Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Proposed reorganization

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:

  • I removed any uncited statements or statements marked as questionably verified. I left those on the talk page, except in cases where the statements were suitably duplicated by other parts of the text that remained.
  • The pictures aren't right...my personal preference would be to remove both of the pictures in the last section, because I don't see how those pictures are actually helpful to an English reader (which is always our target audience here on en.wiki). That is, it seems to me that the textual explanation is more than sufficient. Furthermore, if those were in English, they still wouldn't probably be acceptable, because then they'd violate the prohibition on include long primary documents in WP articles. But I don't really care all that much, so I left them in for now.
  • I didn't do anything with either the lead or the Chronology sections. Personally, I'd prefer to see the entire chronology section removed; anything relevant should be incorporated into the text. For example, we could have a paragraph about "consequences of the dispute" that include a short summary of the 2010 boat collision incident with hatnote. But the actions of people planting flags or changing ownership of lighthouses doesn't, to me, really seem to have anything to do with the actual dispute (that is, it doesn't provide evidence for either side, which is what I thought the argument should be about). But I figured we could worry about that later.
  • I did not try to find any new information or sources. I wanted to get a basic structure and hear feedback before undertaking that, plus I'm not easily positioned to do such research.

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)

I'll support the reorganization, but I can't confirm or deny whether I will get involved in editing this article. – Ajltalk 05:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let me clarify: I support the effort, not necessarily the content (no offense Q). – Ajltalk 07:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't support. IMHO, the draft makes the matter vague and unclear. Clarification of Five Ws is needed. As for this matter, I think the most important thing to be clarified is when the dispute began and what it was. Then came, who said what and why at that time. It seems to me you confuses the historical background with the dispute itself. Oda Mari (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...I don't think I understand. Can you provide an example of another, similar article about a dispute that has a structure that you think is good? I don't see how a dispute article could follow a 5 W format, so a good example would really help me.
Alternatively, it's possible that I actually misunderstood the dispute itself--to me, reading through the text that's there, it seems like the primary question is "who got there first" (i.e., has China "been there" since the 14th century, or was it terra nullus in the 19th century when Japan annexed it). But I could very well have that totally wrong. Yes, there is evidence beyond that (especially the stuff in my last two sections), but the real point seems to come down to the historical one. Am I wrong on that?
Also, regarding your points, when would you say "the dispute began"--in the 1890s (annexation), 1940s (post WWII) or 1970s (US handover and start of major Chinese claims)? Actually, isn't the starting point itself kind-of in dispute?
Please know I'm not trying to be badgering or disrespectful; I am just trying to figure out what we can do to fix the NPOV problems and confusion issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to know exactly what China said in 1890s and 1940s. Oda Mari (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the Sea of Japan naming dispute, the dispute began at the 1992 Sixth UNSCGN. The arguments based on historical maps were brought up by Koreans after they claimed the name should be changed. Oda Mari (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't know what China said in the 1890s or 1940s. As far as I know, not only do we not have it, we don't have any reason do believe such evidence exists. We can only write what is available. Of course, if someone has such evidence, I 100% agree with Oda Mari that we should include it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
If such evidence exists, don't you think the Chinese government or Chinese editors would have said it or added it to the article? It would be appropriate to think there is no such evidence until we have it. Even if your house was robbed, it wouldn't be a crime officially/legally unless you report it to the police. I don't know what China was thinking but China didn't claim it officially until 1972. Just thinking the islands were ours was not good enough and it would not be effective under the international law. Their claims are similar to that of Koreans on the Sea of Japan naming dispute. Oda Mari (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly my point--I think, in fact, that we're agreeing, right? We don't have any evidence that they made any claims internationally prior to 1970 (note that there were claims in 1970 and 1971, both referenced in the article). So that information is not included. Oh....are you saying that therefore the dispute started in 1970? I see! So would I be correct in thinking that you think we should start off by saying something like

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.

Then, after that, we could go to a history section (probably briefer than in my draft now), then the rest of the info. Is that what you mean? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • FULLY SUPPORT: Absolutely, we need a complete re-organisation for the article as drafted by Qwyrxian. STSC (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Undecided (for now) - I certainly wouldn't support the removal of the last two images. For one thing, readers who can read Chinese characters may want to look at the article. For another they are still of interest to English readers, with the translation helping explain what they say. John Smith's (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New "intro" section added

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 new version is better. The first paragraph of 13th through 19th century in the Historical background section is a part of rationale/reasons when China said the islands were their territory. It couldn't be the historical background of the dispute. Because there was no dispute over the islands at that time and those old records are invalid under the international law. As far as I know, the International Court of Justice in Hague only deals with the modern age history, probably a hundred year or so. Otherwise the world would be a big mess. What do you think if Italy claims France is their territory as France belonged to the Roman Empire?
Have you ever checked the ja article? I think it is well organized. Use online machine translation and see it. This is G translation but it is terrible. The article is too long to use other URL translation. Please copy some paragraphs and paste it to the text translation window and choose 日本語→英語. These are better than G translation. [1] and [2]. Oda Mari (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll happily take a look at that version through a translator in the next few days; maybe I can even get a native Japanese speaker (off wiki) to help me. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2011
Alternate organizational strategies are found in the Japanese and Chinese counterparts of our article about the Senkaku Islands dispute.

