User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-S



"Very few things happen at the right time, and the rest do not happen at all. The conscientious historian will correct these defects." – Mark Twain Herodotus [1]

Getting it right
In Senkaku Islands dispute, for example, Lvhis edited the text and added an inline citation in the first paragraph here. This was his first and only citation-supported edit up to that point. The CNN reference was previously cited here and here (compare Penwhale's diff here).
 * Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea created by Tenmei here 12 October 2010
 * Unryu Suganuma created here 31 July 2011

Lvhis restored "known as"; and additional tweaked citations were moved, e.g., here. Qwyrixian's diff here thwarted the delicate collaboration "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory". If we focus on what went right, it helps clarify the contrast with what went wrong.
 * Lee Seokwoo created by Tenmei here 4 August 2011
 * Han-yi Shaw created by Tenmei here 4 August 2011

Comment
The disputes on the name/title have reached such extent that this formal mediation has to be called.

Once we have a successful outcome from the mediation, i.e. the dispute have indeed been resolved, the tag of course shall be removed following that outcome. --Lvhis (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable to me. I will add the requested tag. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!--Lvhis (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Feezo, you added the POV-title tag ignoring ongoing discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute  only listening to the opinion of one side. Please remove the tag, otherwise I will request a change of mediator as non-neutral. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The tag will be in place for the duration of this mediation case and serves to acknowledge its existence. Once the case is closed, the tag will be removed. You are of course welcome to request a new mediator if you wish. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a bad start; but it is a beginning none-the-less. --Tenmei (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Phoenix7777: Already two administrators have stated that the tag should stay. The next mediator would probably do the same. STSC (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that Phoenix7777 and Tenmei has chosen to attack the mediator so early into the mediation process. Sure, there's always a chance that the mediator is unqualified (after all, there's no quality control in Wikipedia), but as we can see, the current mediator was not even given a chance to deal with their objections before the missiles are fired. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Elephant in the room
This is a bad beginning. [5 words] Simply pretending that there is no problem is unworkable. We have already stretched pretense beyond the limit of its elasticity.[20 words] This missed opportunity is an elephant in the room which needs to be acknowledged; and specificity becomes essential, e.g., [16 words] These mistakes frustrate our hopes for collaborative editing.[8 words] The explicitly stated objective of the majority of participants in this specific mediation "exercise" is to figure out how to ameliorate mistakes which accumulate like these have done. However, the initial diffs of Feezo and AGK suggest that this goal is outside the scope of mediation. [46 words] Each of these problems could have been avoided, but each is now an elephant in the room which must be acknowledged explicitly.[22 words] --Tenmei (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A. Feezo is credulous when caution was needed. This is not good . [11–4= 7 words]
 * B. Lvhis presents a disingenuous story; and Feezo validates it without investing any effort in parsing the consequences. This is not good . [21–4= 17 words]
 * C. Qwyrxian is discredited by this brief exchange because he orchestrated the bait and switch gambit which underlies it. This is not good. [20–4= 18 words]
 * Actually, you have created many flying pigs! STSC (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific goals of mediation are served by addressing explicit examples rather than generalities. Do you suggest that one or more sentences would be improved by be editing? --Tenmei (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, as I have done several times before in different ways, I request that you not disparage me by implying that I am engaging in unethical acts like "bait and switch". If something specific I did was wrong, please explain that thing, specifically, without reference to cliches that make us guess what you actually have a problem with.  Or, better yet, let's focus on the actual issue to be mediated: the title of the article (and whatever other points others think need to be discussed in due course). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian -- Could it be that the way you construed the words of Deng Xiaoping here mirrors the way you conventionally disparage my words? In any case, "disparage" is a tricky verb for our Wikipedia venue -- and "disparage by implication" is not good. I apologize for offending.  My goal is to be critical without offense. Responding to your words:
 * Yes, "something specific you did was wrong questionable ..." and the unanticipated consequences are significant
 * Yes, I will "explain that thing, specifically ..." using your own words.
 * Yes, "let's focus on the actual issue to be mediated" which is what my diff above does do -- compare Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Restored:Alternate approaches
 * In future, please recall (a) that I am willing to apologize for arguable misjudgment; and (b) that my focus continues to be practical, specific, and not divorced from ensuring the long-term credibility of our collaborative editing project. --Tenmei (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, if you have specific grievances about the way this mediation is being handled, you would do far better to state them openly, rather than making general personal statements like "User is x. This is not good." Mediation requires honesty, but also a willingness to engage. If you are not comfortable with doing this on-wiki, you may contact me about your concerns by email. That said, to address your points In short, just as Bobthefish appears to have cleaned up up his act, you begin to make the same mistakes. I encourage you to read AGK's message to Bobthefish above, and consider how it applies to your own posts here. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A. There's no real way to respond to something this vague, and I would discourage you from making this kind of statement in future.
 * B. You haven't explained why you disagree with Lvhis and you accuse me of not "investing any effort" in evaluating the "consequences", which you conveniently forget to explain. I think I would prefer to have Bobthefish accusing me of having no sense of humor.
 * C. Again, you make baseless accusations. I see no evidence that Qwyrxian did anything of the sort.
 * PROTEST. I didn't accuse you of having no sense of humour. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not directly, but you certainly implied it with this edit . However, in the interests of furthering positive discussion, I will strike the offending text. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was just my way of telling you that was not an intent. While the message appears implicit, that was not what I had in mind at the time of writing. For example, an innocent matter may inevitably appear damning in the event that a particularly vocal party frames it as such (and thus encouraging others to adopt the same view). It's not an issue that deserves to be dwelled on, but I hope you get the drift. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Feezo -- I note your diff "A" here. Other than this acknowledgment, I hold my response in abeyance except for this: I reject the edit summary " Round 1 redux "; and I urge you to set aside this mistake. --Tenmei (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was just my personal organizing system for browsing the page history. This page gets a lot of edits, and marking every edit summary with "Re" isn't too informative. It wasn't directed towards you or anyone else, but if it annoys you, I'll change the system. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be best to be a bit more careful with those bluelinks. The initial argument in this section began with aggressive bluelinking, and I don't think anyone wants to rehash that. Linking to my userpage in your response to me was certainly not necessary. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation safe zone
Feezo, would it be most beneficial to re-explain all of the detailed arguments and data presented before, along with relevant policies/guidelines, or is it better to simply provide links to discussion archives that contain the information? I'm happy to do either. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read the discussions, so I'm familiar with the arguments. However, I think it would be helpful if participants could select the portions of the arguments they most agree with, or feel are most relevant to the discussion, and either summarize or quote them here. There's no need to reproduce all the statistical data, a link or a summary would be fine. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want to have subsections with a list of "pro" and "anti" arguments (signed by endorsers, if that's appropriate)? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a long-standing issue with reference usage and interpretation that may benefit from this mediation. All sides of the arguments are basically represented in [|this NPOV noticeboard entry]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Using Japanese name would imply Wikipedia endorsing the Japanese claim

