Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:40, 25 September 2010

Please 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.

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. Japan: Geography & environment High‑importance This 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: 14:25, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Taiwan High‑importance This 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 High This 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. China High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Senkaku Islands was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 June 2008.

On 14 September 2008, this talk page was linked from Anti-Cnn, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Congressional Research Service: Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands Dispute: The US Legal Relationship and Obligations, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. ‌

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Senkaku Islands article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Page move

I have revered the page move from Senkaku Islands to Diaoyutai Islands. While the mover gave the comment "no objections on the move". I see no recent discussion per WP:RM and previous one Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move resulted to stay at Senkaku Islands. --Kusunose 23:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked for comments at here and there's no comments for 15 days, plus the link you pointed took place more than 2 years ago. The move is based on WP:COMMONNAME, as shown by # of Google results for those 2 terms and also by various governments not involved in the dispute. OhanaUnited 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean "Citation needed"? A wrong title, I should say. It's unnoticeable. The section title should have been "Page move request". Oda Mari (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My first point was still valid, as I first did ask for more citation before deciding to to add a move request along. OhanaUnited 05:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe Senkaku Islands is better in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCGN and WP:NCON. For # of Google hits, my search does not agree with your observation, for "Senkaku Islands" (26,400 pages) outnumbered "Diaoyutai Islands" (6,850 pages). In any case, Search engine test is hardly conclusive; see also WP:NCGN#Search engine issues for problems for foreign geographic names.

WP:Naming conflict suggest some other methods for determining the common name. For reference works, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta uses Senkaku Islands (on Britannca, search for Diaoyutai and Senkaku produses no hits). For international organisations, this is a page hosted on un.org about a report authored by UN. Secretary-General and China; it says "concerning Diaoyu island" in the summary but it uses "SENKAKU ISLANDS" in subjects for classification. I also remember the United Nations Cartographic Section used "Senkaku Islands" in List of Territories but both links are currently not available. --Kusunose 08:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to you the 3 UN links you pointed. The latter 2 links, as you mentioned, are dead and cannot verify your claims. The first you you provided, did you even bother to check the contents, not just the title/summary of the pdf, to ensure that it supports your argument? When I click on the link to English on that page, the pdf opens a UN document that supports my viewpoint. You just gave us reference that contradict your own views (facepalm). OhanaUnited 23:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

CIA Factbook uses Senkaku Shoto. Select Japan and see the map. And CNN site search result is 255 Senkaku Islands and 155 Diaoyu Islands Oda Mari (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The document itself is authored by China and it naturally supports the Chinese point of view. I'm aware of that. My point is that the UN's indexing/categorization system uses Senkaku Islands over Diaoyutai or Daiyou Islands, recognizes it as a common/standard name. --Kusunose 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Pinnacle Islands

I added a tag as even the title of the article is not npov.andycjp (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm suspicious over the claim that the UN endorses Senakaku as a common name. The UN doesn't seem to take a position in this contentious topic. Kusunose, could you provide more details on it?

While the Columbia Encyclopedia filed the article under "Senkaku", it clearly mentions different common names for those disputed islands and I don't see the Columbia takes any position in suggesting which one is more common. In international media, it seems to be more common to use both diaoyu and senkaku interchangeably. BBC simply tag the island with "Diaoyu/Senkaku" on the map.

While it is true that the search result, which shows 245,000 results on Diaoyu islands and 47,700 on senkaku islands, doesn't mean that diaoyu is more common than senkaku, it hardly supports senkaku is a common name too.

According to WP:Name, the encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. Misplaced Pages is not a place for nationalists to claim disputed islands and I don't see either senkaku or diaoyutai will achieve the required degree of neutrality. I suggest moving the article to Pinnacle Islands until there is a other better neutral choice.

--Winstonlighter (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to do moves like this, please make sure you are doing it correctly. You moved the article to Pinnacle islands (lowercase "i") when it should have been Pinnacle Islands (capital "I"). You also didn't check the box to move all the talk archives as well, so they became inaccessible after the move. These issues have now been fixed as I've move the article to the correct title and moved the talk archives. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks joe for the help. hope the current title will permanently settle this issue. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be solved at least as much as the Liancourt Rocks issue. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please move the article by WP:Requested moves for a controversial move. It is clear the most common name is "Senkaku Islands". The following are the result of Google search:

• "Senkaku Islands": Book 11,000, Scholar 1,410
• "Diaoyutai Islands": Book 1,100, Scholar 257
• "Pinnacle Islands": Book 374, Scholar 59

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, your move from Pinnacle islands to Senkaku islands seems to be based on a careful choice of search queries. Google results could often be misleading in many ways and hardly provides a way to drive "definitive conclusions".

By searching the most recent news:

• "senkaku islands": 21 results
• "Diaoyu islands": 194 results

Similar results can be found in German Google news:

• Senkaku : 199
• diaoyu: 373

Also on book', which yields different results by using another keywords, compared to your finely-polished keyword "diaoyutai islands":

• "diaoyu islands": 3440 results
• "diaoyutai" : 4,700 results.

WP:Name states clearly that the encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality and the Japanese title has been disputed before the move.

Phoenix7777, your revert seems to be based on a misinterpretation of google results. Correct me if i'm wrong. Anyway, Misplaced Pages is not a place for nationalists to claim sovereignty and it's hardly productive to stir up a great debate between the use of "senkaku" or "diaoyu" as we can see in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan. It's especially true in an article which is poorly and patchily edited, lack of citations. More efforts are needed for the article itself, rather than the title. --Winstonlighter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

I've reverted the edit from 203.218.190.89 which seems to spark an unnecessary warring on name ordering. In the article, Japanese name sometimes goes first, some of the goes second and I'm inclined to keep it as a de facto status. Those nationalistic-driven warring won't end up in a dead loop. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, speaking of which name is common, I would say diaoyudao is used by over 1.5 billion people. Also, just to remind you that senkaku isn't an English word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.30.222 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus to move. kotra (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands — A recent discussion about the controversial use of Japanese name over a disputed land seems to suggest that neither Senkaku and Diaoyu is predominate common name. Search results show that both names are common, in which the Japanese one yields more results in Google Book search, while the Chinese name yields more in Google News and General Google search. The title was hence moved to Pinnacle Islands following the example of Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan, which neglects who administrates and controls the place, but pick up a neutral generally known name. In this case, although the name Pinnacle Islands does not seem to be overwhelmingly popular than the rest of two, it achieves the highest degree of neutrality required by wp:name. An admin (nihonjoe) and I have moved the page to Pinnacle Islands for neutrality, but the move is disputed by a user. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Misplaced Pages is not a platform for endorsing nationalistic claims over disputed lands. Based on the mixed results from Google and the example of Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan, I support the move to Pinnacle Islands to avoid stirring an exhausting debate among Japanese and Korean in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been notified to LLTimes, OhanaUnited, Kusunose, Derild4921 and Andycjp at 5:21 to 5:26, 9 September (UTC) by User:Winstonlighter. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Pinnacle islands seems a good npov title for the page.andycjp (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Before posting the formal move request, Please review the following points.
  • Please review the past discussion regarding the article name and discuss how the situation has changed or what evidence newly found since the last discussion. We are not persons of leisure to waste a time every time a new comer came to request a move.
  • Please review "Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names)" first. Its " Widely accepted name" describes how to resolve the disputed name. It states the use of "Google Scholar" and "Google Books" hits not "Google news" hits. Also " Use English" describes the use of "a widely accepted English name" not a German language.
  • Please indicate the Policy or Guideline that states the title of the disputed place should not be either of the name called by the disputed countries but the least common English name found elsewhere.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi phoenix, this is the first time to start a formal move request for this article. In fact, Nihonjoe and I has moved the article to Pinnacle Islands but you reverted it and insisted to use a Japanese name based on an obviously flawed google result with a carefully polished keyword ("Diaoyutai islands"). As per your previous request, we started the formal move procedure, in which you now described as a process for "persons of leisure to waste a time every time a new comer came to request a move." I lean towards keeping good faiths on you but please spend your time (and our time) more efficiently. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