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)

Looking at these ToC, the Japanese article looks like a good model, while the Chinese model does not. They may have a different version of WP:NPOV, but our explicitly states that we should not have separate sections for different positions of a debate, because this invariably leads to an unacceptable privileging of one position. Thanks for the overview; I'll definitely take some time to go section by section with an online translator on the ja.wiki article and see what helps here. This isn't to say we'll "copy" their version, just that it can serve as an informative guide. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, while I agree with inline cites being much much better than a separate, disconnected references section, that's Senkaku Islands, not this article, and so should be discussed there. I'm going to focus on this one for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You know, Oda Mari, you almost had on the issue with the international court, but the 13th-19th century is, in fact, relevant to this dispute, because it is a critical component of China's (faulty, in my opinion) argument about their ownership of the islands. Ultimately, to me, the issue seems fairly "simple"--if China is right, and China did "possess" the islands prior to 1895, then the Treaty of San Francisco strongly implies they get them back. If Japan is right, and the islands were terra nullius prior to 1895, then the Treaty doesn't apply, as the islands weren't annexed as part of the Sino-Japanese War 1. In other words, it's not about China going back several hundred years in history, it's about figuring out what the most recently active and relevant treaty means, and that meaning can only be determined based on interpreting the 1895 event. So our article needs to somehow include China's belief that the islands were always historically a part of China, and that it was only as a result of general Japanese expansionism in the 1880-1940-ish period that the islands now belong to Japan. Our article, of course, should not promote this (questionable) view, but it should present it fairly. And, of course, it needs to do so without separating out the Chinese argument from the Japanese argument.
Having said that, though, I can still see how my version isn't written properly. Right now, I can totally see that it looks like my section is the history of the dispute, which isn't really accurate. There must be some way to phrase it better...I looked briefly at ja.wiki (translated), and need to spend more time with it...my first few passes do make it seem like (as should be expected) it's a little bit too close to the Japanese POV to be lifted directly here, but, again, it will take me some close reading. I'm still thinking about this though...something has to be better than what we have in the article now. I may even need to start doing some more digging on the sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say the 13th-18th century is not relevant to the dispute. I said it should not be included as "historical background", but in the China's argument/rationale or the ground of their ownership. Because there was no dispute in 13th-18th century. I mean the historical background section of the dispute should be started from 1879 when Japan annexed Okinawa or 1895 when Japan incorporated the islands under the administration of Okinawa. Like the old maps of Sea of Japan, those old records were brought up by China in 1971 for the first time. In fact, a geography book written by Qianlong Emperor's order did not include the Islands as China's territory, China ignores it though. See [3] and its translation. And what I thought the ja article was well organized means their table of contents. It seemed very clear what's what and what happened when. The article does not mix up the historical background, the dispute, and the arguments of both sides. Oda Mari (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

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)

And even with 60 days it will take at least 20 days before auto-archiving kicks in. A more proper setting whould be 40 days that will archive the two oldest an first threads. --Kslotte (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kslotte characterizes my revert as being "without reasonably explanation". This implies that my revert was heedless.
  • FACT: My brief edit on Kslotte's talk page here did explain without going into overmuch detail.
The reasons for my revert are drawn from the edit history of this talk page; but Kslotte's thinking is informed by an overview perspective. Yes, Kslotte is obviously correct in stating that "any important information can be summarized and old threads can still be found in the archives"; but -- in actual practice in this unique context -- it simply hasn't worked out that way.
  • FACT: The first thread to be archived is one which needs to stay front-and-center, highlighted and re-examined.
In summary, the problems Kslotte seeks to resolve have nothing to do with the crucial subjects of (a) the threads and (b) this talk page and (c) previously archived threads. In other words, the reasons for not archiving have everything to do with the inflammatory diff of Bobthefish2 here at the top of the page. My response here presents a consensus-building counter-proposal which emphasizes WP:V + WP:RS as a threshold concept.

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)

Well, decisions about when and how often to archive are done by consensus. My opinion is that the talk page is currently too long, and too difficult to navigate, so I support making it shorter at 60 days. However, it's not too bad right now, so I guess at 90 is okay, for now. If, however, this page becomes more active (more threads, more editors), I think we'll need to bring it back down. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lessons learned the hard way = avert what has already failed more than once. --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Terms which are likely to be helpful in future collaborative editing include: (a) refutation; (b) counterargument; (c) confirmation bias; (d) attitude polarization; (e) contradiction; and (f) ad hominem. --Tenmei (talk) 19:30, 7 April 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)

Incorrect image caption

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)

POV-title tag

Please refer to the ongoing discussions on Talk:Senkaku Islands. STSC (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nicely asked STSC on xyr talk page to remove the tag from the article, since xe is fully aware that the addition/removal of the tag is what caused the last edit war and the subsequent locking of the page. I really really do not want this article locked from editing again less than a day after it was kindly unlocked by Nihonjoe. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I really think that this POV tag should be removed. This isn't a concern over neutrality but a protest at the fact the article title is not as some people want it. Not everyone can be pleased by article titles, but that doesn't mean articles should be forever tagged. As a sign of good faith I think it should be removed given that we're going into mediation.
I have reverted some of the removals of "Senkaku" from the article. This is the article title and the islands should be referred to as such. It is also not helpful to just refer to "the islands" or "disputed islands" all the time as someone can get very confused with the former (and possibly the later) as to what islands are being discussed. Also there is no need to have a reference to "Diayotai islands dispute" as the lead already makes clear that there is an alternate name. Finally, the image caption was not clear. "Senkaku or Diayotai islands" makes it seem like it could be different islands. John Smith's (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, the tag simply indicates there's an ongoing serious dispute on the neutrality of the title; it should stay while the mediation is pending. STSC (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
John Smith's, your statement "This isn't a concern over neutrality but a protest at the fact the article title is not as some people want it" clearly isn't assuming good faith on other editors. I could also say you're acting in bad faith motives by reverting my edits (as usual). STSC (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a statement of fact that this is a protest. You and some others want a different article title. If the article name is changed, a different group of people would almost certainly want it changed back. Using your logic they could also have a POV tag until they were satisfied. POV tags aren't to be used indefinitely, which is clearly what can happen if an article title is disputed and a tag is used to highlight the dispute. And this article title will almost certainly never please some people.
I did not revert all of your edits. I have made a clear point that it is confusing to refer to "the islands" or "disputed islands" too frequently. Whilst the article title and parent article refer to "Senkaku Islands" that is the term that we should use here. If that was changed to "X islands", I would want to refer to "X islands" in this article, rather than avoid using the term because some people were unhappy with it. John Smith's (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based upon consensus. And the current consensus of this title is "Senkaku Islands" by all the past discussions regardless of whether you feel this title is POV. Moreover you agreed to the Mediation of the naming of this article. Then we should not paste the POV-title template before the result of the mediation comes. I don't revert your edit now, but please self-revert your un-consensus template. Whether you self-revert your edit or not is quite important that you are the person worthwhile to discuss in the forthcoming mediation.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2011

