Misplaced Pages

Talk:Senkaku Islands: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:21, 4 January 2012 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →Arbitrary break: I'll close it← Previous edit Revision as of 02:36, 4 January 2012 edit undoNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 edits →Request for comment: Article naming: closeNext edit →
Line 126: Line 126:


== Request for comment: Article naming == == Request for comment: Article naming ==
{{discussion top|1=For reasons that I imagine are evident to anyone reading the discussion, there is clearly no consensus to title the article as anything but "Senkaku Islands". Furthermore, pursuant to the ] remedy issued by the Arbitration Committee, I am forbidding the initiation of further move requests until 2013. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)}}


This article is about a group of islands whose ownership is disputed. The Chinese name for the islands is 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿, which is transliterated in a variety of ways, in a variety of ways (mainly Diaoyu and Diaoyutai). The Japanese name for the islands is 尖閣諸島, which is transliterated as Senakaku (Senakaku Shotō, and rarely as Senkaku-guntō or Senkaku-rettō). English sources use a variety of names, though the most common are Senkaku Islands, Diayou Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands. The name Pinnacle Islands is also found in English literature, although far less frequently used than any of the previously mentioned names. The question is, per Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which of these names, if any, is the correct name for this and associated articles (] and ])? Previous discussions, which have included RfC's, discussions on noticeboards, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to settle the issue, though most participants have argued for either "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", "Pinnacle Islands", or a joint name like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, the two "sides" will present their arguments in favor of the current name or an alternative name. This article is about a group of islands whose ownership is disputed. The Chinese name for the islands is 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿, which is transliterated in a variety of ways, in a variety of ways (mainly Diaoyu and Diaoyutai). The Japanese name for the islands is 尖閣諸島, which is transliterated as Senakaku (Senakaku Shotō, and rarely as Senkaku-guntō or Senkaku-rettō). English sources use a variety of names, though the most common are Senkaku Islands, Diayou Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands. The name Pinnacle Islands is also found in English literature, although far less frequently used than any of the previously mentioned names. The question is, per Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which of these names, if any, is the correct name for this and associated articles (] and ])? Previous discussions, which have included RfC's, discussions on noticeboards, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to settle the issue, though most participants have argued for either "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", "Pinnacle Islands", or a joint name like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, the two "sides" will present their arguments in favor of the current name or an alternative name.
Line 216: Line 217:
:::::76.65.128.198, your analysis is completely wrong. In the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits were below a hundred at that time (May 2007) therefore it was quite difficult to determine which was the widely accepted name. See ]. ] says "''...but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.''" This case's Google Book hits of 34,000 vs. 15,000 is quite apparent which is widely accepted name. So, the precedent doesn't apply here. ―― ] (]) 08:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC) :::::76.65.128.198, your analysis is completely wrong. In the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits were below a hundred at that time (May 2007) therefore it was quite difficult to determine which was the widely accepted name. See ]. ] says "''...but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.''" This case's Google Book hits of 34,000 vs. 15,000 is quite apparent which is widely accepted name. So, the precedent doesn't apply here. ―― ] (]) 08:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Books n-gram evidence''' shows that in recent years the Chinese name Diaoyu Islands has risen in usage, but I'd go with the Japanese '''Senkaku Islands''' as the one that's more enduring and common over time. The Liancourt Rocks is a distant third, and Pinnacle Islands is not in the running. Feel free to try other variations. ] (]) 03:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC) * '''Books n-gram evidence''' shows that in recent years the Chinese name Diaoyu Islands has risen in usage, but I'd go with the Japanese '''Senkaku Islands''' as the one that's more enduring and common over time. The Liancourt Rocks is a distant third, and Pinnacle Islands is not in the running. Feel free to try other variations. ] (]) 03:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

===Arbitrary break=== ===Arbitrary break===


Line 223: Line 224:
::It has been open for more than 30-days, so I think it's time to close. ] (]) 01:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC) ::It has been open for more than 30-days, so I think it's time to close. ] (]) 01:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
:::I'll go ahead and close the discussion, though there isn't that much that isn't obvious to an outside observer. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC) :::I'll go ahead and close the discussion, though there isn't that much that isn't obvious to an outside observer. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Done. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:36, 4 January 2012