--Winstonlighter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Actually, I only fixed an incorrectly titled move. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Even if there are some instances of one name being used more than others, the current title "Senkaku" still is very POV, as it lean fully towards Japan's pov. Until the dispute is solved, a neutral name would be preferred here, as it have been done numerous times elsewhere and thank god this has one. :) --LLTimes (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support: In disputes such as these, such as the Liancourt Rocks as pointed out above, or even Mount Everest, the native English language name should be preferred to endorsing one claimant or the other. The Senkakuite argument that its name is more common in English is only true for very selective web searches, whereas Diaoyu wins in others, and still it is not possible to make a 1:1 comparison of the Chinese and Japanese names, for there is far less consistency in the romanization schemes and translations of the Chinese. Quigley (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support for the same reasons as with Liancourt Rocks. This is the most neutral name. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) clearly states "a widely accepted English name" should be used. And it is clear the widely accepted English name is "Senkaku Islands". The following are the results of the Google search described in the Naming convention:
  • "Senkaku Islands": Book 11,000, Scholar 1,410
  • "Diaoyutai Islands": Book 1,100, Scholar 257
  • "Pinnacle Islands": Book 374, Scholar 59

Misplaced Pages is not the place to mediate an actual naming dispute by changing the title from the most common name to the least common name. It's like to change "Persian Gulf" to "Arabo-Persian Gulf" by compromising the naming dispute between "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the choice of keywords Diaoyutai Islands.

• Scholar Search on "Diaoyu Islands":709 results

or try without a bracket:

• Scholar Search on Diaoyu Islands: 1,340.

If you just want a more favorable result, try "Tiao-yu-tai islands". Anyway, the result doesn't seem to suggest a decisive conclusion about which one is more common and that's why there's a proposal for using Pinnacle Islands as a neutral term. --Winstonlighter (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the name User:OhanaUnited used to move this article in #Page move. I will add "Diaoyu Islands" to my list if you want. 'Diaoyu Islands' without bracket is apparently inappropriate. Anyway your preference is "Pinnacle Islands" which is still the least common name. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been notified to the Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Talk:Senkaku Islands#Requested move. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been notified to the Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Talk:Senkaku Islands#Requested move. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks to Phoenix7777 for the notifications. I notice the majority of the other European language Wikipedias use "Senkaku" also. I should point out that Google hits are never reliable, but in a general search I yielded different results than the nominator would seem to suggest:

1. "Senkaku": 372 000
2. "Diaoyutai": 252 000
3. "Senkaku Islands": 47 400
4. "Diaoyu Islands": 26 500
5. "Diaoyutai Islands": 6 630
6. "Tiaoyutai Islands": 2 200

Support: While I'm confused as to how the nominator concluded that the "Chinese name yields more" results, I do concede that there is a substantial divide in usage, and the ratio is not nearly great enough to warrant the selection of the "most common" name. Pinnacle Islands appears common enough, and should prove neutral and effective. Nightw 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for participating this discussion. However as you may know that Google web search is quite unreliable. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name recommends the use of "Google Scholar" and "Google Books" hits as I posted above. Please explain why you are determined to support the least common English name as the most preferable article title. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose:Senkaku Islands is the most commonly used name in en. Winstonlighter, your news search above doesn't have the word "Islands". Only "senkaku" and "Diaoyutai". Probably the results may include Diaoyutai State Guesthouse. This is the results of my Google news search.
  • Senkaku Islands hits 320.
    
  • Diaoyutai Islands hits 10.
    
  • Pinnacle Islands hits 22. Oda Mari (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: following the link above, here shows the contrast results:

• "Diaoyu islands": 325 results
• "Senkaku islands": 24 results.

Or try without a bracket:

• Diaoyu islands: 561 results
• Senkaku islands: 387 results.

Enough is said. --Winstonlighter (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think the Google news hits is relevant to the most common English name. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been notified to Benlisquare at 11:29, 10 September (UTC) by User:Winstonlighter. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been notified to HongQiGong at 11:39, 10 September (UTC) by User:Winstonlighter. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Winstonlighter, please refrain from WP:CANVAS. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix, it seems to me that you're trying to be a troll with endless tricks. You asked for this formal WP:MOVE, in which you later described as a process for "persons of leisure to waste a time". Once it's started, you asked to postpone. The latest trick is WP:CANVAS policy? I've informed users who recently edited this article, including you and Kusunose who seemed to be in favour of a Japanese name rather than a neutral one. In this contentious topic, I actually expect an endless WP:MOVE would happen if the active users who are involved in this article haven't been informed about this WP:Move. While you're toying with the debate notification and stalking my contributions, you possibly miss two more notifications:

• Note: This debate has been notified to Kusunose at 05:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)by User:Winstonlighter.
• Note: This debate has been notified to User:Phoenix7777 at 05:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)by User:Winstonlighter.

User:Tenmei brought Talk:Eulsa Treaty to my attention yesterday and surprisingly, you're highly active in those naming issues. Frankly, nationalistic driven debate is often exhausting but brings nothing to the community. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Winstonlighter, please refrain from WP:Personal attack. Or you will be blocked from editing. Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