Endorse the parsed reasoning of Phoenix7777 in the diff above. --Tenmei (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of "the disputed islands" or "the islands" in the article itself, although too much would be confusing, and the exact level can be decided on later (one of the rare cases on WP where accepting a compromise may be preferable to attempting to achieve a consensus). I do have a concern about the template, as mentioned above. As with both Phoenix7777 and John Smith, I'm not going to revert the template myself, but I do think STSC should self-revert. The article was locked because of the addition of the tag; in my opinion, re-adding the tag so quickly after unlocking is a bad faith move. In the end, mediation will ideally solve the problem once and for all... Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The tag was applied correctly - it indicates there's a dispute on the neutrality of the title; that's why a mediation has been requested. It makes no judgement on the title whatsoever. By the way, Qwyrxian, this article was locked last time because of the revert-war between you and Phoenix777. STSC (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
My mistake; it was Senkaku Islands that was locked for this tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
STSC, could you address my point, please? I'll reiterate. Are you suggesting that, provided a party or parties continually dispute the neutrality of the article name - even if it is changed to something you and the rest of us are content with - then it is acceptable for this article to be permanently tagged? John Smith's (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, STSC, could you address the parsed reasoning of Phoenix7777 here, please? --Tenmei (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Tag should not be read as a judgement notice

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)

What if the mediation doesn't resolve the dispute? This article should be tagged forever? Or what if we change the article name, you're happy, but then someone else is unhappy and tags the article again? Should the article again be tagged? This is a very simple point, and I would like your view on it. John Smith's (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Your what-if questions should be directed to any administrator, I have no such concern. Maybe you should discuss the usage of the template on the NPOV Talk page. STSC (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
John Smith's point is that you are mis-using the template. The template cannot be placed simply because you (or someone else) doesn't agree with the name. We've established before that the title is NPOV. Now, that consensus may change (as all consensus can); that, in fact, is what we're going to work through in mediation (hopefully). Let me draw an analogy. I cannot go on to a random article, and put up a cleanup tag, and then assert on the talk page my right to keep up the tag simply because I don't feel that the language is as perfect as possible. If other editors said that actually, no, the format and grammar in the article are good, the tag would be removed. In any event, this is just wasting all of our time. Leave the tag off, because current consensus says it isn't needed, and we're going to come up with a (hopefully) final solution to the title in mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You too are not assuming good faith by saying "... simply because you don't agree with the name". As mentioned above, the purpose of the tag is to invite inputs on the questionable title. Whatever, the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute. STSC (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

POV-title tag deleted pending talk page discussion

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)

Tenmei, you're funny but I'd try to assume good faith on your part. The template is not a "POV headnote" as you put it. It does not say the title is POV or not. I think the usage of the template should be discussed on NPOV Talk page; my only concern on here is the neutrality of the article's title. STSC (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Today I heard a television commentator use an idiom to describe the US Navy Seals who killed Osama bin Laden. Dick Couch explained, "This was not their first rodeo." This American idiomatic expression also serves to distill the accumulated talk page threads which precede this one: In other words, this is not our first rodeo.

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)

Can we agree that it is forward-looking to re-focus on content by returning to unresolved issues? If not now, when?

Delay in responding to points raised by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777 is uncooperative. --Tenmei (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, you're a good boy/girl but who sent you to remove the tag? Is it those edit-warlords on here? STSC (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree and support what STSC explained for the POV-Title tag (or NPOV-Title tag). An Admin Magog the Ogre also gave a wonderful explanation on this tag issue in his talk page here and there. I'd also like to cite a relevant part from Wikipedia:NPOV dispute as follows:
It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
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)
The defense is actually that there has been a long standing consensus (note--not unanimity, but consensus) that it's NPOV, but personally I'm fine with it being up. Hopefully mediation will set the issue straight. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of the tag is to resolve the NPOV issue. However WP:NPOV, WP:TITLE and WP:NCGN permit the NPOV title under some conditions. If "Senkaku Islands" conforms to such guidelines, then the tag should not be put to the article. Actually, it is confirmed as a "widely accepted name" in previous discussions. Please see "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." in the lead of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.
Qwyrxian, please don't expect too much for mediation. Consensus will never been reached in any dispute resolution process. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A simple test for whether the tag should stay: please give one word answer for a simple question -Is there a dispute on the NPOV issue of the title/name? Or, do you admit or recognize there has been a dispute on the NPOV issue of the title/name? If your answer is "Yes", then the tag shall stay. If your answer is "No", then you mean you want me and other users holding different opinions to "shut up", and the mediation is totally unnecessary. We should not make "a big deal out of such a stupid thing" again. I appreciate Qwyrxian for his attitude towards this tag now although I have different thoughts from his ones.--Lvhis (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

Lvhis -- Think again. Please consider the following:

  1. WP:DR explains that some argumentative strategies are unhelpful, e.g., contradiction. In contrast, WP:DR helps us to recognize categories of comments which are constructive, such as refutation and counterargument. In the parsed context WP:DR offers in graphic form (see pyramid at right), the facile NPOV-tag is categorised as a variant form of contradiction. In order to be very, very clear, I reproduce this pyramid, including the caption which urges us to "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."
  2. As we work together to evaluate content, can you point out what has been omitted? Lessons learned the hard way during the development of our talk pages inform a heightened alertness to "value-added" "spin". In the absence of argumentative support as defined in the upper portion of the pyramid, your POV-tag is demonstrably nothing more than value-added opinion. It is a factoid-based gambit only.
  3. As a good first step in a constructive direction, please acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented in the thread thus far. Please recognize mild language and non-provocative tone in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777 ... and me. Please respond. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei, Phoenix7777, can we just drop it? What harm is done in letting the NPOV tag remain on the article? Lvhis is correct that there is currently a dispute on the potential neutrality of the article. Furthermore, that is an opinion held not just by Lvhis, but by a number of different editors. Fighting about whether or not the tag should be there is just a waste of time. Once mediation is either under way or completed, the tag can be removed. And Phoenix, if we reach a consensus (not 100%, but consensus) via mediation, and then after that someone tries tagging the article, then we either look to have the person removed or we go to Arbcom. Mediation doesn't guarantee success, but it will help. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I can accept the tag being there, but only if all parties accept that it comes off after mediation, regardless of the result and regardless of whether there is consensus or not. I say that in part because I'm sure someone will dispute there is no consensus. If there is no such agreement and the tag stays on, I'm sure that after mediation (if it fails) someone or some people will try to claim that it must stay because it has become "consensus" to keep it there. John Smith's (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur with this idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