This talk page is for discussion of the Senkaku Islands article; any discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands should be taken to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you for your cooperation.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Senkaku Islands was copied or moved into East China Sea with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Senkaku Islands was copied or moved into Senkaku Islands dispute with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJapan: Geography & environment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 12:00, December 25, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTaiwan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChina High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
WikiProject iconIslands
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands
In the newsA news item involving Senkaku Islands was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 June 2008.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages

Category		The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
‌
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help:
  • Japan
  • China
  • Taiwan

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload


Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Use of "refute"

I saw an IP editor and Qwyrxian is opposoing the use of "refute" because what Japanese do does not fit the definition of "refute". i.e. "provide evidence against" or "prove wrong". When I looked up the word in Merriam-Webster, it gives me two definitions "to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous" and "to deny the truth or accuracy of", and the word "deny", which is used to replace "refute", is a synomym. I don't see why it is wrong to use "refute" here. I'm not a native speaker so I'm probably missing something. --Kusunose 01:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "rebut" is a better word choice. Rklawton (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP editor and Qwyrxian are right at this point. As an encyclopedia emphasizing NPOV, "deny" is more proper and neutral, while "refute" may imply that this article endorses Japan's stance at the issue in question. Using "rebut" is better than using "refute" but not better than using "deny" . Vocabulary.com explains these words with some examples. --Lvhis (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Lvhis for a reference. Went to Vocaburary.com and read an article "rebut/refute", as well as definitions of "refute", "rebut", and "deny". As Japanese refutaion/rebuttal/denial is not conclusive, "rebut" certainly is a better choice. Not sure "deny" is better than "rebut" here. --Kusunose 06:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "rebut" is a better word than the other options. "Deny" simply suggests Japan has said China is wrong without providing an argument. John Smith's (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Rebut is a fair compromise for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
John Smith's, can you give a reference/reliable source that explains "deny" implying to say something wrong or to refuse something exclusively without providing an argument? "Deny" is very neutral here, implying the party who deny something is maybe right or maybe wrong, 50 to 50. No matter if there is some subtle different between "deny" and "rebut", your reverting "deny" back to "refute" was a blatant POV pushing or non-constructive. I don't think we need to bother to change "deny" into "rebut". --Lvhis (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis, it's really not helpful when you frequently reply to my comments with "can you give a reference/source that..." You're the only person objecting to using "rebut" here, so would you accept the compromise? John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
John Smith's, if you feel very uncomfortable (or fear) to be asked for providing reference or reliable source to support your argument, the Misplaced Pages may not be the right/good place for you. Again, the word "deny" has been there as a result of edits by 2 editors and good enough per wp's policy, so it is not necessary to bother to change it. --Lvhis (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You're avoiding the issue. The only editor currently objecting (or not agreeing to) the use of "rebut" is you. Are you going to try to block it being used? John Smith's (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst copyediting I had a play with the text. Is this any better? John Smith's (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You do not want answer my question about your interpretation on "deny", while instead, asked me question. And this section is talking about "Use of 'refute'". --Lvhis (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Intention to start RFC

Out of deference to the complex and contentious nature of this debate, I am providing notice that I intend to start an RfC on the name of this article (the outcome of which will necessarily have implications about the use of the POV-title template) in about one week (ideally, some time early on 23 November, GMT). The draft for the RFC question can be found at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC. Other editors are welcome to comment on the wording. The goal is to make it a neutral statement of the problem; all arguments in favor of one name or another belong in the "Arguments in favor of..." sections. In addition, other editors may want to begin preparing their own arguments to be put into those Arguments sections. I have prepared begun drafting one of my own, and expect it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-800 words, though it's still in a very rough state. Finally, please note that I will not be allowing discussions to drag out on the wording of the RfC any more than one week; technically speaking, anyone can put up an RfC at any time, and it doesn't need to be approved by other editors first. I only did so here to allay potential complaints that others "weren't ready" or that the RfC was somehow rigged.