........Speechless. Anyway, adopt WP:IAR if you see anyone is obviously toying with police but don't forget to apply WP:AGF. Let me know when you come up with a new argument or trick. Cheers. --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Neutrality in disputes is a value (not the only value); for example, WP:NCGN says In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted rather than select either the Korean or Japanese name for the feature. Similarly, Misplaced Pages's version of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute has been resolved by naming the city page Derry and the county page County Londonderry. I am commenting rather than !voting because one question involved is whether Senkaku is so predominant in the sources as to make the efforts at neutrality pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The description you cited is in "Multiple local names" section where the use of Google Scholar/Book hits is hard to determine which is widely used in English. Actually, in the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits are below a hundred at that time (May 2007). See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10#Google Book search. Over 10,000 hits are quite reliable to judge which is predominant, so the description is not applicable here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN. Although I personally like the idea of using the original English name in this case, it's not supported by common English usage. In fact, Pinnacle Islands is so far removed from current usage as to border on original research. Please also read related comments below at What WP:NCGN says. — AjaxSmack 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ajax's comment. I know no one that uses the term "Pinnacle Islands", regardless of nationality. Given that Senkaku is the most widely used term (see below) in the English sphere clearly the current title is appropriate. The "it's more neutral" argument is also invalid. Just because something is disputed does not mean that a correct/appropriate name should be ditched. More importantly, people who try to change the article name without forming consensus (especially if they edit war) should be punished according to the vandalism rules. If necessary the article can have semi-protection. More generally, I seem to remember that this has been proposed more than once before and failed. The same question shouldn't be repeatedly asked until the project "gets it right" and the people that voted on it previously aren't around. Finally, why has no notice of this proposal been put on the front page? This needs to be rectified. John Smith's (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: More than 10,000 results from Google and 396 results from google book on pinnacle islands doesn't seem to agree that the word is original research. Misplaced Pages:NCGN#Multiple_local_names states that in some cases where multiple common names occur, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view.

Considering the comments in this thread and various google results shown, I do concede the use of senkaku or diaoyu is regarded by some as a support for a particular national point of view. Probably we understand the issue well. Following the example of Liancourt Rocks, Pinnacle is the only neutral choice. --Winstonlighter (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim Pinnacle Islands was original research. Ajax said that it was bordering on original research because it is not commonly used in English these days, apart from academia (and even then it's not the primary term).

You have misinterpreted what NCGN says. The very start of the section you refer to says "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English". The point is that it is easy to see which term is widely used in English - this has been demonstrated above, showing that "Senkaku" is clearly the most common term.

Moreover, you're happy to quote one part but ignore the part that says "the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory" and it recommends a single name. I tried to edit the article to just use one name for the islands and rocks, but you reverted that. John Smith's (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Several of the above opposes hit the nail on the head. Etymology is irrelevant; "Senkaku Islands" is the common English name for these islands and should be used. The argument for using "Pinnacle Islands" seems about as strong as that for naming the article on Frankfurt "Frankfort". Ucucha 14:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would be equivalent to yielding to territorial claims over the Spratly Islands and renaming the page Xisha Islands or whatever they are called in Vietnamese which would be both incorrect and baffling. Senkaku seems to me to be the most commonly used name - no UK newspaper uses anything other than the Japanese. The equivalent Chinese Misplaced Pages article says that the name came from the British navy in 1844 and the Japanese translation came along in 1900. At that time I suspect no-one really cared what they were called and the dying Qing Dynasty in China would not have made a claim at that time. Now things are different but let's stick with the name that's been used for the past 100 years. Philg88 (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Google Book/Scholar hits

There are many unreliable search results (Google web, Google news) including inappropriate results (without "quote", too many spurious hits like "Diaoyutai" which include Diaoyutai State Guesthouse) are provided above. So I list the Google Book/Scholar hits as described in "WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name".

• "Senkaku Islands": Book 11,000, Scholar 1,420
• "Diaoyu Islands": Book 3,440, Scholar 711
• "Diaoyutai Islands": Book 1,110, Scholar 259
• "Pinnacle Islands": Book 383, Scholar 59

According to the "WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name", "If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted." So "Senkaku Islands" is clearly a "Widely accepted name". ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What WP:NCGN says

1. General guidelines says "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
2. Widely accepted name says one of the methods is to "Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits."
3. Multiple local names says if "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.", then "In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view." like Liancourt Rocks.

So, "Senkaku Islands" is a "Widely accepted name" by the method described above 2, no compromise to use the least common name is necessary. To sum up, the votes casted with a reason "neutrality" or "NPOV" are all void. ――　 Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as having something "null and void" base on WP:NCGN; policy is flexible. If all else fails, WP:IAR. If a policy prevents the optimum functionality of Misplaced Pages (for example, neutrality), then we also have the option of ignoring it (even though it is discouraged, it is possible). You could similarly consider the fifth WP:PILLAR as well, perhaps even WP:BURO and WP:CCC. Also, I'm not going to bother to !vote in this discussion, because I frankly could care little on the title of this article, as long as the content isn't compromised by any major decision made by users. I'd prefer that this article doesn't become an expansion of the circlejerk that we see at Liancourt Rocks, because it's just silly, and nationalism doesn't add any inches to you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Benlisquare, thank you for commenting my post above. My word "void" may have been too provocative to you. I apologize if the word offended you. However I still believe the votes with a reason simply indicating the neutrality or NPOV are not productive to this discussion. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that unlike the Liancourt Rocks, nobody uses the term Pinnacle Island. No, I don't say that in absolute terms, but the numbers show that the name's use is extremely rare... so rare that few people will even recognize it. From what I recall, there's already been a vote on the nomenclature before; I'm sure if we look in the archives, we can fish it out. Are we going to have cyclical debates on the dispute every time the passions of fellow netizens are inflamed about the islands? Feel free to apply Misplaced Pages rules all you want, but let's not construe it to further individual bias.--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What WP:NPOV says

WP:NPOV#Article naming says

• "If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Misplaced Pages contributors."
• "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Misplaced Pages takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources."

This policy explicitly rejects above "neutral title name" discussions. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

IPs edit warring

As there were a couple IPs edit warring over content in the article, I've protected the article so only established editors can edit it (semiprotection). I also undid all the edits made by the IPs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

agreed. the edits from the anonymous IP user stir up a meaningless competition for name ordering in the article, but it doesn't help improve the article. I would rather to keep the current status as a de facto stable version in which Japanese names go first in some places, and go after in other places. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Change the name to "Fishing islands"

Chinese Diaoyutai and Japanese Senkaku are the same (disputed) islands near Tiawan. In fact, the major island is called "Fishing Island" by both side (Chinese:钓鱼岛；Japanese：鱼钓岛）. So, in English we should call it Fishing Islands rather than Senkaku. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiftian (talk • contribs) 06:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Let's just arbitrarily change all the names of the places around the world as we wish. I propose we change the islands' name to something more catchy, like Skull Islands or Candy Land. Too bad 鱼钓岛 isn't the way the Japanese people spell Senkaku (尖閣諸島); 鱼钓岛 is how they transliterate the Chinese name (Diaoyutai/钓鱼岛) into their own language. It's funny to see how far some people will go just to expunge Senkaku...--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe Leiftian is referring to the Japanese name of the main island, Uotsuri Jima, literally meaning fish luring island, as oppose to the Japanese name of the island group, Senka, meaning pointy place, or pinnacle. Furthermore, 魚釣島 is in fact how the name of the largest island in the island group is written in Japanese Kanji. Before the appearance of the name Pinnacle Islands, the island group would most likely have been referred to by most local visitors whether Chinese or Japanese in some combination of the charaters "魚" meaning fish and "釣" meaning luring or catching or fish, followed by the Chinese word for an island group "群島" or the Japanese word for an island group "諸嶼". Therefore, I believe Leiftian's suggestion of "Fishing Island(s)" dose have some grounds, however as ScorchingPheonix pointed out, the islands has never been widely refereed to as "Fishing Islands" by English speakers hence it will not achieve the recognizability that a title of an article should encompass.