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:

  • Looking backwards. This mitigating tactic serves to validate and encourage STSC and Lvhis and others in the non-responsive tactics which derogate and trivialise the diffs of others. This does not help to minimize difficulties, hurdles or stumbling blocks which affect hopes for success of mediation.
  • Looking forward. This proposal does not lead us towards engagement which focuses on the content of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. This does not help jump-start negotiations or other dialogue which is an irreducible part of mediation.

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)

I can ignore your tendentious behavior of overlinking, inserting the same (unhelpful) image over and over again, and generally restating the same arguments over and over again even when they are out of context. I am, however, very unhappy with your attempt to ascribe motives to me (which you have done before), especially when they are exactly the opposite of my motives. I'm not at all impatient. To me, it seems clear, especially given the way Magog explained, that the tag is appropriate because there is currently a dispute about the neutrality of the title. The fact that we are undergoing mediation is itself proof of this dispute. I see a large enough minority who are asserting a problem with neutrality that it should stay until mediation is done (or, at least, substantially underway). The tag isn't harming anyone, and it indicates only a temporary disagreement among editors--a disagreement which will be settled (at least enough to remove the tag) at some point in the (somewhat) near future. In the past, some people wanted to keep the tag on without actually discussing or working through whether or not the title was actually NPOV--in that case, it was right for the tag to stay off. Now, we will be entering mediation, and thus the tag is fine. In the future, please, as you yourself pointed out, discuss content--don't try to guess what my feelings are. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
In the phrase "Can we just drop it", the word "just" conveys impatience, does it not? This is not a guess. It is a close reading, a thoughtful parsing of words. It is direct, meaningful engagement -- the exact opposite of talking past each other, e.g.,
  1. "Can we just drop it" = impatience
  2. Content = words Qwyrxian writes
  3. Mere contradiction ≠ refutation
  4. Contradiction without more ≠ counterargument
  5. Mere contradiction without more ≠ dispute
As clarified and explained in the pyramid chart which resists marginalization -----> mere contradiction -- without more, simply does not reach a credible threshold.
A metaphor for our problem is a slow-motion car crash within the confines of a plainly marked intersection
A. Let us refresh our memories: The genesis of our current impasse begins with this edit, yes?
  • diff 04:28, 22 February 2011 Lvhis (40,878 bytes) (→The title of this article sounds quite POV: new section)
B. This initial gambit engendered an explicit response, yes?
  • diff 05:10, 22 February 2011 Qwyrxian (43,316 bytes) (→The title of this article sounds quite POV: my summary of why this didn't change before and cannot change now absent a lot of new clear evidence)
Paraphrasing Magog the Ogre: In general, no one should add the NPOV-tag merely because he or she personally feels the article title is non-neutral. QED.
The core of Magog the Ogre's cursory opinion and the crux of our mediation experiment are married in one short sentence: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts". --Tenmei (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
In any event, given that John Smith has accepted the tag, there is now a consensus to leave it at least through part of mediation, and consensus is what matters. Perhaps the tag itself can be raised during mediation (that will be in part up to the mediator). Again, though, I am stating explicitly and clearly: do not comment on my motivations/emotions any more. I am working very hard not to comment on your talk page editing style (even though I really want to), because I think it is important that we just try to work on the actual issues/edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not accepted the tag. Please do not misrepresent what I said. I would like to see a commitment from people like Lvhis and everyone else who has reinserted the tag that they will accept its removal after mediation. If that does not happen then I would want the tag removed. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, John Smith; I was basically assuming that the other side agreed to this. However, I see a problem in that STSC says in the section above (back on May 3) that the title will always be POV so long as it says Senkaku Islands. If that is still STSC's stance, then we do have a problem. If STSC is unwilling to state that, following mediation the tag will be removed no matter what the result, then the tag is being misused. That would mean STSC is saying that one particular title choice is and always will be POV; however, what is or isn't POV is exactly what the mediation is designed to work out. STSC (and also Lvhis)--will you accept that whatever we end up with after mediation, you will allow the tag to be removed at that point? If not, it seems to me you're not mediating/talking in good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is a consensus to add the tag. As I said above, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." in the lead of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Please provide specific issues that are actionable within the content policies showing the relevant policy or guideline, otherwise, It is a "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix7777...many people have raised many specific, clear reasons why the title is POV. Now, I (and you, and John Smith, and numerous others) disagree, and have argued that the title is, in fact NPOV. 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". This is a complex issue which hopefully we can hash out. However, my earlier point stands--if STSC is saying that the tag must always stay so long as the title is Senkaku Islands (as opposed to saying the tag must stay until consensus decides on what is the appropriate title), then STSC has added the take in bad faith. I'm going to drop STSC a talk page note to get xyr clarification. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No, they are insisting the title is POV without providing any relevant policy or guideline. This may be discussed in the mediation, however I show the policy and guideline relevant to this dispute.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:41, 22 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.