 * I doubt your mediation ability. If it is explicitly rejected by the guideline, how do you think it comes to a consensus? In this case, you should advice STSC that it is unlikely unless the guideline is amended.
 * Also you revealed your personal opinion which doesn’t conform to Policies/Guidelines "The more serious issue is the potential for claims of nationalism if either the Japanese or Chinese names are used. It is my impression that the translation would avoid this issue in a way that transliteration does not." The name "Senkaku Islands" is determined by the relevant Policies/Guidelines not by nationalism. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Feezo removed my post above and I reverted it. It is my understanding to remove a post in Talk page is quite limited situation such as a vandalism or forum like discussion. Feezo removed my post because I criticized his/her conduct. I am convinced Feezo's inability to mediate this issue. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Phoenix7777: You have agreed to this mediation then you should abide by the rules of Mediation Safe Zone, i.e., "Posts containing comments about other editors will be removed in their entirety." STSC (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Feezo -- I note your diffs "1" here and "2" here. Other than this acknowledgment, I hold my response in abeyance except for this: I am encouraged by the edit summary "Make this a parent section of the later subsections"; and I urge you to do more of this.
 * It was always supposed to be; the "safe zone" is encompasses everything below that section heading, and reducing the header level should help make this clear. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Feezo -- Please demonstrate leadership by showing us how to use structural tools to bifurcate argument. In sequential diffs, the participants in this so-called "Mediation Safe Zone" are "talking past each other", are they not? The participants in the thread proceed at cross purposes. In other words, the English phrase is like the Chinese idiomatic expression "chicken talking to a duck" (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講). Feezo -- IMO, here is a mismatch. Is it premature to hope that an incisive mediator can ameliorate it ? --Tenmei (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tenmei, you'd better email Feezo directly if you have any issue on the safe zone. STSC (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * STSC -- No. If anything, your words convince me that this diff does belong here, specifically here in this context where all have an opportunity to consider and to comment as you have done. --Tenmei (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have better things to say regarding my original comments on the title, I would ask you politely not to input any funny stuff under my heading. STSC (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed this discussion due to it repeatedly going out of bounds. Additional replies should either go inside this collapsed box, or outside the safe zone, above. On-topic discussion may continue outside the box. Phoenix7777 in particular is invited to repost his reply minus the personal comments outside the box. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I applaud the enormity of your tolerance to User:Phoenix7777 and User:Tenmei's repeated personal attacks. Presumably, they have not triggered your soft spot (i.e. treading dangerously close to topics regarding your sense of humour) and thus had not induced any angry responses from you. :)


