish our prospects for meaningful collaboration? -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ridiculous -- yes
I repeat the succinct opinion of
John Smith's as if they were my own:
It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the "right" answer. Last October,
John Smith's arrow hit the mark. I get it.
Qwyrxian -- Repeating the initations which are explicit here and here, please consider addressing issues and questions in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777. Continuing failure to engage directly and meaningfully is not good. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
There's currently no discussion in the article about why both the Japanese and POC/ROC want to lay claim in a group of uninhabitable islands. The Islands are, to put it bluntly, are a bunch of rocks, yet both parties are very earnest in trying to claim sovereignty to the islands. The Chinese version of the Senkaku Islands article has included a discussion about why these islands are important economically and strategically to the parties involved. I think without this discussion in the article an uninitiated reader may find the controversy a bit stale. 222.155.241.247 ( talk) 13:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The following draft text is an arguably constructive first step in our process of addressing the array of causal factors affecting (a) the subject of Senkaku Islands dispute; and (b) our article about this subject. -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The real importance of the islands lies in the ... implications for the wider context of the two countries’ approaches to maritime and island disputes, as well as in the way in which those issues can be used by domestic political groups to further their own objectives. — Zhongqi Pan [causes 4]
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the {{ pp-semi-indef}} tag from the top of the article, as it is causing it to show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.
Logan Talk Contributions 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The tag was removed from the top of the article:
The last sentence of the second paragraph at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute is the source of the quoted phrase in the edit summary. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis -- No. In the absence of talk page analysis, your revert here is unjustified, undefended, unsupported. In other words, mere "contradiction" without support is unpersuasive per WP:Dispute Resolution.
No. In the very clear context WP:DR creates, your strategic and addition of a opinion-based tag is not justified, not reasonable and not constructive.
No. Your strategic edits are only a variant form of contradiction without substantial explanation or verifiable foundation.
No. Without support, there is no dispute -- only contradiction and a tendentious editing strategy.
On the other hand, if your reasoning is based on something other than mere contradiction, this thread would be a good place to begin to explain. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
In practice, Feezo's protective lock is not a blank slate.
On one hand, Feezo's protective lock would seem conventional:
Previous experience suggests that others (like Nihonjoe or Magog the Ogre) might have done the same and they likely would have endorsed Feezo's rationale.
On the other hand, previous protective locks at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have produced counter-intuitive consequences. For example, Feezo's protective lock does not directly address a persistent opinion which is expressed succinctly by STSC here.
In practice, Feezo's protective lock is likely to be construed as endorsing a notion that the actual threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whatever Lvhis or STSC or others believe to be "true". I don't understand; but there we have it.
Incrementally, the meaning of "reasonable" is slowly redefined. This is like the tail wagging the dog. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
...
FYI - the most updated Google Search (English version) searching results for the time being: 294,000 for "Diaoyu Islands" and 189,000 for "Senkaku Islands". I am not going to use the 105,000 difference here to indiscreetly conclude that "Diaoyu Islands" is the name most commonly used in English, but with these results it will be ridiculous if you still insist that "Senkaku Islands" is the name most commonly used in English. Of course this is not the only reason or specifics that other users are also saying the current name/title is a POV one. I ever said neither "S" nor "D" was a NPOV one for this page and that page in Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. --Lvhis (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not that it matters too much for this point, but straight Google searches are the least useful of all measurements. For evidence of this, try the following: search for Diaoyu Islands with no quotation marks--I currently get 281,000 hits. Then search for "Diaoyu Islands", with quotation marks--I currently get 344,000 hits. That should be completely impossible, since the first search means "any article containing the word Diaoyu and the word Islands, in any order, next to or not next to each other." The second search means "any article containing the exact phrase "Diaoyu Islands", in that order only." If Google search worked the way common sense implies it should, then the second search must be smaller than the