In general, RfCs run for about a month. RfCs do not have to be formally closed, but since this case is under discretionary sanctions, I intend to ask an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC once discussion has stopped or has reached a standstill.

Assuming a consensus is reached, I sincerely hope that we will be able to put the naming issue behind us, remove the POV-title tag (whatever title is chosen), and move on with our wiki-lives. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

After several discussions there, it is quite clear that a root question regarding the naming issue and some article content is focusing this one: Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the "Japanese name" or "English name"? An RfC directly deals with this should go first, and I have prepared a draft a User:Lvhis/xI RfC. I am moving on preparing my argument there. For others, it is similar to what you suggested on your draft. --Lvhis (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That is completely unnecessary. You can ask that question/put forward an argument on that point when Qwyrxian's RfC goes up. It's not like your RfC would be considered once his is active in any event. Or are you announcing your intent to put yours up first? John Smith's (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis, I've been waiting for you to answer this. But you didn't. Please answer all of my questions in the post at here first. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oda Mari, whether "Senkaku Islands" is the English name or the Japanese name cannot be defined by me or by you, or by any Wikipedian. It is defined or told by Reliable Sources. You are not qualified to disqualify what the author Kimie Hara (原貴美恵) described for the three names, unless you can find other reliable sources disqualify hers. I made my complain on your such comment during the Arbitration . For more debating on whether "SI" is the Japanese name or English name, we can go the RfC I have suggested. --Lvhis (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the "Japanese name" or "English name"?

disruptively sidelined RfC attempt; closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This name is currently used for the Misplaced Pages article about a group of islands in East Asia, whose ownership is disputed. The name/title "Senkaku Islands" currently used for this article and its related articles has also been disputed for quite a long time. The main Romanized Chinese name for the islands is Diaoyu or Diaoyutai. The main Romanized Japanese name for the islands is Senkaku. There is another name, Pinnacle Islands, from English language, though far less frequently used than above mentioned Chinese and Japanese names. Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the Japanese name, or the English name? This is a basic or essential question or dispute for the naming dispute on this article. The question is, per Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which definition on this name is correct. Previous discussions, which have included discussions on relative article's talk pages, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to reach consensus to settle the question. The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, involved parties will present their arguments for the definition of this name. --Lvhis (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

Arguments from involved editors

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name

1. Reliable sources have clearly stated/asserted that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. The following is just listing part of these reliable sources. A number of them were written by Japanese authors. I avoided using sources from Chinese authors.

  • A UN General Assembly document page 85, International Organizations and the Law of the Sea: Documentary Yearbook 1996 By Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea.
  • Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands". CNN World. CNN (US).
  • Hara, Kimie (原貴美恵) (2007). Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system. New York, USA: Routledge, c/o Taylor & Francis. p. 51. ISBN 9780415412087.
  • Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593.
  • Kiyoshi Inoue (井上清). Senkaku Letto /Diaoyu Islands The Historical Treatise. (English synopsis )
  • Daniel J. Dzurek, "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996
  • Jeff Hays. "DISPUTE OVER THE SENKAKU ISLANDS (JAPANESE NAME)---DIAOYU ISLANDS (CHINESE NAME)" Facts and Details
  • Koji Taira. The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands This is an article that originally appeared in "The Ryukyuanist", spring 2004.
  • Joyman Lee. Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict Published in History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011
  • Jesper Schlæger. Senkakuphonia: The East China Sea Dispute page 4 of 31
  • Peter J Brown. China ire at sea chase signals wider reach Asia Times Sep 16, 2010

2. The Naming history on this group islands tells that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. Names for this group islands are from three languages, that I have pointed out during the Mediation . Per the order of their generated time, they are Chinese name, English name, and Japanese name.

1) Chinese name: the romanized Chinese name is "Diaoyu Dao Qundao" or "Diaoyutai Lieyu". For English use, they are adapted as "Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyutai Islands". Their original form is 钓鱼岛群岛 or 釣魚台列嶼. The Chiese name used for naming these islands was generated as early as 1403 .