 * Or perhaps they simply sounded more forceful and intimidating with their threats of replacing a mediator, thus prompting a more conciliatory reception in response.


 * If you ask me, I'd say you've done an appropriate job as a mediator so far. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Diaoyu vs. Diaoyutai

 * "United States" and "United States of America" are different names although they point to the same country. There have been so many disputes over two names as a title of the article. See some of the Requested move discussions., , Some novice editors insist the sum of Google hits for Diaoyu and Diaoyutai should be used for comparison with Senkaku Islands. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What I wanted to say is Diaoyutai is far less accepted than Diaoyu. So it may not be a candidate of this title name and can be excluded from any research made from now on. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am on a short break, so I will simply highlight one specific point in your post for now: novice editors. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Novice Editors' edits like by User:San9663 and  by User:Lvhis. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Service award levels are not really relevant here. Arguments made by newer editors carry as much weight as arguments made by more experienced editors. We should strive to evaluate all arguments solely on their merits, and not on the basis of who makes them. As this is straying off topic, I'm going to collapse this section; feel free to ask the question again. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Google search
I have set up this separate heading out of respect for Lvhis' section above.

First of all, I'm absolutely not happy with Qwyrxian giving silly advise like this,"one thing you need to not do with Google searches is to use the "NOT" search marker..." just because he has had difficulties in using Google search. I would presume good faith but I hope it is not his tactic trying to dismiss other editors' search data which uses the NOT operation (as he has done so in the past). So please Qwyrxian give us a search example so that we can work out why you're not getting a logical result by using the NOT operation. STSC (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Qwyrxian has really said anything to deserve personal attacks, so you don't really need to go overboard with your descriptors. As for his advice about not using "NOT", there was an example he has made in the past that I've been able to reproduce where using the NOT descriptor yielded more hits than not using the NOT descriptor. Personally, I don't know enough about Google's search mechanism to understand the rationale behind this phenomenon. If you do, then perhaps you should indulge us on why this is the case. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no "personal attack" at all. STSC (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone plays with matches and gets his fingers burnt, he cannot go on to tell everyone stop using matches. STSC (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. While there are significant issues with the way he naively draws his conclusions, he did raise a legitimate point on this which is backed by evidence that shows this search parameter does not behave as expected. If you would like to show he is wrong, then you should demonstrate why (which I assume you have the expertise to). Otherwise, this is not going to convince anyone of your position. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * STSC, if you can enlighten us about how to properly use "unwanted words" on the Google advanced search in a way that produces proper results, I would be more than happy to amend my statement, and also to include such types of data in our analysis. I've given a bunch of examples so far, but I'll give one more totally unrelated to this subject. Search for "online game" (using quotation marks); I get 47.7 million hits.  Search for "online game" -multiple (or go to the advanced options and put multiple into the unwanted words box); I get 124 million hits. It simply cannot be that there are more pages with "online game" but not "multiple" than there are pages with "online game".  Something is amiss.  Now, if there is a way to fix this, we should do so.  One thing I note is that the same problem does not occur when the positive search string is only a single word (so, "love" gets, as it should, far more hits than "love" -hate).  But that doesn't tell me how to fix it.  Please understand, I am not using this as a tactic; in fact, I really wanted this to work in the first place because it would have saved be, literally, hours worth of work when I first tried to separate articles that mentioned both names from those that mentioned only one.  If we could get this search result to work reliably, I think it would definitely help us (not definitively, but it would be a step in the right direction).  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names: "Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Search engine test" --Tenmei (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already know and even discussed a bit on that. Thanks for pointing out. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 06:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The result count of a Google search is only a quick estimate and often very unreliable (and wrong) particularly for large results, so we should not read too much in it. The search engine's priority is to retrieve the relevant results quickly, and a normal user is likely only interested in the first few pages anyway. The hit counts in Qwyrxian's case are either underestimated or overestimated. That's why I myself have never supported the use of Google search to determine the title. STSC (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms with that analysis or that plan, at least for regular Google. Maybe it's just my feeling, but it seems like I/we get better (more accurate?) results with Google News, and even better Google Scholar, and Google Books.  One possibility is simply that the smaller number of objects to be searched decreases the volatility.  Another possibility (perhaps a bit more likely) is that Google uses a simpler search for Scholar and Books, since ranking and advertising aren't as relevant there.  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