first, because every result found in the second search has to be included in the first search, and the first search has to find things the second one doesn't. Thus, the numbers we get back from a regular google search don't really tell us much useful (and our policies actually tell us this). Heck, even the fact that you and I get such widely different numbers in just a few hours different time (and, I think because we're searching from different computers in different locations) indicates the danger of relying on GoogleHits to make any decision Instead, it's much more useful to look at Google News and Google Scholar (both of which aren't influenced by the same sort of page ranking issues that influence Google Web; but, of course, you need to actually look at the articles to see which ones are using both, and how they are using them), along with real world almanacs and real world encyclopedias. This, however, is something we can/should/hopefully will hash out in Mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
..., the POV-title tag lacks the foundation it needs. --Tenmei (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can complain all you want that Lvhis hasn't given a reason for the tags, but xe has. So has STSC. To deny that, hiding behind all sorts of random links, cliches, and graphs does nothing to change the fact that these are clear, specific reasons. When Lvhis originally said that xe wanted the tags on but had no interest in debating, I agreed they should stay off. Lvhis, and you, and me, and the rest of us, have agreed to enter mediation--that's an agreement to debate whether or not the title is NPOV. That fulfills the requirements of the tag being placed. There's no point in actually going through the arguments about the title, since we're going to do all of that in mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, although you believes the current title/name is a NPOV one, again your current attitude towards the legitimate tag indeed deserves applauding, respect, and appreciation. Only a minor correction is needed regarding what you described my attitude to the tag: I Never (including originally and currently) said I wanted the tags on but had not interest in debating. Instead, I said if the tag was NOT on or not allowed to be on I had no interest in debating. Frankly, now I still mind that that page "
S^^^^ Islands" has been locked but without the very necessary tag on.
As for the title/name issue itself, when you use this reason "the name mostly used in English" in this case, you has put the name "Senkaku Islands" in a very hash position that this name has to face many challenges including Google Search which is popular one althogh which you imply as not a reliable one. If it cannot pass any one of these challenges, that name cannot deserve "the ... mostly used". I am well aware of the limitations of Google Search and that is why I said "I am not going to use the 105,000 difference here to indiscreetly conclude that "Diaoyu Islands" is the name most commonly used in English". While using its certain limitation to totally refuse to recognize certain significance of Google Search is neither objective nor NPOV. The bottom line is: when you cannot define the name "Senkaku Islands" as a neutral one, you try to bypass this by using a definition "the name mostly used in English"; while when you define "the name mostly used in English" in this case for this name, you have tried to bypass some challenge that this name cannot face or pass over. This is not only very subjective, but also POV. And one more important thing in WP is, no rules shall override
WP:NPOV, the most important guideline and policy .--
Lvhis (
talk)
05:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Lets get some things straight on Google searches. I have read the above comments, as well as many of the previous ones over the last year.
I am unsure as to how Qwxyrian managed to get a higher result after adding the "", but it should be noted that it is important to set the "Region:" preference to "any region" in Google searches (->Advanced search->Date, usage rights, region, and more->Region:)
As for the results I have given above I, as I am a totally impartial editor, would remove the tag simply on this basis alone. The POV tag is not for declaring that there is a current real-life dispute over the naming, that is something that should be in the body of the article and, as it is in the body, there is no place for the POV tag. Furthermore, this is the English Wikipedia and, no matter who is eventually declared the owner of the uninhabited islands, the most common English name will stay as such until it becomes less common than the current one.
If there was a case for a rename, I think it would only cause more problems. The name would have to include the Chinese, English, Taiwanese, and Japanese names (NB - Alphabetical order!) and I am sure this would only lead to even more debate over the order and Anglicisation of each of them. Chaosdruid ( talk) 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
So, for a long time, this article has bothered me, both as a reader and as an editor. As a reader, it aggravates me that some claims in the article are repeated multiple times, and that it's really hard to see how all of the pieces fit together. As an editor, it bothers me that we're not following the instructions in WP:NPOV, which states,
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
This undesirable structure is clearly what we have going on here.