2) English name: In 1843, the British naval battleship "Samarang" surveyed areas around this group islands and gave a name "Pinnacle islands" for them according to how the shape of one of the islands looked like.

3) Japanese name: Before 1886, at least some Japanese documents used Chinese name for these islands. Since 1886, the Japanese Imperial Naval Records used "Pinnacle Islands" with Japanese Katakana form (Transliteration). It was until 1900, a Japanese teacher Tsune Kuroiwa (黑岩恆) translated the "Pinnacle Islands" into Japanese "Senkaku Island". Its original form is 尖閣諸島. While the "Senkaku Island" was not yet officially used until 1950s by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  1. Shun Feng Xiang Song (順風相送)/Voyage with the Tail Wind, A Chinese navigation records, is now located in Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK 35 H.
  2. ^ Martin Lohmeyer (2008). The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Dispute
  3. Han-yi Shaw (1999). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute:Its history and an analysis of the ownership claims of the P.R.C., R.O.C. and Japan
  4. Belcher, Edward and Arthur Adams (1848). Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Samarang, During the Years 1843–46: Employed Surveying the Islands of the Eastern Archipelago. London : Reeve, Benham, and Reeve. OCLC 192154
  5. Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593.

3. No reliable sources tell that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name. On the other words, that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name is an unsupportable viewpoint.

Conclusion: "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name as defined by reliable sources, as required by important policies WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL. Both Chinese name and Japanese name are local names for this geographic entity per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names. Indeed there is a real or pure English name for this group of islands: "Pinnacle Islands".

--Lvhis (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name
Put argument here.

Comments and discussion

I request that any uninvolved admin seeing this section sanction Lvhis under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Discretionary sanctions. Lvhis knows that this is not a relevant question, that it has nothing to do with article content, and is a clear and deliberate attempt to undermine the RfC I had intended to post today--the one we really need to discuss; that is, the question of what the name of this article should be. Now I cannot actually post that RfC, and we're once again massively delayed in actually reaching a decision on what the title of this article should be. Per User Talk:Qwyrxian/SI RFC, Lvhis was more than aware of my intent to post my RfC today.
Furthermore, please note that the question asked in this RfC cannot be answered, because it seeks to discuss something that not only is not in the article, but no one has proposed to put in the article. Lvhis is seeking debate not on the contents of the article, but on issues related to the article.
Thus, this request is excessively bureaucratic, tendentious, and a definite violation of the spirit of the decision handed down in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Although it goes without saying, I would also suggest that any uninvolved admin reading this close the RfC immediately for the reasons Qwyrxian gave above. Qwyrxian's RfC can deal with any issues about the appropriate naming of the article. If Lvhis or anyone else wants to ask whether Senkaku Islands is the "Japanese" name, they can do so there. John Smith's (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It has been over 30 days past since the RfC above unfairly closed with an unreasonable and insolent label "disruptive" by user Fut.Perf. using his admin power granting user Qwyrxian's unjustifiable