At this point, if I may hijack this section and present my own suggestion for a compromise to the ongoing problem. I propose a separate page with information regarding only the main island of Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai be created This would follow the Derry/Londonderry example and name of article regarding the island group "Senkaku Islands", and the article regarding the largest island in the group "Diaoyutai".

The source of the difference opinions in naming as I see it is that most Pro-Japan medias have always refereed to the island group, as oppose to the single island, when talking about the dispute in order to avoid using the characters "魚" and "釣"(the reasons why are not important to this discussion). While on the other hand, Pro-China medias have mostly focused their attention on the individual island. This resulted in a situation when referring to the island group, the name in majority of the articles or publications that can be found will be using the Pro-Japan name of Senkaku Islands, where as when referring to the main island, the term "Diayutai" will far outweigh the term "Uotsuri Jima" in any search. Therefore we can only conclude the fact this website, by choosing to only host an article about the island group and no article about the "Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai" island specificly, is in and of itself bias and violating neutrality. Therefore I suggest that a separate article be created dedicated to the "Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai" island, and existing content on the current page be split accordingly, or in cases where coverage overlaps, duplicated and perhaps enhanced. (As I am a very inexperienced member, I don't really know how to formally propose a change/addition like this, so if I could get some help from a more experienced member, that would be great.)--Spkg (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Article lead and infobox

Winston, please do not undo my changes. I was restoring things to how they were before you tried to move the page. Wait until there is a decision with the page move discussion. Also if you are going to revert my changes, please have the courtesy to say you're doing so in the edit description. Thanks. John Smith's (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston seems to suggest that he doesn't oppose my restoration at the start of the article. I have asked him to indicate why this should not be done or allow me to restore it. John Smith's (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, please use the talk page and stop reverting my changes to the lead of the article. There is no consensus to change the article title, so you should not change the lead to place Pinnacle Islands to the front and Senkaku Islands to the back of the first sentence. Similarly you should not rename the infobox. John Smith's (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

hi smith, it sounds interesting to hear this. In recent days there were a batch of anonymous IP edits that contribute nothing but keep changing the name ordering in the article. In a talk page, we actually communicated well about those reverts and semi-protect, unfortunately you didn't read it. Anyway, aside coming to the article to vote, change name order and do some reverts, the article needs more citations and proof reading. Hope you can help. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I changed the article's lead section and infobox title to how it had been before the disputes started. You changed it back twice without explanation. The article's lead and infobox must reflect the article's title. The title is currently Senkaku Islands, so that is what should be reflected in the lead and infobox.

However, you seem to be indicating that you do not dispute my changes. Therefore I will restore the lead and infobox to how it had been, unless you give me a reason (use the article talk page) why it should not happen. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, i agreed, but look at the second revert, did you see what else has been revived? And within 15 seconds, what else has been added?

Sorry that I didn't realize that you've also changed the name ordering in infobox otherwise I would patch this change to the existing edition too. Anyway, as your name ordering issue is fixed, I suggest that you can further help improve the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I can see that you did re-order the names (I think my page didn't update/I didn't refresh it properly). However, you forgot the infobox - that should be sorted out now.

I have indicated my views to the name change above. As for improving the article, I would suggest that everyone here nominate things to discuss. For example there are far too many sub and sub-sub-sections, especially under "territorial claims". The first thing to do should be to remove the sub-sub-sections and combine text. John Smith's (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While combing text is needed, the question is how? The Sino-Japan disputes seem to stem from the different understanding on three major aspects: 1) was it terra nullius in 1895? 2) was it annexed, along with Taiwan, through the Treaty of Magun? 3)according to continental shelf, who should own it? 4)....? any more?

The current structure makes it hard to read the arguments of China, Taiwan Japan on those subjects of debate, so I would suggest reorganizing the article under the those arguments, rather than under a country's name. Winstonlighter (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisions to the article

I have removed all of the sub and sub-sub-section headings - they were unnecessary. I have also made mostly stylistic edits, plus a few content tweaks - such as removing duplication of Chinese names of the islands. Also I removed the second infobox because it was cluttering the article, and it didn't seem to serve any helpful point. I have put the Japanese claim section ahead of the "Chinese" one because Japan has control of the islands - it helps if a reader understands why they have control of the islands. John Smith's (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've revived parts of stable version. By removing all sub-subs, some of your edits made the sections significantly longer and even harder to understand what both countries are actually arguing.

The major issue in this article is that it doesn't show the arguments of the dispute clearly and your name ordering rearrangement and sub-sub removing doesn't improve the stable version which has been around here for a long time.

While you asked everyone to nominate things to discuss (see above), I hope you would discuss first before making a significant change in the article.

Also, Minami Kojima is a Japanese name, not a Chinese name. The mistake should be avoidable. Anyway, I've already corrected it.

About your edits on the Name section, you removed the etymology of "senkaku" and gave the impression that pinnacle stems from senkaku, but it's actually the opposite. I didn't touch that part yet because your edits seem to be unfinished. I'm just not sure. --Winstonlighter (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, I have the following comments.

1. The changes I made seemed uncontroversial, which is why I made them. They did not seem significant to me because it was about style not content.
2. You say that you have revived parts of a stable version and that I should discuss things. In that case, why did you unilaterally change the order of all the names in the geography section? Before the edit-warring (i.e. previously to September 2010), they started with the Japanese names, followed by the Chinese names - you have reversed this. It seems to me that they should go back to as they were with the Japanese names first. Also you made the change without making a note of it here or in your edit description - please make it clearer what you're doing next time.
3. It should be enough to have all the names together once. We shouldn't keep having to say Uotsuri Jima/Diaoyu Dao, just as we don't say Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands throughout the article. Name them all together once and then just list the Japanese names.
4. Can you give me a source to say that Senkaku comes from Pinnacle? However, the article does not imply it is the other way around, just as it does not imply that Senkaku and Pinnacle come from Diaoyu.
5. There needs to be a decision as to whether Diaoyu or Diaoyutai is used - the latter is used elsewhere on Wikiepedia.
6. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that my edits to the claims section made things harder to understand. We are dealing with adults, not children, and the sections as I re-drafted them were not too long. More importantly I had not finished working on the section. Again, I was making style changes to make it easier for me to edit later. Next time please do not revert automatically.
7. Unfortunately many articles suffer from a lack of interest, with people just making small edits (a lot like slapping plasters on gaping wounds). The article's layout in places is a problem that needs to be addressed. Someone has to reorganise it at some point. It's easy to change content, whereas changing the layout is harder work. But until you have the layout right arguably you cannot get the content right. John Smith's (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smith's, I'm starting to get confused with you. After you exhausted our time in protesting what's edited in the content yesterday because you were reading the old cached article (sigh), you removed all subs, took away well-sourced content that tells the etymology of "Senkaku". While arguing to only keep the Japanese name in the rest of the article, you actually kept the Chinese name and wrongly said it's Japanese. In fact, the name ordering was removed by you, not me.