As such, I have been working, for the past several weeks, on a draft version of a wholly reorganized article. You may see the current version of such a version at User:Qwyrxian/SI dispute reorg. First, please note that I am by no means claiming this to be a final version--at a minimum it still needs a full copy-edit. But I do think that I have it to a point where the goal should at least make sense to other editors. Let me point out a few things:
If anyone is still watching this, I would very much like to hear input on this. I really believe that this type of format, broadly speaking, would improve this article. I'm not tied to any of the specific details, although I may certainly argue for them depending on feedback. Let's try to use this as a way to move forward on this article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The dispute over the islands began in 1970, just before Japan handed over control of the islands. Japan claims that it has controlled the islands since it claimed them in 1895, prior to which it claims they were terra nullus. China, on the other hand, claims that the islands were historically a part of China, with Japan only gaining control of them as a result of the First Sino-Japanese war. China further holds that control of the islands reverted to Japan as a result of the Treaty of San Francisco.
I added a new section designed to capture the problem that Oda Mari identifies. Does this help? My feeling is that the historical background section may now be too long, but I'm not sure what could be taken out. Also, I admit to not being certain that the changes I made fix the problems that Oda Mari was raising, as I may not have understood them correctly. Regarding the pictures (the issue John Smith raises at the end), I can handle them staying in for now, as they're more of a side issue, not directly relevant to the overall reorganization. We can discuss them later. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The most important elements of each are (a) the inline citations which are presented in collapsed blocks below; and (b) the absence of a significant "References" section like our English-language
Senkaku Islands dispute -- see
here. Compare the "References" section of
Senkaku Islands
here. --
Tenmei (
talk)
22:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
|
|
This talk page size is now very long with a size of 256K. I made this archive edit change to get the size a reduced by archiving threads that hasn't got any response within 60 days (old value 90 day and at least 10 threads visible). Having a too long talk page becomes hard to navigate and edit. Users on slow internet connections will have serious issues. User Tenmei reverted my edit, but without reasonably explanation. I want to hear reasoning why this talk page needs to be kept this long. Any important information can be sumarized and old threads can still be found in the archives. -- Kslotte ( talk) 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not simple; but among the lessons learned the hard way is that conventional archiving has proven to be problem-producing. It has been counter-productive in this unique setting. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Lessons learned the hard way = avert what has already failed more than once. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have done an archive and attempted to restart the auto-archiving. The talk page was so long that most browsers would be struggling to open the page. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The top image is captioned as "Senkaku Islands or Diaoyutai Islands aerial photo..."; however, it's patently obviously a photo of only one island, namely Uotsurijima/Diaoyu Dao. Can the caption be changed to "Aerial photo of Uotsurijima (also known as Diaoyu Dao), the largest of the disputed islands, ..."? Jpatokal ( talk) 07:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to the ongoing discussions on Talk:Senkaku Islands. STSC ( talk) 06:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Endorse the parsed reasoning of Phoenix7777 in the diff above. -- Tenmei ( talk) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Any concerned editor should not feel uneasy on this tag because it is not a judgement notice on the current title. It is an indication that the neutrality of the title is disputed, and I would invite inputs from other fair-minded editors because there's a large faction of pro-Japanese editors editing this article. If the mediation can resolve the dispute, then, no one should reasonably tag the article in the future. STSC ( talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
STSC -- In the absence of talk page responses to reasonable questions, the POV-title "tag" is unjustified. It has been removed pending the necessary engagement in discussion threads in this venue.
Mere "contradiction" without support is unpersuasive per WP:Dispute Resolution. This is not an evidence of bias, but rather a pro-Wikipedia stance in the face of your uncooperative strategy.
According to WP:DR, we are able to parse the different types of arguments in terms of their strategic content. In other words, WP:DR helps us to recognize and acknowledge categories of constructive comments, such as:
WP:DR also identifies argumentative strategies which are unhelpful:
In the very clear context WP:DR creates, we are compelled to recognize that your strategic and needlessly provocative addition of a POV-title tag was, in this instance, not justified, not reasonable and not constructive. It is only a variant form of contradiction without substantial explanation or verifiable foundation.