request . At mean time closing the above one, user Fut.Perf. forcibly opened the following RfC or Qwyrxian's RfC. Such tendencious intervence made the situation and atmosphere here was not fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue, and actually resulted in stifling voices from other side, so that none parties from the side opposing Qwyrxian's side took part in that "RfC". The RfC above I started is simple and straightforward on the disputed naming issue to avoid a root question to the naming issue being mixed up with different concepts, and this is why Qwyrxian dared not face it, and dared not debate/answer it. The reason user Fut.Perf. used to close the above RfC is purely and only based on "Assume Bad Faith" that violates "WP: Assume Good Faith". Because of this, in this topic user Fut.Perf. has not been neutral anymore.
The second point I need to raise is that user Fut.Perf. has not been really an uninvolved admin in this topic. As a well known reason, the wiki page Liancourt Rocks and its topic is closely related to this topic. Since Dec 1, 2011, User Fut.Perf has participated in the discussion there , and has involved a conflict with an editor in editing some part of the page Liancourt Rocks . Although his view point there itself may be correct, he indeed has become an involved editor due to such edit activity. Based on the two reasons above, he apparently cannot play a role as uninvolved and neutral admin in this topic anymore. It is not proper for him to close (or to take part in closing) the "RfC" below.
As stated above, the "RfC" below has run under a situation and atmosphere that is not fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue. Therefore, it should be closed by really uninvolved admin(s), and it would be better closed as "leave the title issue as status quo" for the time being. As a proposed new wp policy or guideline Misplaced Pages:Binding RFCs is under construction, a real binding RfC could be well and carefully prepared in really fair and justicial manner including being preceded by some non-binding RfC(s). --Lvhis (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: Article naming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
For reasons that I imagine are evident to anyone reading the discussion, there is clearly no consensus to title the article as anything but "Senkaku Islands". Furthermore, pursuant to the discretionary sanctions remedy issued by the Arbitration Committee, I am forbidding the initiation of further move requests until 2013. NW (Talk) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a group of islands whose ownership is disputed. The Chinese name for the islands is 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿, which is transliterated in a variety of ways, in a variety of ways (mainly Diaoyu and Diaoyutai). The Japanese name for the islands is 尖閣諸島, which is transliterated as Senakaku (Senakaku Shotō, and rarely as Senkaku-guntō or Senkaku-rettō). English sources use a variety of names, though the most common are Senkaku Islands, Diayou Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands. The name Pinnacle Islands is also found in English literature, although far less frequently used than any of the previously mentioned names. The question is, per Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which of these names, if any, is the correct name for this and associated articles (Senkaku Islands dispute and 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident)? Previous discussions, which have included RfC's, discussions on noticeboards, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to settle the issue, though most participants have argued for either "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", "Pinnacle Islands", or a joint name like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, the two "sides" will present their arguments in favor of the current name or an alternative name.