When you talked about name ordering, I think you're referring to "Geography" section. Compare to the old version and what you edited out:

• "Uotsuri Jima (魚釣島) or Diaoyudao (釣魚島) is the largest island of the Senkaku Islands..."
• "Kuba Jima (久場島) or Huangwei Yu (黃尾嶼)..."
• "Taishō Jima (大正島) or Chiwei Yu (赤尾嶼)....."

(dashed content was you've removed)

Here is your final version of the geography and name section which is a mess. Here is my cleanup , which was done 7 hours after your last edit. I think anyone could compare the quality of changes.

About the etymology of Senkaku, you would easily get it from any old version prior to your edit on removing the Chinese name and sub-heading:

::: "In the late 19th century, Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼?) and Senkaku Shosho (尖閣諸嶼?) were translations used for these "Pinnacle Islands" by various Japanese sources."

(well-sourced content you removed)

Anyway, edit warring didn't happen between you and me but basic consensus needs to be reached, especially you're talking about the quality of edits in recent days. Here is my suggestion:

• Have basic understanding about name issues. When you don't understand which name is Chinese or Japanese, ask first. Don't guess.
• Don't remove the Chinese names. They're there for a long time.
• Don't remove well sourced content such as the etymology of Senkaku even if you don't like it. If you dispute it, discuss here first. --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Morever, as per your comment above, you don't seem to realize you had removed a sourced content which contains the etymology of island's names. I've re-edited the etymology section based on Nihonjoe's last edit. Anyway, there's handful of books about this topic on Google Books. Please get familiar with the topic if you really want to improve the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, I would like you to reply to the points in my previous message one by one, please. They were clearly made. You can start by addressing point number 2, that for a long time before the last week or so the names were Japanese first followed by Chinese second. You have changed this to Chinese followed by Japanese. Why did you do this? Thanks. As for edit-warring, I think you've made reversions 3 or 4 times in the last 24 hours. That's edit-warring, and 4 reversions would be a violation of the 3RR rule. I've given you a formal notification of this on your talk page - thanks. John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're suggesting that there's a "reservation system" for name ordering in each section. In Geography, Japanese names go first. In Infobox, Japanese names go first .... so when I come to clean up your edits and build a new table from scratch, I had to spend time on studying each revision to see which names historically come first and last. I think no one can serve your ultimate pursuit for tediousness and picky requests.

If you don't want anyone to touch the existing ordering, don't mess them. Don't wrongfully say a Chinese name is Japanese while arguing to remove all Chinese names in the rest of the article. Don't give a chance to anyone to clean up a mess because they hardly make research on each revision to see which name should go first.

More interestingly, the name ordering was removed by you, not me. Are you really sure what you did? . --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

About reverts. my major cleanup on Geography was actually based on your revision. Check it again: your last edit and my cleanup

My cleanup on the Names section was based on an older version because you clearly didn't realize what you've removed. (see #4 in my dialogue at 07:18 and check your answer again.) --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer the point about the names, I accidentily got the names reversed for one of the islands. You accuse me of being picky, but you're the one who is pretending that my mistake is somehow important when I was trying to improve the article. It's not relevant to the discussion, so why do you keep raising it? I'm not presenting myself as a historical expert, and if anything I have said that for the moment my primary concern is about style and layout.

I did not say there was a "reservation system" or anything like that. As I said previously, before the last week or so the names were Japanese, followed by Chinese. You changed that. Given you said earlier that we should keep sub-sub-sections because they were "stable", why are you now changing the name ordering despite the fact that previously they were stable? I am also not suggesting that ALL Chinese names be removed. I suggested that rather than keep listing both names for the islands, it would easier to list both together and then the Japanese one later in the Geography section. But that is a different discussion, I am happy to keep the Chinese names if we revert to Japanese-Chinese names.

You also did not need to "clean up" my edits. They were much better than the article was previously, and as I pointed out earlier I was going to readdress them ASAP. But I can't do that right now because I'm trying to reason with you.

I know that at the time I removed the Chinese names apart from their first usage, because I was trying to make things look more tidy. I am not saying that we must remove all Chinese names. People make edits because they think they're good, not because they are saying they have to stand. If you are insisting that Chinese names be listed amongst Japanese names all the time, we can discuss that later. The issue for the moment is how the names should be ordered.

About reverts, if you undo my edits in full or part it still counts as a revert. Check the 3RR rules as I linked on your talk page.

Your cleanup was not based on the long-standing precedent of Japanese followed by Chinese names. John Smith's (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the older revision (August), even in the geography section, Japanese names go first and second in different parts of the article. I never touch the name order when the order is there. However, when I added back a removed name, I wouldn't examine who "reserved the seats" in each section of the article. Next time, if you don't want to see any change, keep the order, instead of removing any names.

If you're trying to propose an ultimate common name for each islet, feel free to start a proposal and check which name is more common in Google Scholar and Google Book.......... well, did you see the results? then you better not waste time on that. --Winstonlighter (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that the older version had Japanese names followed by Chinese names. I did not change this order - I kept it the same. John Smith's (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that the old version suggested the opposite and I don't see how you concluded that I acknowledged your idea. All revisions are stored in the system and no cheat is possible. Please look at Nan Xiaodao/Minami Kojima and Other islands under Geography in the older revision again and make sure you know which name is Chinese or Japanese.

The name order in the revision you provided is your edits yesterday, and it's not even your last edit.. --Winstonlighter (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest the opposite. The islands have Japanese names first and Chinese names second. What has happened with the last island is that someone inserted the title incorrectly (the text below refers to them as being Japanese-Chinese). As for the rocks, I didn't consider them as important. But I thought it fair to bring them in line with the islands. John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you suggested some name ordering is more important while some are less. Can you clarify your criteria? Any Wiki guideline? Do you mean that the Japanese names for islets are more common names in English? --Winstonlighter (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please not misattribute my comments. Where did I say "some name ordering is more important while some are less"? I can't see a comment like that anywhere.

My reasoning for having the Japanese names first is thus. First, because the article title uses the Japanese name for the islands. It's common sense that the islands themselves be principly named with the Japanese names. Second, because previously the islands also had the Japanese names followed by the Chinese names. The exception to this was the last island, where the description was Japanese-Chinese, but the title was Chinese-Japanese. Uniformity is preferential. It is true that the rocks were inserted with Chinese names first, but as I said uniformity is better. I made them uniform.

So what is your reasoning for having the Chinese names first? John Smith's (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Geography section

I've started a new thread as the old one was getting too confusing.

I have restored the picture that got lost - no idea why. The line about the USN has been removed as I couldn't find anything about that on the internet and in any case I have no idea why it was important - the US has gone on manoeuvres in lots of places around the world! There is a citation for the albatross' nesting ground.