In future, WP:AGF encourages us to hope that you will decide to confine yourself to constructive contributions.
As a good first step, please acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented. Please recognize mild language and non-provocative tone in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777. -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Acknowledging and responding to your diff above, please note that my diff here modifies "POV headnote" to mirror the explicit term you use in your edit summary here. Regardless of quibbles about noun usage, the content of the "tag" is construed to function as a headnote or "value-added" component. The development of our talk pages informs a heightened alertness to "value-added" "spin". (See WP:FOC)
Delay in responding to points raised by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777 is uncooperative. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis -- Think again. Please consider the following:
The answer to Qwyrxian's broad rhetorical question has to be "no". We have already learned the hard way that this is unworkable. Two factors inform this point of view:
In other words, experience informs the sad recognition this ameliorative gesture is primarily designed to marginalize. It falls short precisely because already been around this mulberry bush.
In this instance, Qwyrxian's impatience may derive from parsing the relevant factors in ways which are like his mis-appraisal of Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972 ... with similar unintended consequences and adverse effects? -- Tenmei ( talk) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Obvious?
I would use the adjective "obvious" to describe the diff of Phoenix7777 above.
In contrast, perhaps Qwyrxian would do well to delete the word "obvious" from his vocabulary. He argues unconvincingly, "But it's obvious that there is a good faith dispute here, based on different interpretations over which policy takes precedence and how to interpret the gathered evidence. This is not just 'simply being of an opinion'." The use of the word "obvious" forces each of us to reconsider a catalog of what we learned from talk page edit histories?
What was it that became obvious? The question reminds us of what developed in the past as a result of this kind of "re-framing" and "spin".
These term "obvious" fails along with the other words which go with it; but Qwyrxian's earlier prose serves us better.
Whatever credibility Qwyrxian may have once enjoyed is squandered; but the force of clear reasoning remains effective. The persuasive arguments of Qwyrxian in February are mirrored in the diff of Phoenix7777 in May. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Although Qwyrxian thinks the current title/name is NPOV one and I think it is POV one, but now Qwyrxian understands the WP:NPOV policy about the NPOV-title tag and the current dispute situation almost same as I have recognized. I appreciate this quite much and think this is very important for responsible Wikipedians no matter how many dispute points we have or we will have. Phoenix7777, you deleted the NPOV-title tag when the dispute is ongoing and the mediation is about to start or has just started. Your deletion violates WP policies. Please review my message when I resumed the tag:
The dispute on the title has been ongoing and has reached such extent that a formal mediation has to be called (see page Talk:Senkaku Islands. So the tag shall stay. -- Lvhis ( talk) 06:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix7777 you signed "Agree" in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. What do you agree? Agree on a mediation regarding NO Dispute? If all of you agree there is/are dispute(s) here, do not make a big deal of this tag, which shall be on there when there is dispute. Once the tag stays there, please let us focus on the preparation for more evidences to convince others this is NPOV one or POV one. How soon will this tag be removed shall depend on how soon a resolving result about this dispute come out base on what states in WP:NPOV. Thanks. -- Lvhis ( talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You have not yet acknowledged serial issues posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777 and by me. Why? This non-response cannot be an oversight. Now would be a good time to respond with specificity.
If you construe Qwyrxian's diffs as validating procrastination as a tactic, it reflects poorly on him and you both. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Credibility?
Please stop commenting on my motives (as you did when you claimed I was being impatient) and please stop commenting on my overall effectiveness (by claiming I have squandered my credibility).... I would ask that you have the courtesy not to engage in what are not quite attacks but are clearly intended to cast disrepute on me as a person. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That said, I do not pull back from anything I have written. I will address them in reverse order
Tenmei: I'm almost out of good faith assumptions regarding your " WP:DR triangle" edits (as I shall call them). If you cannot find a different way to rephrase your comments without always bringing up the WP:DR triangle whenever you are trying to make a WP:POINT, I will ask for the community to step in and ban you from using the triangle in your disputes. Your continuous reminders to other editors to follow the triangle are bordering on disruptive and exhibit tendentious editing. Please don't do it again. – AJL talk 01:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
AJL -- Think again. WP:DR is axiomatic -- not disruptive, not tendentious, not counter-productive.