copied from draft at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If you guys need a closer at the end of this discussion, please drop me a note. NW (Talk) 03:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Appreciated. I too would be available (I'm quite uninvolved and only doing some admin-oversight stuff here right now.) If it becomes complicated in the end, we might also get a panel of three closers together, as has been successfully done in a few high-profile naming RfCs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Small note: after consulting with NuclearWarfare to be absolutely certain that I was being neutral and within the bounds of WP:CANVAS, I have placed a notice on each of the five WikiProjects listed at the top of this page about this RfC in an attempt to get more comments from more uninvolved readers. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

Arguments from involved editors

Arguments in favor of "Senkaku Islands"

Put argument here.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:NCGN and WP:Article titles indicate that we must decide whether or not any one name qualifies as the "common English name" for this place. If there is no common English name, WP:NCGN#Multiple local names states that we must choose the most prevalent one, though in cases where no name is regularly used in English, unusual alternatives are allowed (this led to Liancourt Rocks to be named as it is, even though it is rarely used in English). We are given a number of different measurements to look at when making this decisions; the belief of those supporting the SI name is that, while not all of the measurements indicate SI is the common name, the bulk of them do, especially those which are most important.
Various Google searches, including Web, News, and Scholar searches (see the archives here, along with others at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands), have not shown either name to be particularly more prevalent. However, the same searches point out how terribly flawed a tool this for deciding the article name. For example, searching for English web pages containing "Senkaku Islands" produces 208,000 results, while searching for "Senkaku Islands" and excluding "Diaoyu" produces 375,000 results. While some of us have tried exhaustive searches (looking at every single result), even that fails because Google will only provide the first several hundred results, no matter how many they claim to have found in total.
Furthermore, Point 1 of WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name tells us to look at other recent English language encyclopedias. The last results I found (see Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#What does policy say?) has Britannica not listing either and Columbia Encyclopedia listing only Senkaku Islands. To supplement this, last year I looked at a major US university library, and checked atlases. Every atlas I checked that contained any mention of these islands used the name "Senkaku Islands". 5 out of 5. Only one of those 5 even mentioned "Dioayu Islands", and only in the index (with something like a "See Senkaku Islands" entry). In other words, no one has produced any tertiary source of any type that doesn't prefer Senkaku Islands when it lists the islands at all. That seems like pretty clear agreement to me. Misplaced Pages should not be the only notable tertiary source to use a different name.
With respect to the names used by English speaking governments, both the US and UK governments use Senkaku Islands. Period. The Library of Congress has a subject heading for Senkaku Islands, and does not have one for Diaoyu/etc. Islands. In the Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile on China, the term "Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu tai)" is used, showing clear preference even in the article about China itself. Additionally, the official nautical charts of the United States(please zoom) and the United Kingdom (see page 76) both use Senkaku Islands. The official designation for these names among two of the largest and most politically/militarily powerful countries both designate the term to be "Senakaku Islands", strong evidence of the preference for this name.
In past discussions, those who opposed "Senkaku Islands" and supported Pinnacle Islands or some hybrid name (e.g. "Senkaku/Diaoyu"), have tried to argue that WP:NPOV means that we cannot choose a name which is also used by one "side" in the debate. This is absolutely wrong, and counter to the way Misplaced Pages handles disputed territories. It isn't POV to choose the name that is normally used in English. Some native American groups dispute US control of lands that were there's historical, but that doesn't mean we say that choosing the widely used English name is POV. Falkland Islands is used not because we are "siding" with the UK in the dispute, but because that's the name used in English. Seoul is in South Korea, not Korea. And, perhaps most importantly, we refer to the Spratly Islands, and name each individual island after the name used in English (like Itu Aba). Though the Google evidence is ambiguous, having looked at the evidence overall (especially the nautical charts and tertiary sources), it seems clear enough to me that the English name for these islands is "Senkaku Islands". Above copied from User Qwyrxian/SI ARG, and incorporates points from myself and User:John Smith's. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, only two sovereign nations, Taiwan and the PRC, dispute Japan's ownership of the islands. The rest of the world accepts Japan as the owner and accepts "Senkakau Islands" as the name. If any other government has taken Taiwan's or PRC's side, please state so here and I will stand corrected. Cla68 (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of "Diaoyu" or "Diaoyutai Islands"

Put argument here.

Arguments in favor of "Pinnacle Islands"

Put argument here.

Arguments in favor of a name other than "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyu Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", or "Pinnacle Islands"

Put argument here.
Note: the main editor currently supporting a name other than Senkaku Islands, User:Lvhis, has implied in this edit on xyr talk page that xe regretfully won't be providing commentary here. Lvhis, if you do choose to comment, simply put strike-out lines around this before adding your argument. In the meanwhile, uninvolved editors may want to look at previous discussions for the arguments surrounding the desire to change the title. A good quick summary can be found at Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV? in the "POV" column of the table. That doesn't incorporate everything, but it will be up to those who actually support this position if they want to do more work to collect their arguments here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Other comments from involved editors