I have moved the text and table around a bit. I think it makes sense to say "there are x islands/rocks...." followed by the table. In that case the table does not need a title, but it is useful to distinguish which are islands and which are rocks. We could have two tables but this looks more tidy at the moment.

Finally, yes I have moved the Japanese names in front of the Chinese ones. This makes more sense as the article title uses "Senkaku", the Japanese name. It was also the format for the names of the islands until recently, apart from Minami Kojima. In the case of Minami Kojima, the text itself had the Japanese name followed by the Chinese name. It was also the name given on the picture of the island. The rocks did follow the Chinese-Japanese name format, but I think for the sake of uniformity it is fair to have them follow the naming format used by the islands. John Smith's (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of vandalism and IP anonymous edit on this article that makes nothing but changing the name ordering. When you start to do nothing but changing name ordering on the caption, table,and each sentence, and even go so far by proposing "Japanese always go first" criteria in name ordering, you surely need to reach a consensus with other editors. "It is what it looks" is practiced here for long time.

Also, when you added a column in a table (island/rock column), make sure you know that by international law, islands are granted with EEZ while rocks not. Whether an islet is island or rock could be a contentious topic but so far I didn't see the governments of Taiwan, China and Japan reach an agreement on this. As you can see, in 2 out of the last 3 islets, they're called -iwa in Japanese and -dao in Chinese. So your edits, along with your endless effort in promoting "Japanese goes first" criteria, have been removed.

Names are used because they're common, instead of favouring any nations. When pushing forward your "Japanese names go first" rule, please prove they're more common. However, Google Scholar and Book doesn't appear to support it. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, why is there one rule for me and one rule for you? You didn't get consensus for giving Chinese names precedence, yet you demand I get it. Where is your evidence that the Chinese names are more common?

You've also completely misrepresented by last edit when you said "when you start to do nothing but changing name ordering". I did not do that, I added a citation, added a picture, moved text, clarified and improved text, added what I thought was a helpful description of the islets, etc. You've reverted all of those.

You've created a problem by jamming all those pictures in there. There is now a block of empty space in the bottom left corner that wasn't there before - it needs to be removed. John Smith's (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As i said many times, when i edited the article based on your last edition, there was no name ordering in the text description and no table. When I cleaned up your edition, I've tried hard to keep the existing name ordering as long as it's there. That's why all name ordering in the Infobox, See Also , leading paragraphs has left intact. However, when there's no name ordering, no one would spend time on reviewing each revision to see if Japanese names have reserved a front seat or rear seat.

The vandalism, as we can see in recent days, aims at doing nothing but changing the name ordering, has been reverted by the admin. If you want to push forward a rule (Japanese names go first), discuss first.

By the way, the image you added is kept there but I changed the alignment(from ->). The contentious column to state which is rock or island is unnecessary because whether those islets are rock or islands itelf is controversial and no governments have reached an agreement on this.

Lastly, I seriously advised that Aside editing the name order, you should understand more about this contentious topic. 1) know clearly which name is Japanese or Chinese 2) read international law regarding rocks and islets. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that there was no table, but whether we needed one is a matter of debate. Also, whilst there were a few examples of Chinese followed by Japanese names, there was in my view a clear preference throughout the article for Japanese names followed by Chinese names.

There was no "clean up" required of my edits to the geography section. Please do not characterise it as such. You were free to make your own edits, but please do not suggest that it was somehow "necessary" or I had otherwise made bad changes.

You are failing to address the point that you keep saying I need to have consensus for having some sort of naming order, yet you undid my edits to impose your own naming order. You have still not told me why you do not need consensus and I do.

I have already shown I noted your point about islands and rocks, which is why I did not reinsert it into the table. At the time I added the detail to the table I thought it was helpful. You don't need to keep mentioning it. Similarly please stop telling me about what I need to know. I have noted your suggestion and that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to me that the easiest way around this is to bring back the formatting/layout used before I made the original changes. You did not start making changes until I did, so I take it that you saw nothing with things as they stood previously. We can try to work out some sort of consensus to progress things from there. John Smith's (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

you're bordered on vandalism. Other users have spent a lot of time and efforts at improving the quality of the article since you left a mess there. Efforts have been paid on cleaning up, removing all syntax errors, building a new table from scratch and verifying every single sentence you tried to remove, refining the citations. And now you tried to make fool of everyone that those efforts in cleanup should be wiped out only because you don't like the name ordering. I can't agree any proposal for vandalism. Sorry. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, that is an extremely bad faith comment to make. I have not vandalised anything. As for clearing up my "mess", there was a small error when I left off a close reference tag. That was solved by someone else before you made your own changes, so why do you keep mentioning it as justification for the edits you made alter?

Even given your comment above I'd like to think you are editing in good faith. I even proposed reverting the section in question (not the whole article) to the state it was in previously. You claimed that the claims section should stay as it is unless there was "consensus" as it was stable and had been there for a long time. So why isn't it possible to do this for the geography section? You do not own own this article so we should be able to talk about this. John Smith's (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In the whole discussion, you even failed to criticize the quality of the revision you're eager to cancel. I couldn't see anything more unproductive than your proposal to remove a new constructed table, take away refined citations and canceled all copy-editing only because you don't like the name ordering which didn't even exist when I tried to clean up your revision.

Thanks for reiterating that no one owns the article. I couldn't agree more. Please resort to admin for help before you revert. Feel free to start a formal procedure for gathering consensus. While it's a waste of time, I do concede that it's the only way to go. ---Winstonlighter (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, you didn't "clean up" my revision. There was nothing wrong with it that couldn't be tweaked.

I was not proposing that all copy-editing and improved citations be removed. I was trying to suggest a way to reach a consensus by using an earlier version and working from there. You seem to be rejecting this because you're trying to control the article and want to preserve the name ordering as it currently is.

What is seeking an admin's help before doing anything going to accomplish? Are you suggesting that you will revert and edit unilaterally unless you're blocked from editing? Or that if an admin comes along you will bow down to whatever he or she says? And why are you insisting I seek consensus when you admit it's pointless and you make edits all the time based on what you alone think is best? I would seek the views of outsiders, but your conversation with Simon below doesn't bode well. It suggests that you will not accept the views of anyone with a view that could be seen to support mine or you otherwise don't like. You're just talking at people, not engaging in dialogue with them.

So for the benefit of everyone, please explain why is it better to have the Chinese names followed by the Japanese names, instead of the other way around. John Smith's (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Hi John, I fully understand that you're eager to push forward a new "Japanese names first" rule. As your suggestion is beyond the current Misplaced Pages policies, I advised you to discuss in WP_Talk:NC. While Misplaced Pages naming convention states clearly that it doesn't favor any national point of view, please don't feel hesitated to discuss it ther if you have a strong reason to overturn this policy.
2. However, I have to reiterate for the n times that I've never suggested Chinese names must be placed before the Japanese, or in the other way around. I've proposed that editors shall dutifully respect the name ordering as long as it's there. Don't try to change existent name ordering because it will stir up an endless vandalism and unnecessary competition.
3. Not convincing? Last week, I requested to revert all those edits that aimed at changing existing name order and placing Chinese names ahead of the Japanese ones. In such case, the admin can simply asked him to respect the existent name ordering. If you start "Japanese name first" rule, endless questions will be asked from different users in an indefinite time. I forsee that it will be even more unproductive than this communication between you and me.
4. If you revert to an older version which is obviously worsen than the current version, simply because you don't like the name ordering in a particular section, you're abusing revert and you're bordered on vandalism.