Don't threaten.
May I suggest that collaborative editing requires us to focus on the content of our article.
Please re-evaluate what you construe to be the fundamental factors which ensure the academic credibility and perceived integrity of our Wikipedia project. These are not empty words or hollow concerns. We agree on this, don't we?
Are you suggesting that there is something wrong in hewing closely to principles anyone can read for themselves at WP:DR? My edits are evidence of a "pro-Wikipedia stance" which deserve your endorsement and support. -- Tenmei ( talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:DR is axiomatic -- not disruptive, not tendentious, not counter-productive.
Don't threaten.
May I suggest that collaborative editing requires us to focus on the content of our article. [...] These are not empty words or hollow concerns.
Please re-evaluate what you construe to be the fundamental factors which ensure the academic credibility and perceived integrity of our Wikipedia project.
Are you suggesting that there is something wrong in hewing closely to principles anyone can read for themselves at WP:DR?
My edits are evidence of a "pro-Wikipedia stance" which deserve your endorsement and support.
AJL -- We are each presumed to share a commitment to our editing policy, which states in part, "...on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information — Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable."
We do agree on this, don't we? This is one small platform of agreement from which mediation and talk page discussion threads can build, yes?
— User:Tenmei 01:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei: I'm tired of attempting to discuss reasonably with you. This was a poll to try to see which {{ pov-title}} idea had the most consensus, but your edit conveys you are vehemently opposed to finding consensus in this regard. As such, I've removed the poll, and your objection to it. – AJL talk 08:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
partially restored content; see
this diff for the full edit
|
---|
These grouped
hyperlinks show that the article name is the result of
consensus supported by
policy and redundantly repeated research and extended discussion. In contrast, as
Phoenix7777 pointed out
here, our policy makes plain that
"simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." This is counter-productive because it effectively encourages those who have decided for tactical reasons to continue to try to marginalise questions and issues raised in this thread by John Smith's, by Phoenix7777, and by me. -- Tenmei ( talk) 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC) |
This is counter-productive [...]
— User:Tenmei 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, AJL feels unappreciated, but correlation does not necessarily imply causation ( ja:相関関係と因果関係).
A cascading failure of communication does unfold in this thread, but not "attack". This word has significant implications in our wiki-context; and Qwyrxian's use of loaded language is unjustified.
Perhaps Qwyrxian trying to show empathy for what AJL was feeling?
The full version of my diff is restored below so that the concluding sentence can be read in context. I have added the word "POLL" in all-caps in order to mitigate the thrust of one part of AJL's misinterpretation.
- Text deleted by AJL above
- AJL -- This POLL is untimely and unhelpful.
As you know, polling is not a substitute for discussion.
A mere straw poll conducted among a few active editors who demonstrate intensity of preference is not meaningful progress.
Many threads have focused on the subject of "article name", but none have developed fact-based data which are inconsistent with Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, e.g.,
- Archive 1: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
- Archive 2: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, hre, and here
- Archive 3: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
- Archive 4: here and here,
- Archive 5: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
- Archive 6: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here,
- Archive 7: here
- These grouped hyperlinks show that the article name is the result of consensus supported by policy and redundantly repeated research and extended discussion. In contrast, as Phoenix7777 pointed out here, our policy makes plain that "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."
This POLL is counter-productive because it effectively encourages those who have decided for tactical reasons to continue to try to marginalise questions and issues raised in this thread by John Smith's, by Phoenix7777, and by me.
- This POLL frustrates collaborative editing by contriving another stumbling block which impedes meaningful engagement which remains our best and only way forward. -- Tenmei ( talk) 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The use of the word "attack" contrives a spurious relationship ( ja:擬似相関) which must be rejected. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I feel very sorry for AJL's leaving. I am very grateful for his sincere and hard efforts in helping resolving the disputes here. Some treatments he encountered here is unfair. I have less and less confidence in the environment of the dispute and mediation on this topic (the name/title). -- Lvhis ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you perceive something to be uncivil? When did it occur? By identifying whatever it is you perceive to be "unfair" or inconsistent with WP:Civil, you help to minimize the possibility of a recurrence.