Comments from uninvolved editors

  • Senkaku Islands - This is not an easy call. The naming issue is not unique: WP routinely deals with problems like this, most notably in the Gdansk article; see also random multi-name town Vyborg. I've read up on these islands, and read some of the Talk page archives. It is tempting to take a Solomn-like solution and use a dual article name: Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, but that is generally discouraged in WP. I think that dual-name approach is not a bad solution, but until it becomes more widely adopted in WP, we should not use it for this article. The Google stats are important, but I note that the Google Books stats, which indicate that Senkaku Islands is more common, is at odds with Google Web stats, which show that Diaoyu Islands is most common. However, as I look at important English-language sources, it appears that Senkaku Islands is more common in important sources. Another significant factor is that Japan now controls the islands, and has for several decades. For those reasons, Senkaku Islands appears to best meet the WP:NAME criteria. --Noleander (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Google Web (Everything) Search is known to be quite unreliable not just it is based on unreliable sources. See below:
While Google Book Search shows reasonable results:
―― Phoenix7777 (talk)
I agree that GoogleBooks is superior to GoogleWeb ... I mentioned the GoogleWeb stats only to ensure that more complete data was available. My recommendation is consistent with the GoogleBooks stats. --Noleander (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Like the issue with the Sea of Japan, South China Seas and the dispute about territorial waters, this has more to do with domestic Chinese politics than international opinion. As has been stated elsewhere, the governments navigating the region consider Japan the owner due to history. China may have a legitimate dispute over what lead to the islands returning to Japan but until China claims otherwise, or actually seizes control of the island, the point is moot. Most of the political arguments over this are to serve as a proxy for the larger, more important territorial disputes China has elsewhere. Though there is no doubt China would love to have access to the oil in the region, it is much less likely to make a move here than the other regions that it has identified as a 'core interests'(i.e. would be willing to go to war over) So I do not predict the islands changing hands any time soon. I think getting into argument over popularity is a bit of distraction, if it was a popularity contest China would get to name everything on its border after all... and like many things from Asia words come to us from various different sources. The other reason we tend to use the name preferred by the owners, is that they are the ones who we would need to deal with if treaties or business contracts. And turn to for enforcement of those contracts if needs be. Using a different name than the one recognized by the authority over the island could get your issue thrown out of court. (First time involved in these things, if there is protocol or formatting problems with me reply let me know!)--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
One of the reasons English tends to use to Japanese names for islands and bodies of water in this region, is because they were the ones we were usually negotiating with and forming treaties with. Fairly or not, and that Japan was through which we got a lot of our information on China and the history of this area before the mainland became more opened up. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Note, the above IP editor only started editing on 9 December 2011. John Smith's (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
But I was editing stuff other than this talk page, alot of things in fact, I did not come to Misplaced Pages to just lodge an opinion on Senkaku Islands. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I was happy to leave a discrete note in small text. But if you want to discuss it, I'm happy with that.
The fact you edited random articles is irrelevant. It is a fact that you took part in this RfC within a day of starting editing. Editors can draw their own conclusions as to whether this means anything. But if you really didn't come here just to put forward your view on this matter, perhaps you could explain how your editing history on 9 December would logically lead you to take part in this discussion. I don't see the link between Canadian election templates and a group of Japanese controlled islands. Maybe that's just me. John Smith's (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Who knows when the user started to edit, seeing as it is an IP, but does that matter? Unless there's a criteria to be met to comment or am I missing something here (?). Anyway, that note is a reference to the user as an editor (as is the reply to the user), and not to the discussion itself. Thus, I would hardly call that note or comment professional. Maybe just WP:DROP it? Happy editting, Cold Season (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I've taken part in "voting" discussions (such as Featured Article Requests), where administrators have highlighted accounts that have started editing recently before they expressed their opinion on the thread in question. John Smith's (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
JS, The IP is from Canada. Most ISPs in Canada use dynamic IPs, meaning that 20 days ago (or whenever he reset his router) he wouldn't have been known as 76.65.128.198, but rather something else. His "edit counter" is the least of anyone's worries. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
While I can understand why JS may be worried about the arrival of someone who appears to be a "new" user to such a debate, I think that we can AGF that this is a regular editor on a dynamic IP (for instance, I note that the same IP address commented later on a WikiProject Korea discussion, which may well have been where they saw the discussion). Obviously, should we see a sudden flood of different IP addresses or newly created accounts, we'd have a different concern, but such is not currently the case (and, ultimately, this is more something for the closing admin to analyze). I also think that JS's original tagging was not out of the ordinary. 76, it might help us understand your perspective if you comment on the differences between Liancourt and Senkaku that Oda Mari has explained below. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not raising an objection to the IP expressing his view. I would welcome him responding to Oda Mari's point below. John Smith's (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do you assume I started editing on the 9th, just because this IP address history starts on that date? How would I see this? Well, it's a RFC, it's posted on the RFC listing. Why wouldn't I see this? 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