"... maintenance tags may be removed if there is no discussion on the talk page to support their continued place on the article. You cannot just leave the tag and then walk away from the article. We are challenging your addition of the tag. We say that there is no POV issue here, because the article title accurately reflects the most common name of the islands as used in high quality sources. If the title does that, it's not a POV title. I'm trying to say that if you (or someone else who wants the tag there) is willing to discuss the title, and work to determine whether or not the title is POV, then the tag can be there; I'd even recommend protecting the article to keep the tag in place while we (once again) sort this out. But I would expect a serious discussion, and a discussion that involves something new." [italics and bold added for emphasis]
Regarding this specific issue, we can't "compromise" on the name; instead, we must, if we can, pick the name that is most commonly used in English. ...Part of what concerns me is that I just don't understand what we need to do to put this issue behind us (at least for a few years, until sources change). Re-raising this issue every few months takes a lot of effort and pain, and never gets us anywhere other than where we are right now (a majority, but not totality, of editors support the current name). What do we need to do to end this discussion and say, "Not everyone agrees, but this is the best we have for right now"? Note that I'm not trying to shut this discussion down, but to figure out what steps ... we need to take that ensure we are moving forward and not just spinning around in circles, repeating the same discussions over and over again." [italics and bold added for emphasis]
Question for Lvhis: Can you please explain where you don't see consensus for the current name? ... Several previously uninvolved editors commented that the name as it stands is the correct English name (note, that is what we are looking for--not the "neutral" name, but the name that is most commonly used in English). Note that consensus does ... doesn't mean 100% agreement ...." [italics and bold added for emphasis]

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)

Stop the personal attacks. Now. In any event, thanks for bringing up my words, especially the first one, because that is exactly my point. Discussion is (or, soon will be) ongoing--that's what mediation is. That's the only reason why I'm agreeing that the tags can stay. If Lvhis and STSC are entering into mediation in good faith, then they are fulfilling the requirement to discuss the issue. Discussing it here is a waste of time since we're going to hash it out all over in mediation (the end of the second quote).
For reference, the policies STSC & Lvhis are basing their argument are fairly straightforward. STSC has argued that WP:NPOV explicitly says that no other policy or guideline may override the requirement to be neutral, and thus the implication of the naming guidelines that neutrality is not the only deciding factor is wrong. Lvhis (I think, but, if not, others) have argued that the internet search results show approximately equal results for the two names, and thus choosing one (especially when an allegedly "neutral" alternative is available) is POV. Others have argued that the Liancourt Rocks decision provides precedent (and note that policy and guidelines are nothing more than codified precedent) for naming this Pinnacle Islands. I'm sure there's more, but that's enough to clarify that there are policy related arguments that the current name is POV. Again, just because I need to be clear, I think that all of these arguments are wrong, and I believe the evidence shows quite strongly that the correct, neutral name of this article is Senkaku Islands. To assume that others are using the tag to merely express an arbitrary personal opinion is, to me, an assumption of bad faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:56, 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)

Lvhis -- Your argument is a logical fallacy. Your prose succeeds only in begging the question, which means that you attempt to prove a conclusion by means of premises which assumes that conclusion.

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?

This diff was transferred from Talk:Tenmei

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)

This deserves a response on this page. This is not simple; but the beginning of my response to Qwyrxian is not difficult to grasp.
FACT: Qwyrxian personal integrity is sufficiently well established that it is entirely beyond my ability to affect.
In the context this fact creates, I have no hesitation in offering an apology for perceived disrespect. Bluntly, this was no personal attack; and indeed, Qwyrxian acknowledges this when he asks me "not to engage in what are not quite attacks but are clearly intended to cast disrepute ...." I can only hope that on re-reading, Qwyrxian will be able to parse a distinction between disagreement and derision. If necessary, I can try to explain this again in different words.

That said, I do not pull back from anything I have written. I will address them in reverse order

Yes, squandered credibility
A. Qwyrxian's complaint begins by ignoring the prior assumption of noteworthy credibility. The verb "squander" implicitly acknowledges that there was something to be wasted in a reckless manner or an opportunity which was be allowed to pass or be lost.
B. I construed this "credibility" as akin to the special respect and deference we each will likely accord NicholasTurnbull in his formal role as Mediation Committee member and in whatever develops at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands.
C. In the course of Qwyrxian's contributions at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute (and in the associated talk page threads), he did seek -- and he was given -- a kind of tentative status as a "reliable source", as a "fair broker", as an unofficial mediator. Qwyrxian acknowledged this when he observed "that I'm trying to act like a mediator without actually being one."
D. Whatever special authority was granted to Qwyrxian is an honour which which was dissipated when the word "obvious" was used to respond the words of Phoenix7777. The value or "weight" of this term derives its significance from the extent to which the writer's opinion is deemed to be a "reliable source"
E. Qwyrxian used the term "obvious" in order to marginalise the comments and questions of Phoenix7777. This is harmful, wrong, irresponsible, There is no personal attack, but cumulative experience causes us each to reflect on what has gone before.
F. As I explained above -- and I repeat again here, it is arguable that
  1. The use of the word "obvious" forces each of us to reconsider a catalog of what we learned from talk page edit histories?
  2. The use of the word "obvious" causes us to question ourselves, e.g., "What was it that became obvious?"
  3. The question reminds us of what developed in the past as a result of this kind of "re-framing" and "spin".
G. Seemly balance is shown when I mention Qwyrxian's earlier prose served us better; but the history of thwarted communication is cumulative.
If necessary, I again offer to explain with more detail or in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Section break (POV-title tag)

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. – AJLtalk 01:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This comment was cross-posted to Tenmei's talk page with this edit. – AJLtalk 01:26, 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)

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? --Tenmei (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let me work through your responses systematically.

WP:DR is axiomatic -- not disruptive, not tendentious, not counter-productive.

  • This is true, and I agree completely. However, bringing up WP:DR almost every time someone disagrees with you is "disruptive, tendentious, and counter-productive."

Don't threaten.

  • It's not a threat, it's a warning. However, I am pleased that you have decided to step away from using the triangle, at least for now.

May I suggest that collaborative editing requires us to focus on the content of our article. [...] These are not empty words or hollow concerns.

  • Yes, I agree. But, that was not my argument. In addition, neither are my words empty, or concerns hollow. It is extremely difficult to collaborate when someone — whose main response to anything that does not correspond with their own view — posts comments pointing to random–but specific–parts of Wikipedia telling other editors that they're "doing it wrong." At that point, it becomes impossible to "focus on the content."

Please re-evaluate what you construe to be the fundamental factors which ensure the academic credibility and perceived integrity of our Wikipedia project.