After closer inspection, perhaps you will re-think your opinion. Perhaps you will decide that there was no cause for concern nor complaint?
Now would be a good time to acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented by other participants in our talk page threads. Please recognize the mild language and non-provocative tone in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777; and I would hope you will reply in the same way.
Your active engagement with specifics is needed. If not now, when? If not now, why not?
We need to ensure we are moving forward and not just spinning around in circles, repeating the same discussions over and over again. -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have again reverted Lvhis's reversion of someone else's removal of the POV-tag; and the edit summary explains succinctly:
In the absence fact-based data which are inconsistent with Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, there is no arguable justification for this tag.
Our engagement with specifics can assist us in finding our way forward . If not now, when? If not now, why not?
We need to ensure we are moving forward and not just spinning around in circles, repeating the same discussions over and over again.. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's actually the name most commonly used in English...and the issue has been discussed numerous times, with a consensus (although not 100% agreement) for the current name. But, anyway, the issue is actually going to be discussed in detail in formal mediation very soon, which will hopefully fix the issue. If you have any relevant arguments about what the most common English name is, you can leave them here, although you may want to look through the talk page archives first for previous discussions on the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Qwyrxian, I do NOT agree with you because that: (1) the Japanese name "Senkaku Islands" is actually NOT the name most commonly used in English compared with the Chinese name "Diaoyu Islands". Using google search, there came out 178,000 results for "Senkaku Islands" while came out 288,000 results for "Diaoyu Islands", though this search included redirecting each other's name. (2) this issue has been discussed numerous times BUT with NO consensus, and kept being raised again and again as long as this POV and one-sided name/title exists there. I ever suggested to put a NPOV-Title tag along with the current name/title together based on the guidelines and policies of WP if a real consensus cannot be reached in a short time. ... ... . As long as the dispute has not been resolved, the edit action removing the NPOV-Title tag is very impolite and is absolutely against WP policies including Wikipedia:POV Cleanup. --Lvhis (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The tag was placed in good faith. There is a clear dispute here, based in policy. I believe that, once we work our way through mediation, it will become abundantly clear that policy supports the current name. But there is a dispute, and those disputants are not just asserting an opinion--they are legitimately interpreting data and policy differently than you and I. Please, there is no harm in the tag being there while mediation is under way (presumably it will start once the Mediator comes back to editing). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- In order to answer your post on the talk page, I would have to make their argument for them. I would prefer not to do so. But they do have a policy based argument--several, in fact. In that very section, STSC advances a policy-based argument. Previous discussions also were based on policy, based on how exactly we interpret the search results. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
In our well-developed context of this talk page, the blue boxes above are not helpful. The expository prose is not responsive. As initially explained by Phoenix7777 and as explicitly repeated more than once:
This is a pattern which frustrates our hope for effective collaborative editing. It is intensity of preference married with an opinion. In terms which are explicit and clear at WP:DR, the POV-title tag lacks the foundation it needs. -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"Repeating yourself doesn't change the facts" -- yes
Qwyrxian -- I can agree with your axiom-like edit summary
here. Your words marry well with "simply being of the opinion ... is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" which was highlighted by
Phoenix7777
here:
This phrase invigorates our attention to the differences and similarities which distinguish " fact" from " factoid".
As was made explicit here, a personal belief that opinions are arguable or possible or reasonable causes tension when contrasted with the explicit requirements of our collaborative editing venue. Wikipedia is not an opinion-based project.
