Category talk:Territorial dispute templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New template

In the interest of trying to avoid the problem of multiple overlapping templates, corresponding to different countries, I've tried throwing together a single regional template at User:Changlc/Territorial Disputes of Asia Template:Territorial disputes in East and South Asia. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. -Loren 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. Good work designing it. If there are no objections, I think we should use this template instead. Another option I had also considered instead of using templates is using categories, but I thought for some countries like Japan with only 3 or 4 disputes, it may not be worth it. There is already a category like that for the US, but apparently US has a large number of territorial disputes. However, if we go ahead with the categories option, then we can make a root category like Category:Territorial disputes by countries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fine with the categories idea since they take up less article space than templates. I've moved the template to Template:Territorial disputes in East and South Asia. -Loren 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Template:Territorial disputes in East and South Asia looks nice to me.
However, we need to see if this template can actually be useful in each relevant article. I'll start out with Senkaku Islands. Currently, the ONLY template in Senkaku Islands is Template:Territorial disputes involving Japan. As discussed in the TfD discussions for that template, that condition violates NPOV and we need to do one of 3 things:
  1. Add Template:Territorial disputes involving the People's Republic of China and Template:Territorial disputes involving the Republic of China also to balance it out.
  2. Replace the current template(s) with Template:Territorial disputes in East and South Asia.
  3. Delete the templates altogether in favor of categories.
I'll go ahead and do #2, and replace the existing template(s) with the one created by Loren.--Endroit 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And as I've said, that template is a problem of WP:BIAS, not a POV violation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sentiments of NPOV violations were echoed throughout the TfD discussions. You can't just ignore it.--Endroit 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me ask again, exactly what argument is the template POV toward or against? You keep saying it's POV, but I don't even know exactly what it's POV toward or against. The template does not comment on the legitimacy of Japan's claims, and it does not state that Japan is the only country to have territorial disputes. Are you saying the template favours Japan's claims, or are you saying the template discriminates against Japan's claims? I don't even know, because you never stated how you think it's POV. You've stated that it was the only template of its kind, which would mean that it's a WP:BIAS problem, not a POV problem. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The condition that "the ONLY template in Senkaku Islands is Template:Territorial disputes involving Japan" was violating WP:NPOV. It's as simple as that; nothing more, nothing less. And I just fixed that NPOV violation by replacing it with Loren's template, thank you.--Endroit 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Not a violation of NPOV, but a problem of WP:BIAS. It's as simple as that. Again, please tell me if the template favours Japan's claims or if it discriminates against Japan's claims. If it does one of the two, then it violates NPOV. A template would violate NPOV if it favours one side of a controversial issue. But the Japan template doesn't. So please stop making false accusations. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said here that the template itself violated WP:NPOV. I said that the condition of using ONLY that one template in Senkaku Islands did. And I fixed that NPOV violation already, so there's nothing to argue about, is there?--Endroit 20:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
HongQiGong, apparently, your edits such as the one [here] continue to violate WP:NPOV as well. Please refrain from singling out any ONE nation as a party to any dispute.--Endroit 20:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So tell me, how does the condition of using only that template violate NPOV then? Did it make the article suddenly favour one side of the territorial dispute? And which side of the dispute did it make the article favour? Like I said, it's a WP:BIAS issue. And I'm only defending myself against accusations of doing something to violate NPOV. You can't even make a solid showing of which side of a controversial issue that the use of this template favours, yet you label it a violation of NPOV. Please do familiarise yourself with what WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS means before you falsely apply NPOV again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Geographic bias (WP:BIAS) is included in the description for WP:NPOV. Undue weight was given when labeling the articles as a dispute by ONE NATION ONLY, hence the WP:NPOV violation.--Endroit 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And like I said before, the template does not say that it is the only country to have a territorial dispute. And it would only be undue weight if the article itself completely ignores or gives not enough mention of any of the countries involved in the dispute. So like I keep asking - does the use of the template favours or discriminates against Japan's claims? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there was bias in the Senkaku Islands article, because PRC and ROC were omitted from the templates, giving undue weight to Japan as being the only party to the Senkaku Islands dispute. WP:NPOV suggests such biases be countered, which could have been done by one of the 3 methods I gave above. I chose #2, and replaced the offending template with Loren's template.--Endroit 21:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh... yeah, because that template is for specifically Japan's territorial disputes. Undue weight would have been to mention Senkaku without mention Dokdo. Undue weight would have been a template specifically for Senkaku that doesn't mention the PRC or the ROC. But this template does not do either of the two. And you have said that the use of the template violates NPOV. How does it give Japan undue weight if an article uses that template? It doesn't make Japan's claims any more or less legitimate. And it didn't magically delete mention of PRC or ROC from the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Precisely... "that template is for specifically Japan's territorial disputes". It's use, coupled with the non-use of Template:Territorial disputes involving the People's Republic of China and Template:Territorial disputes involving the Republic of China created the bias.