July 3, at 9: What concerns me today is the steady remilitarization of Japanese Self-Defence Forces and increasing popularity of imperialist attitudes in mainstream society.
It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community. Some discussions are born lame; some achieve lameness; some have lameness thrust upon them.
Upon coming across a discussion that is borderline lame, some Wikipedians may be tempted to go do something useful. This is a big mistake. Left to its own devices, the discussion might inadvertently become useful.
What's the fun in that? It is essential that as many editors as possible chime in, not adding to the discussion at hand, but merely commenting how lame it is and what a big waste of time it is. See Self-fulfilling prophecyPositive feedbackand Exponential growth.
Merely stating the discussion is lame is frequently not sufficient; every opposing statement must be denied with increasingly vehement assertions of the lameness. While at first blush, wasting time whining about what a waste of time something is may seem illogical, the inherent irony just magnifies the lameness.
An additional step to increase lameness is to include repeated links to this essay, which is WP: The best way to set about a lame edit war is to change a large number of articles based on your interpretation of minutiae in the manual of style.
If this does not work, try changing the MOS itself; that always works. Guidelines on how to add an entry to this guide If you want to add a "lame edit war" to this page, keep the following in mind: It must have been an actual edit war.
Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details, are not "edit wars" and should NEVER be added: Note that pithy quotes on talk pages may be suitable for Wikipedia: It should truly be amongst the lamest edit wars. Not just garden-variety lame. Unless a participant is banned for their part in the edit war, do not give the names of participants or link to their userpages.
People have lapses in judgment, and some end up edit warring; they shouldn't, however, be stuck with that for the rest of their on-wiki careers for no reason. This is absolutely not the place for harping over someone's past editing.
Be careful to avoid even the semblance of taking sides in the war. If one version was more or less accepted afterwards, it's OK to note that, but the fact that an edit war occurred means that neither side was "in the right all along". If you feel that an edit war was truly lame, add it!
You don't need to ask on the talk page. The lameness of it should speak for itself. Of course, editors with a more experienced eye for lameness may disagree with your claim to the "lamest," which may just result in yet another lame edit war! Note that the no original research and verifiability policies are meant to apply to the article namespacenot necessarily on pages like this in the Wikipedia project namespace.
This is intended for the community rather than your average readers.
Humorous, insightful commentary is encouraged here. Ethnic and national feuds.Dokdo Island, or Takeshima, has been a long standing territorial dispute between Korea and Japan.
The division of Korea did not let this island slip off the priority list of the koreans, but instead puts two Korean governments laying territorial claim to the island. This is a list of territorial disputes over lands around the world, both past and in modern times.
Bold indicates one claimant's full control; italics indicates one or more claimants' partial control. A toolbox for analysing political texts.
Discourse analysis is a useful tool for studying the political meanings that inform written and spoken text.
In other posts, I have provided a quick video introduction to the topic, and have discussed the ideas behind discourse theory, the main questions that students and researchers will likely ask as they set up their discourse analysis project, and.
The territorial dispute over this small island was aggravated due to the inconsistent U.S policy toward the disputed island, Dokdo/Takeshima from to Initially, U.S adopted the position in January that Dokdo/Takeshima should be as part of the Korean territory that Japan had occupied illegally in The Liancourt Rocks dispute is a territorial dispute between South Korea and urbanagricultureinitiative.com countries claim sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks, a group of small islets in the Sea of Japan which are referred to as "Dokdo" (Hangul: 독도) in Korean and "Takeshima" (竹島) in Japanese.
North Korea also claims sovereignty of the islands.. The Liancourt Rocks have been administered by South Korea. This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it too seriously.