To expand on my position, the Liancourt Rocks article also doesn't use either nationalistic title, being neither Japanese or Korean, so "Pinnacle Islands" would be analogous. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Liancourt Rocks is the most commonly used name in English, but Pinnacle Islands is the least commonly used name. United States Board on Geographic Names adopts Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Shotō. See this, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name. Oda Mari (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
From my personal experience, Takeshima is the most widely used version of the name for Liancourt Rocks. A basic google search shows "liancourt rocks" (150k) +takeshima +island (1.2M) +dokdo +island (500k) that it is also the least used version of the name for that place. I may be missing something with a basic search, but it does appear that Liancourt Rocks is also the least common variant of these three, just as Pinnacle Islands is of the three here. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Liancourt Rocks was a decision taken to stop fighting between users. It's not policy to use a title like that. So if you're saying "Pinnacle Islands" is an option open to us, sure - we've discussed it previously. And I (plus others) don't see the need to use it here. John Smith's (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops. I should have written "in English speaking countries". First of all, G search is unreliable.Those results have English pages of kr and ja domains. Japan and South Korea are not en speaking countries and have their own claims over the islets. But it seems to be impossible to exclude them from G search. Can you? I think blogs written by Japanese or Korean in en speaking countries should be excluded too. But it also seems to be impossible. You wrote the results of Dokdo was 500k, but when I clicked those G search results, "dokdo" + "island" was 2,070,000. I don't understand the differences. I tried these. , , and . But that's not enough.The second results have these irrelevant pages. and . You cannot tell the most commonly used names by G search results. Oda Mari (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I still get 500k for +dokdo +island
Gbooks +dokdo +island (4.4k) +takeshima +island (14k) "liancourt rocks" (3k)
Gscholar "liancourt rocks" (210) +dokdo +island (628) +takeshima +island (2270)
Gnews +takeshima +island (970) +dokdo +island (955) "liancourt rocks" (798)
Anyways, it does seem like "Liancourt Rocks" is least used of the three for that place. As that name was chosen because it was a neutral name for the Misplaced Pages article, I don't see why we can't apply that precedent here, and use "Pinnacle Islands". 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
In any event, Misplaced Pages doesn't work on precedent (at least, not off of solitary precedents). The question is (as pointed out above) in this case, do the sources clearly support the use of one name more than another in English, and how do the different types of sources effect that analysis? I argue above, of course, that in this case (without worrying at all about LR), the sources clearly point us to Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Also most of the sources are likely to use this name as well, because it is a) The one the government of the United States uses and so scholars will want their work linked with the policies memos by references even if they were aware of the Chinese name when they were writing. b) Most of the sources concerning the islands history use that name as well (at least back before the war). c) I do not think we should establish a precedent for modifying articles based on concerted political campaigns. Changing them this way would be a tacit endorsement. Though we could just have two seperate pages like we have for Sea of Japan and the East China Sea :P --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
76.65.128.198, your analysis is completely wrong. In the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits were below a hundred at that time (May 2007) therefore it was quite difficult to determine which was the widely accepted name. See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10#Google Book search. WP:NCGN#Multiple local names says "...but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine." This case's Google Book hits of 34,000 vs. 15,000 is quite apparent which is widely accepted name. So, the precedent doesn't apply here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Books n-gram evidence shows that in recent years the Chinese name Diaoyu Islands has risen in usage, but I'd go with the Japanese Senkaku Islands as the one that's more enduring and common over time. The Liancourt Rocks is a distant third, and Pinnacle Islands is not in the running. Feel free to try other variations. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break

Hi, I hope everyone had a good Christmas and New Year's Eve. I was wondering, should we consider wrapping this up in a week or so, or does the discussion need a bit longer? I know some people may have been on holiday so I'm happy to give it another couple of weeks. John Smith's (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a message for NuclearWarfare and FPAS to discuss possible closure; NW responded by leaving a message for FPAS, but nothing from FPAS yet. Perhaps I'll bump NW and see if xe's interested in closing alone, or if xe wants to take the issue to WP:AN for another admin's input. Note, of course, that Lvhis's argument about FPAS being involved completely fails to actually understand what WP:INVOLVED says--editing an article about a slightly similar topic does not cross the involved line, nor does taking WP:AE action. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It has been open for more than 30-days, so I think it's time to close. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and close the discussion, though there isn't that much that isn't obvious to an outside observer. NW (Talk) 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Categories: