Talk:Senkaku Islands

Islands names and table

We've discussed this previously. As far as I could see there were no legitimate reasons given why in the previous discussion in the geography section there had to be a duplication of the Chinese name of the islands in the table header and in the image captions. We don't keep referring to the "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai islands" throughout the article, so why must this one section have the Chinese name - and just the Chinese name, not the Taiwanese or "English" (i.e. Pinnacle) names - in the header? There is no reason as far as I can see.

There's also the issue of the ordering of the names in the table, but I haven't played around with this as it involves a bit of care that I don't have time for now. John Smith's (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010
Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith's in this diff. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you to discuss the changes you are about to make in this talk page before making them. I don't believe the naming and name-ordering discussions resulted in an agreement that is consistent to the nature of your recent changes. And of course, as a reputable Wikipedia editor, you would probably understand how WP:BRD works unless you don't plan to follow it.

While nothing can prevent you from continuing the subtle acts of POV-pushing (such as removal of Chinese names), I'd much rather you to be at least somewhat constructive and willing to work with the rest of us here. Do you think you can do that? Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And as an experienced editor (if we're going to play the "civil incivility game"), you should know that WP:BRD doesnt' apply here. WP:BRD is a useful essay, but itself points out that it isn't applicable in all situations. The question is whether or not the 1) there is consensus to have the names there, and 2) whether or not that consensus is based on policy. My argument would be that as long as this article continues to be named "Senkaku Islands," the Chinese, Taiwanese, and English names should be mentioned only once. You accuse John Smith of subtle POV pushing, but he could just as easily accuse you of the same: why are you "subtly" trying to exclude the Taiwanese names? My point isn't to accuse you of POV pushing, but to point out that it's a useless claim here even if it were true, because whatever set of names we choose will support one POV or other--there literally is no neutral name here. And, while I don't recall exactly which of the policies/guidelines it's in, we're supposed to try to stick with one name throughout the article, mentioning alternates only when we need to to discuss the dispute. Otherwise it's just very confusing. So I would argue that, so long as we call this "Senkaku Islands," we keep only the Japanese names except in 1) the lead, where we list the island group's names in all relevant languages, 2) in the table, where we list all of the different names for the individual islands in each language, and 3) anywhere a direct quote uses another name. If we switch the article title, I suppose it will end up depending on what it's switched to. Which, as a side note points out a possible problem: are there English names for the individual islands? If not, that's a definite strike against Pinnacle Islands. Finally , Bobthefish2, I really think that it will benefit us to talk about the edits, not the editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2010

Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of Qwyrxian in this diff. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I do admit I have a habit of playing the "civil incivility game" if I personally consider an editor to be a persistent pest who has little interest in promoting objectivity. While I do admire the patience and generosity you allocate for obviously disruptive elements, it is a quality that I don't have.

Your mock allegation of my anti-Taiwanese POV-pushing, it is in fact inapplicable. The reason being the negligible difference, the correspondence to identical Chinese words, and a virtual lack of organized Taiwanese-style Chinese->English phonetic translation system. However, I do understand the point you are illustrating.

I agree that there is technically no such thing of "true objectivity", but the degree of neutrality of a decision is not binary. In a scenario where intense dispute is involved, common sense may suggest a dual name is more neutral than a single name.

I disagree with your comment on WP:BRD because this particular issue definitely does not have consensus. If I had to go through this shit load of crap (and with no objection from you or any other editor) just to get rid of an obvious misuse of the Remin Ribao article, I don't see why others get a free-ride on something much more ambiguous.

Anyway, let's hear what others have to say about the naming issue. I don't have a position on the name-ordering. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I'm willing to discuss anything - but it was previously discussed. I didn't sense that there were any remaining objections, but I decided to leave it for a while as there were a lot of other matters that needed addressing. I'm sorry if you found discussing something else stressful, but it wouldn't be appropriate to throw up objections to my edits because of that.

We can see if anyone else has a view, but if not perhaps we can revise this section per my previous suggestions (and without putting words in his mouth, I think Qwyrxian was leaning more towards my position). Then we can focus on the summary section. John Smith's (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I found discussing something else frustrating notably due to the degree of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:LAWYER exercised by you and a few others. If my edits were allowed to be subjected to the same procedural hurdles, I don't see why your edits should be exempted from that.

As to the naming, I agree that a dual name should not occur everywhere. But I believe at least some of us agreed, in a previous discussion, on using "neutral" terms in place of the names whenever appropriate. Examples would include "disputed islands" or "islands" instead of "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". I recall you protested against that idea but then there were also others who accepted it.

In addition, I advocate the figure captions should have dual names if the figures are simply photographs of some geographic formation. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not relevant to the discussion here. The implication of what you said is that because you're unhappy you're going to refuse to cooperate. I hope that's not the case. Where there is a disagreement between editors and policy doesn't help, it is appropriate to look at something like WP:BOLD. But as Qwyrxian said, that doesn't apply here. And as I've observed earlier, there didn't seem to be any outstanding objections when I made the edit.

You asked for some extra comments, and we've had Tenmei chip in now. Does this mean that I can go ahead and edit?

If the names are listed in the table, I don't see why dual names are necessary.

If you have an article name, you are allowed to use it - you can't censor it because some people were unhappy they failed to get the name changed. I do like to use alternative references to articles aren't filed with "article name........article name.......article name" every few lines.John Smith's (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you've misunderstood my intents. I simply was using the same arguments that were used to scrutinize my previous edits. Since I rode through those procedures as a cooperative editor, I'd don't see why anyone else should not be subjected to them at similarly applicable situations. After all, the protocols existed to ensure the validity of the edits in question (which I demonstrated in my cases). While I am now simply trying to ensure these same standards to apply equally to everyone, it appears such an effort is now considered as uncooperative because the author of those edits is now someone from an different opinion bloc.