These may be your opinions, but each sentence in the diff above is problematic, e.g,
Yes, opinions are clear, specific reasons; but any opinion remains just that -- a mere opinion, because fact-based data cannot be adduced which confirm or contradict the elements of a specific array of assertions, e.g.,
In other words, I can only guess about what you mean; and you can't point to specifics. This sentence is not of a type which may be subjected to refutation or addressed with counterargument. As clarified by the sole graphic at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, this is contradiction without substantial support. This sentence expresses a personal point of view, yes -- but ours is not an opinion-based discussion group.
Am I wrong in presuming that you understand this American maxim: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts".
This diff appears designed primarily to marginalise.
These sentences are counter-factual:
Are you unable or unwilling to acknowledge that these provocative sentences diminish our prospects for meaningful collaboration? -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ridiculous -- yes
I repeat the succinct opinion of
John Smith's as if they were my own:
It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the "right" answer. Last October,
John Smith's arrow hit the mark. I get it.
Qwyrxian -- Repeating the initations which are explicit here and here, please consider addressing issues and questions in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777. Continuing failure to engage directly and meaningfully is not good. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
There's currently no discussion in the article about why both the Japanese and POC/ROC want to lay claim in a group of uninhabitable islands. The Islands are, to put it bluntly, are a bunch of rocks, yet both parties are very earnest in trying to claim sovereignty to the islands. The Chinese version of the Senkaku Islands article has included a discussion about why these islands are important economically and strategically to the parties involved. I think without this discussion in the article an uninitiated reader may find the controversy a bit stale. 222.155.241.247 ( talk) 13:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The following draft text is an arguably constructive first step in our process of addressing the array of causal factors affecting (a) the subject of Senkaku Islands dispute; and (b) our article about this subject. -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The real importance of the islands lies in the ... implications for the wider context of the two countries’ approaches to maritime and island disputes, as well as in the way in which those issues can be used by domestic political groups to further their own objectives. — Zhongqi Pan [causes 4]
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the {{ pp-semi-indef}} tag from the top of the article, as it is causing it to show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.
Logan Talk Contributions 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The tag was removed from the top of the article:
The last sentence of the second paragraph at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute is the source of the quoted phrase in the edit summary. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis -- No. In the absence of talk page analysis, your revert here is unjustified, undefended, unsupported. In other words, mere "contradiction" without support is unpersuasive per WP:Dispute Resolution.
No. In the very clear context WP:DR creates, your strategic and addition of a opinion-based tag is not justified, not reasonable and not constructive.
No. Your strategic edits are only a variant form of contradiction without substantial explanation or verifiable foundation.
No. Without support, there is no dispute -- only contradiction and a tendentious editing strategy.
On the other hand, if your reasoning is based on something other than mere contradiction, this thread would be a good place to begin to explain. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
In practice, Feezo's protective lock is not a blank slate.
On one hand, Feezo's protective lock would seem conventional:
Previous experience suggests that others (like Nihonjoe or Magog the Ogre) might have done the same and they likely would have endorsed Feezo's rationale.
On the other hand, previous protective locks at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have produced counter-intuitive consequences. For example, Feezo's protective lock does not directly address a persistent opinion which is expressed succinctly by STSC here.
In practice, Feezo's protective lock is likely to be construed as endorsing a notion that the actual threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whatever Lvhis or STSC or others believe to be "true". I don't understand; but there we have it.
Incrementally, the meaning of "reasonable" is slowly redefined. This is like the tail wagging the dog. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
...