--Winstonlighter (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never suggested Chinese names must be placed before the Japanese - Then why did you put all of the Chinese names first in the geography section? John Smith's (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand that you're eager to push forward a new "Japanese names first" rule - I don't want a rule or policy. I want the names to have a single format throughout the article. That does not require a new naming convention. Besides, what is the point of going there? You say yourself it's useless, I guess because you'll ignore any other comments you don't like. John Smith's (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think i got your sentiments now. you believed that everyone should always follow the "japanese names go first" criteria whenever they edited the article, even if the name ordering doesn't exist.

As I said, to respect existent name ordering has been practiced in this article for a few years because it's an easier way to solve any future potential edit conflicts. If you want to push forward a "Japanese-goes-first rule", discuss in WP_Talk:NC. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to push forward "Japanese-goes-first rule" whatever you mean by that. (compare with the somewhat analogous situation on the Kuril Islands, if you don't believe me). The Japanese name should go first because: 1.) Japan de-facto controls the Islands for over 100 years. 2.) most modern English language sources (books, maps etc) use the Japanese name. By doing that we are not taking sides in the Japanese-Chinese dispute as you seem to assume, but rather describe the situation as it currently exist.  Dr. Loosmark  23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Loosmark's comment above. No one wants a rule. We just want common sense to prevail and use the Japanese names first. John Smith's (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Table column order

There's lots of hurf durf above which I'm not going to wade through so I'm putting my viewpoint here. If you look at the Kuril Islands article, you'll find that the islands' names are presented Russian version first, Japanese version second, presumably because the islands are controlled by Russia.

Logically, the Japanese names should be presented first in this article. They are controlled by Japan, but China claims them. Regardless of how you feel about the respective countries, it is logical to present them controlling party first, disputing country second.

I may live in Japan but I respect the veil of ignorance -- if the Liancourt Rocks article presented the Korean names first, since Korea is controlling the rocks, I wouldn't mind. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Misplaced Pages doesn't provide any policy to favor any national point of view. In WP:NCGN, names are used because it's common, not because it's used to favor a point of view of a particular nation. If no decisive conclusion is drawn, a consensus is needed among editors especially in this contentious topic.

You seem to promote a brand-new "Japanese-first" criteria which seemingly hasn't existed in any Misplaced Pages policy . You surely need to get consensus on this. I reckon that it's a gray area. Please discuss at here for more official guidance. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments, particularly the last paragraph. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NCGN again about how to deal with a case when multiple names occur. To overturn the Misplaced Pages policy which doesn't favour any national point of view, you need to discuss there. However, I'm wondering when you mention liancourt rocks as an example, do you think that the use of English title, instead of Korean or Japanese names, applies to this article too? Anyway, for overturning Misplaced Pages policy and introducing a new policy to favour a particular national point of view, please discuss in here.--Winstonlighter (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not about a "national point of view". The reality of the situation is that the islands are under Japanese administration for more than 115 years. As such, it's pretty clear that the Japanese name should come first.  Dr. Loosmark  12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Loosmark. Having the Japanese names first doesn't take sides in the territorial dispute or show a "national POV". John Smith's (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If I learn history right, then Qing Dynasty already gave this islands to Japan through Treaty of Shimonoseki so that mean this islands not own by China anymore and Japan call it Senkaku for 115 years, because of that Senkaku name became common in world since Japanese move around the world even most Asia country call that (except China of course), Diaoyu name only use in China and some small area around them, it not common as Senkaku name (already through the world), then I agree with name Senkaku it not POV name at all, it just common as normal.Tnt1984 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as riveting a tale as it may be, but you're ignoring the argument where China claims that the Treaty of Shimonoseki was an unequal treaty forcefully imposed on China, and was therefore invalid. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

True it forcefully because it war, if you say Treaty of Shimonoseki useless because it war that mean all treaty make by Qing Dynasty make by war is all useless that same at Xinjiang, It became one with China in Qing Dynasty war age, yes? Does that not forcefully? Whatever if Xinjiang page say it not belong to China then this page can become Diaoyu I have not objection if it come to that.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Treaty of San Francisco, et. al. Such treaties did not remove territories occupied by Japan during World War II; they specifically called for all territory gained by Japan through conquest to be revoked. Otherwise, the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan would still be part of Japan, since they weren't wartime aquisitions of World War II; they were aquired prior. Whilst the Treaty of Shimonoseki was the treaty to which the Qing ceded the Senkaku Islands to Japan, it was that exact same treaty, the Treaty of Shimonoseki, that ceded the islands of Taiwan and Penghu to Japan, and allowed Japan influence over Korea. Additionally, your argument regarding Xinjiang is somewhat irrelevant, because one, China was a victor of World War II, and thus was not subject to such treaties, and two, no such treaties were imposed on China regarding its conquest by the Qing in the 17th Century, nor by its reconquest by the Chinese Communists in the 1950s. In other words, if you want territory, you have to win wars, and not lose them; you are simply ignoring the fact that Japan lost the war, and thus had treaties imposed on it following WW2, whilst China did not. I mean, if Japan had actually won the war, no one would even be disputing as to whether Manchukuo and Mengjiang should be part of Japan. It's no one else's fault that Japan lost the war (reality is cruel, I know), so bringing in irrelevant analogies won't really help. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan and Korea riot to their own free people and Treaty against they will but on this Islands not have single man except Japanese soldier to riot and even more China not give single soldier go to retake Islands so you can say Japan still own Islands because China abandoned it in war or don't care about them (useless in their eyes that time?), moreover Japan take it even before WWII and in that war they won fair and square. This Islands is not target by any naval battle in WWII. Yes you must win on any battle for territories and occupation it but I don't see any battle for this Islands. For the one: China can win back mainland but still lost Islands around them because their naval too weak for retake any of them event for Japan who lost the war in sea battle to 1970s (that time naval of China became stronger) but that time is too late for them to retake them because Japan and others already taken back their strength of naval. For the two Chinese Communists is new party not root with Qing so in reality their country not have any relations with Qing country they fight to where there will be their land but I don't see they have any naval battle for islands at all so how they take Islands while they can't even touch it? And don't worry about example it only use to compare anyway.Tnt1984 (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"This Islands is not target by any naval battle in WWII" - my point exactly. You have just clarified what I have said. Japan gained the islands before WW2. Japan also gained Taiwan (1895) and Korea (1910) before WW2. However, because Japan lost WW2, Japan subsequently must abide by the Treaty of San Francisco, which cedes the aforementioned territories from Japanese control. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well United States (not Japan) indeed ceding of control over Senkaku Islands but to who? Japan own that before WWII because that it not in Treaty of San Francisco (I looking on it but not have any info that give it back to China) so they still have right to claim it that make big trouble right now while China don't agree with that.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't a forum. Argue on your talk pages as to the status of these islands if you like. However, I will comment that the San Fransisco Treaty does not refer to the Senkaku Islands, so it's a moot point. Now, please, no more on this. John Smith's (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank I will stop it here, guess we go to far for "who right to own".Tnt1984 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"However, I will comment that the San Fransisco Treaty does not refer to the Senkaku Islands" I must beg to differ. John Smith, the topic at hand is most definitely relevant to the San Fransisco Treaty. The article itself notes that Japan made it ambiguous as to what territory it officially revoked. The Senkaku Islands were originally intended to be ceded, however following the notion that the Ryukyu Islands remain territory of Japan, the treaty was altered from its original state, so to speak. The common argument from the point of view of Japan is that the Senkaku Islands are a part of the Ryukyu Islands, however this is definitely disputable and controversial. A geographer can argue that they do not belong in the same island chain, that they aren't even in the same volcanic region, etc. I mean, look at the islands - they branch from Taiwan, and have little, if not no, geographical relevance to the Ryukyu Islands; much of the geography itself has been politicised. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is not an international court of law, nor are article talk pages a forum. John Smith's (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How is this forum material? I hope you're not trying to go the easy way out to dismiss something. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't helping improve the article, you're just debating your personal opinion with Tnt and now me. Nothing you've discussed looks like it can work its way into the article. The article is not here to decide who owns what. John Smith's (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Winstonlighter's last edit