  • Please don't make assumptions about what other editors "construe" to be fundamentals. The "fundamentals" are WP:FIVEPILLARS, and I uphold them as much as I am able to.

Are you suggesting that there is something wrong in hewing closely to principles anyone can read for themselves at WP:DR?

  • No. I am not suggesting that.

My edits are evidence of a "pro-Wikipedia stance" which deserve your endorsement and support.

  • In a way, yes, but also no: always bringing up WP:DR when first entering a discussion is not a "pro-Wikipedia stance" — it is a "pro-disruptive stance."

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)

  • No, because you left out a very important detail. The actual sentence is: "Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because 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 (emphasis added)". Also, I don't see what that has to do with anything in this discussion.
Hopefully, I addressed all the concerns you brought up. – AJLtalk 01:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

POV-title tag proposals

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. – AJLtalk 08:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually restoring some of your edit so that I may comment on it.
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)

So basically you're saying the Mediation request is "counter-productive" as well then? Because that is what the Mediation request is about. – AJLtalk 08:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Ajl772, please see WP:Voting or Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Please don't interfere the ongoing discussion. If you really hope to become a neutral mediator, you should learn more about the basic Policies/Guidelines. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix7777: Yes, and I'll also bring your attention to this line in WP:POLL: "When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus." — which was what I was trying to achieve. Since the discussion is going in circles, it's time to stop discussing and see where consensus lies. – AJLtalk 08:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, your last line is uncalled for. Don't attempt to assume (in bad faith) that I don't already know and understand at least the basic spirit of the policies/guidelines. You don't know me, and you don't know whether or not I've studied them (which in fact I have). – AJLtalk 08:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, you initiated the mediation without knowing WP:NPOV#Naming, WP:TITLE#Neutrality in article titles and WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name. Please read them and if you have any opinion, please let me know. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I was fully aware of them. As I have said before, and will keep saying as long as someone brings it up:
I have no opinion on the title of this article. My sole concern with regards to this article is to see that the title is removed as a battleground item.
Does that make sense? – AJLtalk 09:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please don't SHOUT as you wrote above. I requested your opinion on the Policies/Guidelines regarding the article title. If you knew the above Policies/Guidelines, you never initiated the mediation without bothering a mediator. And this is my suggestion for you, please remove above SHOUTING for your dignity. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
All right, fine. Consensus is clearly against me and the mediation, so out I will go. – AJLtalk 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


I have requested that the mediation continue. I understand AJL is frustrated. The inability for us to deal with the simple issue of a maintenance tag speaks volumes to me that we desperately need mediation. If we don't have it, I only see two solutions: take this to ArbCom (who may reject it as being primarily a content problem), or simply fully protecting the page and giving up. AJL was making an extremely good faith effort here as an uninvolved party to help us move forward, and now this pointless war of whether or not the article gets a maintenance tag, combined with talk page antics (of which I may be partly to blame, I don't know), followed by attacking AJL...this is just wrong. I can't think of anything else I can say that won't run me afoul of a behavioral guideline...but really...people....Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, AJL is an uninvolved party whose only goal was to to help us move forward.

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.,

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 two most important sentences in the restored diff are these:
  • 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. [italics and bold added for emphasis]
  • This POLL frustrates collaborative editing by contriving another stumbling block which impedes meaningful engagement which remains our best and only way forward. [italics and bold added for emphasis]
The concepts which are highlighted for emphasis are crucial. These problems adversely affect the utility of a poll at this time. In part, these phrases also point to flaws in Qwyrxian's proxy restatements here.
I can't make guesses about whatever led AJL to construe "basically you're saying the Mediation request is 'counter-productive' as well ... [b]ecause that is what the Mediation request is about." I do know that these diff offers no evidence of a perceived attack.

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)

Lvhis -- What "treatment" appeared unfair? How was it unfair? Please be specific. If you are not specific, what are we to make of this critical comment? How shall we construe it in light of your other complaints?

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?

Perhaps now would be a good time to answer a question which remains unaddressed for many months: Can you please explain where you don't see consensus for the current name? As you know, several previously uninvolved editors commented that the name as it stands is the correct English name.

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.

Please remember that what we are looking for is not the "neutral" name, but the name which is most commonly used in English.

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)

"Simply being of the opinion"

I have again reverted Lvhis's reversion of someone else's removal of the POV-tag; and the edit summary explains succinctly:

Per WP:NPOV dispute, "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" -- specifics & engagement with questions is essential.

Please remember that what we are looking for is not the "neutral" name, but the name which is most commonly used in English.

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)

I am assuming good faith for you that you are too busy or too lazy to learn the specifics, rather than assuming that you have tried to remove a legitimate tag letting the casual reader know about a disagreement just because you like the status quo and you pretended you could not find the specifics. Here I pasted what I mentioned in the edit summary when I reverted your removing:

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)
and this one from Qwyrxian that you must have known very well because following that you had your comment:

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)
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)
We are handicapped without the kind of shared tools which can assist us in finding our way forward.

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:

Per WP:NPOV dispute, "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag".
We are without the kind of shared tools which can assist us in finding our way forward. We are unable to parse the conflation of arguments like the ones in the blue boxes above.
Our engagement with specifics is thwarted in the absence fact-based data which are inconsistent with Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute as article titles.
FACT: Lvhis restored the POV-tag here without responding in this thread or adding any explanation on this talk page.
CONTEXT: This following context clarifies the needless stumbling block which developed:
A. diff 20:32, 2 May 2011 Tenmei (58,335 bytes) (in the absence of talk page responses to reasonable questions, the POV headnote is unjustified -- contradiction without support is unpersuasive per WP:DR -- see talk)
REVERTED by Lvhis here
B. diff 20:53, 24 May 2011 Tenmei (58,335 bytes) (Per WP:NPOV dispute, ""simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" -- specifics & engagement with questions is essential)
REVERTED by Lvhis here
FACT: As a result of Lvhis's strategy, the article was locked here.

EXPLANATION: As Lvhis explained in February 2011, I don't mind if that page got locked, but do mind it was locked without that tag.
Lvhis -- Repeating the invitations which are explicit here and here, please acknowledge and respond to issues and questions in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777 and me. Continuing failure to engage directly and meaningfully is not good.