White horse strategy
It appears that Lvhis and others are employing a classic Chinese argument strategy:

This is not simple; and it is not anticipated within conventional of WP:DR. -->

Signpost
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-26/Arbitration_report&diff=next&oldid=452584489

honto

 * Do you recall that San9663 suggested this? "To reach a compromise, maybe one solution is to quote the exact lines printed and let the readers to interpret?" IMO, this is
 * FACT: In sequence, each of the following agreed:
 * Bobthefish2 confirmed the accuracy of the translation here.
 * San9663 re-confirmed it [here
 * Independently, Nlu is in accord: "I believe that the current translation of the first sentence is accurate and not "fraudulent" (as some have accused it to be); indeed, I see no reasonable argument that the translation is not accurate ..."

In other words, there is no problem with the primary source. This is a beginning.

draft
WhatamIdoing -- Your interpretation is backwards. It is, in fact, 180° away from where this talk page has developed. Perhaps a bit more background is needed.

Yes, summarizing the status quo is a conventional way of establishing common ground in a dispute; however, this conventionally unremarkable strategy produced unanticipated consequences. Instead of encouraging "discussion of sources and their uses," the opposite became our outcome. Rhetorical questions which marginalize any reply are difficult to deal with. The principal purpose of the talk page thread was substantially frustrated. The cumulative effect has been to validate and encourage Bobthefish2's claim that his "original research" opinions so obvious as to be beyond dispute, e.g., "...it is unlikely that we'd have any serious references that deal with something so obviously wrong and stupid (just as most legit media ignore anything Fox News says)." Bobthefish2 04:36, 8 February 2011

For emphasis, let me be redundantly clear, this characteristic comment is the precise opposite of "discussion of sources and their uses." The unique rationale at work in this talk page have skewed the meaning of the diffs you read -- which ironically demontrates the very reason I began this thread in this venue. As you know, our wiki-term for "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources" is "original research." This means that facts and factoids are not usually considered equivalent. Dispute resolution practices were turned upside down. I was attempting to block the perverse validation and encouragement of [[contradiction and ad hominem attacks as better than counterargument or refutation. In this context, despair inspired me to write: "WP:Five Pillars is indispensible, not optional in this talk page venue no less than anywhere else."  WhatamIdoing -- You construed this as shutting down reasonable discussion, but in fact, it was an attempt to re-start reasonable discussion.  Why else would someone posting a question if not to try to find another, more effective way forward? --Tenmei (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your rhetorical question here is crafted in ways which marginalize any reply. The principal purpose of any answer is substantially frustrated