Winston has inserted some material at the start of one line, stating "As the Treaty of Shimonoseki was nullified when Japan lost the war in 1945". First, this claim is not substantiated with an explanation as to why the treaty was nullified and there is no citation to support that. At the very least we would need more information.

However, even if the Treaty was "nullified", it does not explain why the Japanese, Chinese and Taiwnanese governments disagree as to whether the Senkaku Islands were implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa". "As the Treaty........." suggests that the "nullification" of the Treaty is the reason for the dispute. I see no evidence of that.

Perhaps, Winston, once you can help answer the points in the first paragraph of this comment, you can help me help improve the text by explaining what it is you want to say. With all due respect, I guess that English is not your first language and whilst you are quite able in it, your grammar is not always good enough to accurately convey the point you want the text to make. John Smith's (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan has lost the War; that's the important background for the dispute. It seems that some Japan supporters trying to hide this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STSC (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What? How is anyone trying to hide the fact Japan lost WWII? And please explain how that creates the dispute as to whether the Japanese, Chinese and Taiwnanese governments disagree as to whether the Senkaku Islands were implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa". That is the point being made in the article. John Smith's (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently removing a badly phrased sentence now equals with being a Japanese supporter who tries to hide the fact that Japanese lost WWII. I don't even know what to say...  Dr. Loosmark  23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't twist my words, Mr Smith. Japan has lost the War; it's the major background on the issue. Me and others tried to get a more balanced content, but you and your Japan supporters are trying hard to suppress it. STSC (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith please - I am not taking sides in the territorial dispute. There is far too much lazy language in the article. If you have trouble saying something properly you can ask me or another fluent English speaker to make the point for you. I won't do that if you make personal attacks. John Smith's (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Mr Smith, please excuse my French! So where's my "personal attack" on you then, Mr Smith? Please tell. We can see you and other pro-Japanese editors having a hidden agenda on here. And why is it 'Japan lost the War' is bothering you so much? STSC (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The personal attack is repeatedly calling me a "pro-Japanese editor" and having a "hidden agenda". You are criticising me on personal grounds, not my editing. Please stop this. John Smith's (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr Smith, opinion on your behaviour is not a personal attack at all. STSC (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It demonstrates a severe lack of good faith on your part, I'm afraid. But if you want to keep denying it, fine. John Smith's (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mukden Incident

In the Post World-War II events Section there is the following: 18 September 2010: 79th anniversary of the Mukden Incident, protests held in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Shenyang. with an appropriate reference. This protest was about the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and has nothing to do with the Senkaku Islands. Can we get a consensus to remove it please? Philg88 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Phil. To be honest I would just remove it if I was you, unless someone strongly objects and gives a credible reason for not removing it. John Smith's (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the images say. Why would a protest regarding the occupation of Manchuria have banners saying "日本滚出钓鱼岛！！" (Japan GTFO of Diaoyudao _{Actual translation. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, no user has the right to refactor my edit})? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case the reference needs to be updated to indicate what the protest was about, possibly by removing "79th anniversary..." Is a 79th anniversary significant in China for some reason? John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

79? Not really. It just happened to be conveniently a few days after a boat collision incident. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, then the anniversary is fairly irrelevant. Someone can just make it clear that there was a protest in China about Japan holding the captain. John Smith's (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is now completely hijacked by the pro-Japanese contributors

It is now poorly constructed with poor English, and full of pathetic attempts to support the Japanese claim. And these pro-Japanese editors aggressively suppress other fair-minded editors who try to re-balance the content. What a shame, it could have been an informative article. STSC (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider creating a separate article with more accurate and less-biased information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader81 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Chinese fishing boat incident in the East China Sea

The diplomatic situation that started as an incident between a Chinese fishing boat and several Japanese patrol boats on 9 September 2010, near three way disputed islands in the East China Sea named Diaoyu Islands (Chinese) or Senkaku Islands (Japanese). There are sufficient mainstream article references, three in the NY Times alone, as well as in others. High level ministerial communications between the two countries were broken off at one point, and may still be. This situation at least deserves a separate section in this article, and maybe a separate article should the situation become more prominent. — Becksguy (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, a separate article should be created. STSC (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur, Spratly Islands and Spratly Islands Dispute is a good example of how a situation like this can (hopefully) be managed to everyone's satisfaction. Philg88 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I asking myself, this just very normal event if compare to Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands, where every day countries around capture or even shoot fishing boats of each other like dinner and make same action like this event every time, this event well know just because media made it so hot that all, if make separate article then you can make hundreds or thousands more article with same situation.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Extremely biased with false facts.

This article is very poorly written and extremely biased towards the Japanese. Misplaced Pages should consider rewriting or edit this article. Many of the facts are false. It completely degrades the credibility of Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader81 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's just like propaganda material from the Imperial Japanese! STSC (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - nomination to be checked for neutrality

The overall undertone of this article is very much pro-Japanese. It is not consistent with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. I would appeal to all pro-Japanese editors please be fair and make this article more balanced and readable. We are not fighting a World War here! STSC (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No such ground at all. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

These Pro-Japanese editors just a bunch of bully boys and hooligans! They are a disgrace! STSC (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Japan-related articles
• High-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• B-Class Taiwan articles
• High-importance Taiwan articles
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Articles linked from high traffic sites
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Japan
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in China
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Taiwan