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)

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)

"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:

  • diff 01:42, 26 May 2011 Qwyrxian ... (386,862 bytes) (→"Simply being of the opinion": repeating yourself doesn't change the facts)

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,

"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."

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.,

  • diff 10:15, 22 May 2011 Qwyrxian ... (340,457 bytes) (→POV-title tag deleted pending talk page discussion: there is a clear, good faith dispute here. This is not just an unfounded opinjion)

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)

Tenmei, please, stop. I have stated clearly that we will discuss all of this in mediation. I have told you here, on my user talk page, and probably elsewhere. To keep the tag, editors don't need to demonstrate that the title is POV; they merely need to demonstrate that there is a dispute as to whether the title is NPOV, provide clear, policy-based reasons, and be willing to discuss the issue to resolve the dispute. All of those conditions are met. Since it has been about a week, I am going to see if I can contact the mediation committee later today and see if there is a way that we can proceed (either a new mediator, or checking to see if our mediator is returning). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The article currently lacks context in the importance of the sovereignty claim to both parties

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)

This is a significant point, except for the word "stale" in the last sentence. I don't know what word might be better, but this one is not it. Inadequate alternatives come to mind: "pointless"? "obscure"? I don't know what one-word term could be better; but I do know two things (a) the dispute is neither pointless nor obscure; and (b) there are consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
A valid point, since many readers will come to the article having no prior background knowledge. Would we be able to collaboratively assemble together a "reasons for claims" section using a selection of sound sources? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The word I was looking for was actually "moot", but it escaped me until now.219.89.220.164 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft text

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)

Disputes about the causes
There are disputes about the causes of controversy involving the Senkaku Islands.[causes 1] For example, some use the term "territorial dispute"; however, the Japanese government has consistently rejected this framing since the early 1970s.[causes 2] An analysis of incidents and issues require distinguishing between disputes which are primarily over territory and those which merely have a territorial component.[causes 3]

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]

Other nations are closely monitoring developments ,[causes 5] e.g.,
  • Senkakus described as a proxy. According to China Daily, the Senkaku Islands are a disruptive mine planted by the United States into Sino-Japanese relations.[causes 6]
  • Senkakus characterized as a pretext. According to the New York Times, some analysts frame all discussion about the islands' status within a broader pattern of Chinese territorial assertions.[causes 7]
  • Senkakus identified as a tactic. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Senkakus may represent a tactical distraction from China's internal power struggle over who will replace the current leadership of the Communist Party in 2012.[causes 8]
The historical record is a backdrop for each new incident in the unfolding chronology of these islands.[causes 9]
Notes
  1. ^ Yamada, Takao. "Keeping the big picture in sight in Senkaku Islands dispute," Mainichi Shimbun (Tokyo). October 4, 2010, citing 1972 book by Kiyoshi Inoue, 釣魚列島的歷史和主權問題 (Diaoyu dao: li shi yu zhu quan, Historical Facts of Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands, 1972)
  2. ^ "Renho refers to Senkakus as territorial issue, but later retracts remark," Japan Today. September 15, 2010; Fackler, Martin and Ian Johnson. "Arrest in Disputed Seas Riles China and Japan," The New York Times. 19 September 2010; retrieved 2011-05-29
  3. ^ Koo, Min-gyo. (2010). Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia, p. 2., p. 2, at Google Books; "Japan's Senkaku Islands--what's all the fuss about?" Yomiuri Shimbun. September 10, 2010; retrieved 2011-05-29
  4. ^ Pan, Zhongqi. "Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The Pending Controversy from the Chinese Perspective," Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007; retrieved 2011-05-29
  5. ^ Chellaney, Brahma. "India-China: Let facts speak for themselves," The Economic Times (Mumbai). 17 September 2010; "Mismatched intentions end up intensifying Japan-China row over islands," Asahi Shimbun (Japan). September 22, 2009; retrieved 2011-05-29
  6. ^ Feng Zhaoku. "Diaoyu dispute sowed by US," China Daily (Beijing). September 15, 2010; Tow, William T. (2001). Asia-Pacific strategic relations: seeking convergent security, p. 68., p. 68, at Google Books; retrieved 2011-05-29
  7. ^ Fackler, Martin and Ian Johnson. "Arrest in Disputed Seas Riles China and Japan," The New York Times. 19 September 2010; retrieved 2011-05-29
  8. ^ "Fisherman's arrest in Asia: China and Japan must not trawl for trouble," Christian Science Monitor (US). September 21, 2010; retrieved 2011-05-29
  9. ^ Lohmeyer, Martin. "The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Questions of Sovereignty and Suggestions for Resolving the Dispute," University of Canterbury (NZ), 2008, Contents, pp. 1-8; Koo, pp. 103-134., p. 103, at Google Books

Edit request from Logan, 5 June 2011

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)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Section archived prematurely

Restoring wrongly archived thread--Tenmei (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This diff should not be archived.
This thread diff needs to remain on the active talk page despite conventional archiving practices. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
While I don't think the section as currently written is optimal (I still don't understand how the Xiaoping quote offers an "alternative approach"), I'm vaguely satisfied that it's not too terrible. What do you think should be done in this section? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- It is your words and analysis which are highlighted. In the context Deng creates, your response becomes a revealing framework. --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag discussion thread

The tag was removed from the top of the article:

  • diff 02:17, 18 July 2011 Tenmei (talk|contribs) (58,318 bytes) ("simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" -- this is NOT an opinion-driven project)

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)

  • Please do not remove the POV-tag and initiate an editing-war because the dispute has not been resolved. We have had a drastic dispute during the mediation and the ground of your side has been proved wrong. It is far more than just "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag", and you need correctly interpret this sentence and current situation. Also see point 1 and 4 in Wikipedia:POV Cleanup#Guidelines for cleanup. --Lvhis (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the tag. It's only a CPOV. Who else in the world except Chinese POV supporters thinks it's not NPOV? Oda Mari (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
And let me guess, Lvhis, the dispute will be resolved when the name is changed to something else? John Smith's (talk) 07:32, 19 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.