see John Tkacik, "Clear signal needed on disputed isles," Taipei Times, June 27, 2008; excerpt, "A People’s Daily commentary of June 1953, which called on the people of Okinawa to resist the US imperialists occupying their homelands, enumerated the Jiange (Senkaku) islands as part of the Ryukyu chain, clear evidence that the Beijing government considered the islands part of Japan even in the heat of the Korean War." see here An article in the People's Daily dated 8 January 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", complains about US occupation. The article explicitly identifies the Ryukyu Islands consisting of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Q&A, Senkaku Islands, Q4/A4.3; retrieved 29 Jan 2011; groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands"; accord Embassy of Japan in Israel, Newsletter #2, October 2010; see Item 4;
 * restatement Representative Office of Japan to PNA, Newsletter #2, November 2010; see Item 3; excerpt, "... an article in the People’s Daily dated January 8, 1953, under the title of “Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation”, made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7
 * compare ; excerpt, "In his book "Gendai Chugoku Nenpyo" (Timeline on modern China), Masashi Ando referred to a People's Daily article dated Jan. 8, 1953, which makes reference to the "Senkaku Islands in Okinawa";
 * and see

TEXT (unverified): "There is the Ryukyu Islands on the sea between the northeast part of Taiwan of our country, and the southwest part of Kyushu island of Japan, having seven islands, such as the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands, and the Osumi Islands, with many islets respectively, and there are over 50 named islands and more than 400 nameless islets altogether ... The inner side is the East China Sea of our country, and an outside is the Pacific high seas." (January 8, 1953, the People's Daily)
 * Deng Xiaoping verified by English source here; San9663→ verified by Chinese reliable source here


 * 1970 &mdash; Durdin, Tillman. "Peking Claims Disputed Oil-Rich Isles," New York Times. December 6, 1970; China asserted sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands in a Xinhua announcement
 * 1972 &mdash; Isles in Ryukyus Claimed by China," New York Times. January 2, 1972; excerpt, "Peking says that Japan 'illicitly' handed over the islands with the Ryukyus to the United States after WorldWar II."
 * 1978 &mdash; Butterfield, Fox. "Only Delicate Diplomacy Can Square the Asian Triangle," New York Times. April 23, 1978; abstract excerpt, "... sudden appearance of a cluster of 140 Chinese fishing boats .... Why did the Chinese fishing boats, some armed with machine guns and signboards proclaiming China's right to the barren islets, show up in Japan?"
 * 1979 &mdash; Binder, David. "South China Sea Oil Search Mixes Economics, Politics," New York Times. September 2, 1979.

Maritime borders
The Senkakus' maritime boundaries have remained indeterminate despite efforts to clarify them. This is explained by an array of factors, some of which are unique; and several are congruent with problems also affecting other island groups in the waters of Northeast Asia.

In the Senkakus and other island groups, the process of establishing these "positional" borders encompasses the distinction between previously resolved and never-resolved controversies.

The Senkaku Islands do not represent an isolated instance of overlapping maritime border claims. Significant differences and congruences in the cohort of similarly situated islands are evolving simultaneously.

The Japanese government has long maintained that the Senkaku Islands are an integral part of Japan; and therefore, no so-called "territorial disputes" exists but establishing boundaries according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is conceptually distinct.

Proxy, pretext, tactic
The historical record is a backdrop for each new incident in the unfolding chronology of these islands.

Other Asian nations -- including those with no geographical connection to the East China Sea -- are closely monitoring events and arguments which surround the Senkaku Islands. These geo-politically noteworthy islands are marked and defined as a proxy, a pretext, or a tactic with profound implications.

There are disputes about the causes of controversies which are linked with the Senkaku Islands. Illustrative examples of disparate perspectives include:


 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.

Although some discuss the Senkaku Islands using the term "territorial dispute," the Japanese government has consistently rejected this framing since the early 1970s. The description of the Senkakus and other East Asian island groups require distinguishing between disputes that are primarily over territory and those that merely have a territorial component.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Senkaku_Islands&diff=next&oldid=384921982

Historical events and territorial dispute
Disagreements about the causes of the dispute are an additional subject of controversy.

On one hand, some Chinese have described the territorial dispute as a disruptive mine planted by the United States into Sino-Japanese relations; and on the other hand, some Japanese news media position all discussion about the islands' status within a broader pattern of Chinese territorial assertions. The historical record creates a context for specific incidents in the unfolding history of these islands.

Other nations closely monitor the evolution and development of this dispute.

-- Bobthefish2 removed here 18:44 29 Jan 2011 &mdash; The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953. + +