FYI - the most updated Google Search (English version) searching results for the time being: 294,000 for "Diaoyu Islands" and 189,000 for "Senkaku Islands". I am not going to use the 105,000 difference here to indiscreetly conclude that "Diaoyu Islands" is the name most commonly used in English, but with these results it will be ridiculous if you still insist that "Senkaku Islands" is the name most commonly used in English. Of course this is not the only reason or specifics that other users are also saying the current name/title is a POV one. I ever said neither "S" nor "D" was a NPOV one for this page and that page in Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. --Lvhis (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not that it matters too much for this point, but straight Google searches are the least useful of all measurements. For evidence of this, try the following: search for Diaoyu Islands with no quotation marks--I currently get 281,000 hits. Then search for "Diaoyu Islands", with quotation marks--I currently get 344,000 hits. That should be completely impossible, since the first search means "any article containing the word Diaoyu and the word Islands, in any order, next to or not next to each other." The second search means "any article containing the exact phrase "Diaoyu Islands", in that order only." If Google search worked the way common sense implies it should, then the second search must be smaller than the first, because every result found in the second search has to be included in the first search, and the first search has to find things the second one doesn't. Thus, the numbers we get back from a regular google search don't really tell us much useful (and our policies actually tell us this). Heck, even the fact that you and I get such widely different numbers in just a few hours different time (and, I think because we're searching from different computers in different locations) indicates the danger of relying on GoogleHits to make any decision Instead, it's much more useful to look at Google News and Google Scholar (both of which aren't influenced by the same sort of page ranking issues that influence Google Web; but, of course, you need to actually look at the articles to see which ones are using both, and how they are using them), along with real world almanacs and real world encyclopedias. This, however, is something we can/should/hopefully will hash out in Mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
..., the POV-title tag lacks the foundation it needs. --Tenmei (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can complain all you want that Lvhis hasn't given a reason for the tags, but xe has. So has STSC. To deny that, hiding behind all sorts of random links, cliches, and graphs does nothing to change the fact that these are clear, specific reasons. When Lvhis originally said that xe wanted the tags on but had no interest in debating, I agreed they should stay off. Lvhis, and you, and me, and the rest of us, have agreed to enter mediation--that's an agreement to debate whether or not the title is NPOV. That fulfills the requirements of the tag being placed. There's no point in actually going through the arguments about the title, since we're going to do all of that in mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, although you believes the current title/name is a NPOV one, again your current attitude towards the legitimate tag indeed deserves applauding, respect, and appreciation. Only a minor correction is needed regarding what you described my attitude to the tag: I Never (including originally and currently) said I wanted the tags on but had not interest in debating. Instead, I said if the tag was NOT on or not allowed to be on I had no interest in debating. Frankly, now I still mind that that page "
S^^^^ Islands" has been locked but without the very necessary tag on.
As for the title/name issue itself, when you use this reason "the name mostly used in English" in this case, you has put the name "Senkaku Islands" in a very hash position that this name has to face many challenges including Google Search which is popular one althogh which you imply as not a reliable one. If it cannot pass any one of these challenges, that name cannot deserve "the ... mostly used". I am well aware of the limitations of Google Search and that is why I said "I am not going to use the 105,000 difference here to indiscreetly conclude that "Diaoyu Islands" is the name most commonly used in English". While using its certain limitation to totally refuse to recognize certain significance of Google Search is neither objective nor NPOV. The bottom line is: when you cannot define the name "Senkaku Islands" as a neutral one, you try to bypass this by using a definition "the name mostly used in English"; while when you define "the name mostly used in English" in this case for this name, you have tried to bypass some challenge that this name cannot face or pass over. This is not only very subjective, but also POV. And one more important thing in WP is, no rules shall override
WP:NPOV, the most important guideline and policy .--
Lvhis (
talk)
05:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Lets get some things straight on Google searches. I have read the above comments, as well as many of the previous ones over the last year.
I am unsure as to how Qwxyrian managed to get a higher result after adding the "", but it should be noted that it is important to set the "Region:" preference to "any region" in Google searches (->Advanced search->Date, usage rights, region, and more->Region:)
As for the results I have given above I, as I am a totally impartial editor, would remove the tag simply on this basis alone. The POV tag is not for declaring that there is a current real-life dispute over the naming, that is something that should be in the body of the article and, as it is in the body, there is no place for the POV tag. Furthermore, this is the English Wikipedia and, no matter who is eventually declared the owner of the uninhabited islands, the most common English name will stay as such until it becomes less common than the current one.
If there was a case for a rename, I think it would only cause more problems. The name would have to include the Chinese, English, Taiwanese, and Japanese names (NB - Alphabetical order!) and I am sure this would only lead to even more debate over the order and Anglicisation of each of them. Chaosdruid ( talk) 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)