  1. This edit is not an evidence of bias, but rather a pro-Wikipedia stance in the face of your uncooperative strategy.
  2. According to WP:DR, we are able to acknowledge and respond constructively to argumentative strategies which are unhelpful, e.g.,

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)

The mis-framing strategy is made very clear here, when Lvhis asserts that "the current title has failed to be proved a NPOV one during mediation."
The failed mediation exercise was not about disproving a hypothesis -- see WP:Burden.
I note that Lvhis presents a slightly different argument and focal point here:
We have done good job proving that the current Japanese title/name is a POV one during the Mediation. All of the grounds of our opponents argument such as "SI is an English name", "SI is the name mostly used in English" have been proved wrong and groundless. Even the Mediation will mostly end up with failure, the contents of the debate have been there and can be referred later. The POV-title tag shall be on as long as the POV title still there and the dispute has not been solved."
Again -- for redundant emphasis -- "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag". --Tenmei (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unintended consequences

In practice, Feezo's protective lock is not a blank slate.

On one hand, Feezo's protective lock would seem conventional:

  • diff 05:23, 20 July 2011 Feezo (talk | contribs) m (58,318 bytes) (Changed protection level of Senkaku Islands dispute: Edit warring / Content dispute...)

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.

" ... the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute."

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)

Moved down some substantial parts above for continued talks/disputes

...

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)

As I told Tenmei, I'm not going to engage in a discussion of the actual issues of the title until we are in mediation. We have been through this so many times before that there is no benefit to having the discussion here. Every time we have done so, we either end up with no consensus, or, more commonly, end up with a consensus for the current name that a minority refuse to accept and that new users inevitably object to. If mediation will not proceed for some reason, I don't know whether the next step is to hold the discussion here or try some other forum, but as long as the mediation is open, I sincerely believe that is where we need to have the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we are bound to the forthcoming mediation. We are currently discussing the POV-title tag. Lvhis is repeatedly referring to"NPOV" without providing any relevant Policies or Guidelines. As Tenmei and I pointed out in the lead of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute says "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Then Lvhis has onus to provide a sentence in Policies /Guidelines that support a NPOV article name for someone should be changed to a neutral name. Unless there are actionable content policies, we should not place the POV-title tag. If Lvhis changed his strategy from NPOV to the widely accepted name, there is no reason to remain the the POV-title tag anymore. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree on Qwyrxian's statement just above.--Lvhis (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis, your refusal of providing relevant Policies/Guidelines I asked above is construed as you are admitting the surrender of this discussion. Unless you respond to my request, I will remove the POV-title tag as soon as the protection expires. I asked you what you cannot answer because you have no Policies/Guidelines to support your insistence. Your current options are to declare your withdrawal of this discussion or to secretly retreat from this discussion. Please note that even in the mediation, the first question I ask you is the same question above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Phoenix7777, I have to answer you as I answered Tenmei once before as your question same as his: I am assuming good faith for you that you were too busy or too lazy to learn and construe what have already existed there for you repeatedly asked, rather than assuming that you have tried to remove a legitimate tag letting the casual reader know about a disagreement just because you like the status quo, you tried to take advantage of the status quo, and you pretended you could not get what you asked. Here I pasted a part of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute once again that I did so quite recently:
It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.
Before you try to remove this tag, read and learn the guideline Wikipedia:POV Cleanup seriously word by word. After my such advice if you still make a try to remove this tag before the disputes regarding the name/title issue have indeed been resolved, your removing will not deserve the AGF. Qwyrxian has understood the tag issue quite well. If you want to make a try to refute my points regarding the current name/title as a POV one (which are easily found out just from this section) right now, you can do it right away. But I have replied Qwyrxian as I agreed with him/her not to engage this issue right now until we are in the mediation. --Lvhis (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You made this discussion circular by quoting the same sentences as before. The quote applies only to a legitimate POV-title tag. And the legitimacy is challenged as I explained above.
Also, I suggest you to read WP:Policy before linking to a stale article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:30, 1 June 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.

Google (all)
  • "Senkaku Islands" = 487,000 results
  • "Diaoyutai Islands" = 55,900 results
  • "Senkaku Islands" -wikipedia = 415,000
  • "Diaoyutai Islands" -wikipedia = 47,000
Google (books)
  • "Senkaku Islands" = 8,660
  • "Diaoyutai Islands" = 1,050
Google (scholar)
  • "Senkaku Islands" = 2,660
  • "Diaoyutai Islands" = 287

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)

I am not sure if you have checked the debate in the mediation. As you did not mention the mediation and the way you performed on Google Search, I may have to assume that you have not checked the mediation. Could you please check here, here, and here? Although the mediation failed to get consensus, the debate has more clearly demonstrated the current title SI is neither an English name nor a named mostly used in English. Actually, the Chinese name Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands (matters nothing which D~ is used as long as being a Chinese name) is slightly more used in English than that of the Japanese name SI. The real/pure English name is "Pinnacle Islands". Do you mean you support this one? As for the tag, it is POV-title tag, for the title, not for the whole content body of the page. This is just FYI, thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well Pinnacle Islands is definitely not even in the ballpark as Google gives "Pinnacle Islands" = 23,300
I have read the mediation - as you say there was no consensus. I cannot see why the tag has not been removed. It seems that there are many editors that think it should be and only one that thinks it should not. As I have said, I am impartial and would appreciate being treated as such.
Statements like "clearly demonstrated" and "the real/pure English name" do not wash with me and are incorrect. Google says otherwise and I certainly think that the second quote has a little problem with WP:COMMONNAME which clearly states:
  • "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources".
It is obvious that you are never going to agree to removing the tag and I really do think that you should try and put aside your POV and rely on the integrity of your fellow editors and the intelligence of the readers. As I said previously, the dispute over the island group's name is clearly covered in the body of the article and we have to let the readers make their own minds up on the evidence we present to them. If Senkaku Islands reaches a stage where it is not the most common, you will find me here arguing that it should be changed. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute/Archive_4&oldid=1064435327"