--Endroit 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So like I said, it's a problem of WP:BIAS, not a problem of NPOV... Please learn to differentiate between the two. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem of WP:BIAS, and also a problem of Geographic bias within WP:NPOV. You cannot separate the two in this case, and pretend that WP:NPOV does not apply, for some magical reasons.--Endroit 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The only thing "magical" here is your accusation of NPOV violation. Please read WP:BIAS. Famous example being that topics and templates about the United States and other English-speaking countries are overrepresented in English WP. In the same way, the lack of similar templates for territorial disputes of other countries presents a WP:BIAS problem. However, you have not been able to explain how the template or the use of the template gives more weight to Japan's claims or the claims of other countries in the controversial issue of the Senkaku dispute, as to create undue weight toward Japan. It's not a NPOV violation. Simple as that. So stop your baseless accusations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Bias includes the following as a type of bias we should avoid:
  • Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere
The use of the Japanese template itself didn't violate the Geographic bias condition. However, the manner in which it was used, by not using the corresponding Chinese templates, did. Hence my "accusations" are not baseless; if anybody disagrees, they are free to pursue WP:DR.--Endroit 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And how exactly does the use of the template "describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere"? It does not magically edit out the content in the article that describes other countries' claims, and it does not lend more legitimacy to Japan's claims as described in the article. It doesn't comment on the legitimacy of Japan's claims nor the claims of any other countries at all. NPOV would be to favour one country's views over the views of another country. Like I said, please learn to differentiate between WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As I repeat for the nth time, the manner in which the Japanese template was used, coupled with the non-use of their corresponding Chinese templates, violated the Geographical bias condition in WP:NPOV#Bias... and we disagree on this point, HongQiGong.
HongQiGong, your point is moot if you're not disputing my edits. Also, it's not appropriate to differentiate between WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV here, as they clearly overlap in this case. So we disagree on the NPOV issue, and apparently we agree on everything else.--Endroit 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And I repeat for the nth time, this is a problem of WP:BIAS, not a violation of NPOV. You may have copied-and-pasted what "Geographical Bias" means in WP:NPOV, but did you actually read it and understand it? It says - ...describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere... How exactly does the template or the use of the template do that? It is a simple listing of Japan's island dispute. Is the fact that Japan disputes those islands somehow framed differently in another country? Heck, the only way it can even be framed differently is if other countries do not believe those islands are actually disputed by Japan, because as I said, the template does not comment on the legitimacy of Japan's claims. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of Japanese templates, coupled with the omissions of the Chinese templates, supported a minority view that the islands were disputed by Japan only, hence a WP:NPOV violation based on Geographic bias. (Such view is not supported outside of China, apparently). HongQiGong, if you are insisting on continuing to use templates within Senkaku Islands in such a biased manner, it would be an obvious NPOV violation. If that's the case let me know, and I am ready to challenge you. If not, then you have nothing to worry about, do you?--Endroit 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does it support a view that the islands were disputed by Japan only? The template does not state that, neither does using the template magically delete any content in the article itself that specifically states that the territory is disputed by both the PRC and the ROC. The template doesn't change the contents of the article at all, which details the dispute from all sides. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes omitting information, intentionally or not, creates a bias. Let's say for example that I created a template called "Allied World War II Atrocities" and filled it with links to articles pertaining to stuff like Dresden, the A-Bombs and so forth, then stuck them on the relevent World War II articles. Now, of course, I'm betting that if I were to do that, people would immediately start complaining that I was systematically biased and out to make the Allies look bad. And while that might not have been my intention - perhaps I'd simply point out that no one had gotten around to making a template for Axis atrocities with the Holocaust, Bataan, Nanking..etc, the point is, my edits did not put the issues in question into the proper context. By focusing only on incidents pertaining to a single side, I am implicitly leading the uninformed to believe that such incidents only occured because of a single party. And regardless of whether or not that was my intention, the end result is not neutral. Now, if we've decided to go with the regional template, can we please just set this dispute aside and get back to work improving Wikipedia? Thanks. -Loren 00:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Disadvantages of article series boxes #3 Often inadvertently push a POV and suggest that one aspect of a topic is more important than others is relevant to this situation. --Kusunose 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Endroit's second suggestion. The infoboxes for individual nations should be replaced with the relevant regional template. A list of territories for each country can be made on each state's Foreign Relations article and/or in a seperate "Territorial disputes of ..." category. Having a seperate infobox for each country is both messy and unnessecary.-Loren 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)