Qwyrxian's opinion of WP:BOLD's seems somewhat weird. The WP:BRD:page specifically listed some conditions of use:

Two factions are engaged in an edit war

Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached

Active discussion is not producing results

Your view differs significantly from a vocal majority on an emotionally loaded subject

And interestingly enough, this is a recent enforcement by Qwyrxian.

If you want to play wikilawyer as with this

"If you have an article name, you are allowed to use it - you can't censor it because some people were unhappy they failed to get the name changed...".

... then I can also quote following

"Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For more examples, some of them involving changes within the twentieth century, see below."

... and argue that I can change all pre-1900 references to "Diaoyu" on the grounds that "Senkaku Islands" did not exist as a term before 1900. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I have said. I have no problem with you having your own view, you were clearly suggesting that because you didn't get your way with another matter you were going to try to delay things here. If you are willing to cooperate, that's great. You don't have to automatically agree with what someone says to be helpful, you just have to discuss it in a constructive matter.

BOLD/BRD does not apply here. There are not two factions edit-warring. You reverted me. As BRD says, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring. It also says BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once.

It seems to me that PLACE is not relevant here, because there are no examples that I can see where Senkaku is used pre-19th century. It would be better for you to take that particular discussion to the Island dispute page. John Smith's (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not misinterpreted what you've said. However, you appear to be unable to understand why I decided to intervene. Certainly, I was not very happy with being filibuster in the past, but it's not my intent to filibuster in this case. My rationale is simply that if the policies previously cited could be used against unambiguously valid edits I contributed, then it should also be capable of checking this particular content of interest (which I disagree with and , in my opinion, is far more controversial).

BOLD/BRD does apply. It does not require a pre-condition of edit-warring. Rather, it is there to discourage edit-wars from occurring especially when legitimate disagreements have been raised. As a link from my previous post suggested, Qwyrxian had cited this rule on very similar grounds in the past despite his current disagreements. At the same time, I don't think it is too hard to actually follow the BRD procedure. You simply have to discuss your changes with the rest of us and reach an agreement. Is there a reason you don't want to do that? I understand you may not like to be held accountable for your changes as evidenced by your previous refusal to justify deletions of reliable sources, but that's not really a good habit to have.

I am confused about the following argument

It seems to me that PLACE is not relevant here, because there are no examples that I can see where Senkaku is used pre-19th century. It would be better for you to take that particular discussion to the Island dispute page.

Diaoyu was certainly used to describe the islands before 1900. If you agree that "there are no examples that [you] can see where Senkaku is used pre-[20th] century" (I'd presume you meant pre-20th century because the term was invented ~1900), then that's all the more reason for WP:PLACE to apply. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll quote it again. BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring. Perhaps you can actually cite policy rather than put your own spin on it.

If PLACE is not relevant here, it cannot apply. Please indicate what you specifically want to be changed and why PLACE applies. John Smith's (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it will help your case by keep bringing up irrelevant ideas on what BRD is not used for. In this situation, I brought it up because an agreement had previously not been reached regarding the issue(s) that is relevant to your edit. Suffice to say, this wasn't intended to indefinitely hinder your edits, but rather to make sure some form of agreement can be reached. And of course, I am all for discussing the matter with you but you don't appear interested to talk about anything other than trying to weasel your way out. Reputable editors may agree that it is not a very productive way to do things.

As for my point about PLACE, it was already explained in my two previous replies. I'd much rather you not to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT because it is not professional conduct. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I'm finding your comments strange. You say you're not trying to indefinitely hinder my edits, but you're refusing to acknowledge what BRD actually says having given it as a reason to block them. Maybe we should move on. You asked for other views, so far we have have had Qwyrxian and Tenmei offer their views (Tenmei agreed with Qwryxian). With no one else interested, apart from us, to me that seem to be a consensus that apart from in the lead and table of island details, we should use the Japanese names. John Smith's (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Endorse accuracy of the restatement of consensus in last sentence of John Smith's's diff here, e.g., " ... would seem to be a consensus that apart from in the lead and table of island details, we should use the Japanese names." However, in this context, it would be much cleaner and more pointed if the words "article name" were substituted for "Japanese name" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry. I don't really understand the issue. Here, let me use one of Qwyrxian's explanations for a previous enforcement of BRD:

So, that's what happened from my perspective. Currently, as far as I understand your position, you're saying "I added info, no one else is now allowed to remove that information without giving clear and specific reasons why." We, on the other hand, are saying, "The article was stable, so it's your responsibility to explain why you want to add the info.

It's not directly my intent to block your edits, but if what you wanted is not consistent with what's agreed on previously, then your edits may still have to be left out as part of the process.

Even though Qwyrxian has supported the use of a single name throughout the article, this is only one of the few matters involved. He and Tenmei also did not comment further as more issues were raised subsequently, although Tenmei appeared to have endorsed my WP:SPACE idea. The lack of participation from others can largely be due to the fact that this discussion has so far mostly been about your unwillingness with being asked to go through a BRD process.

I understand that you want Japanese names to predominate in the article. Even today you switched a number of name-orderings in favour of Japanese names (as if nobody would notice that). While there is little doubt you are a reputable editor, I hope you will still abide some of Wikipedia's standard editing procedures. If you agree to it, then we can start a new thread that talk specifically about this issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorse Bobthefish2's proposed edits here; and also endorse the argument because it is supported by a reliable source here --Tenmei (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Explaining strike-out: This endorsement is withdrawn because it illustrates a distinction without a difference. --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

One of Bobthefish2's phrases deserves repeating:

"... the degree of neutrality of a decision is not binary."

To help locate Bobthefish2's words in context, these words are highlighted above in blue with a hyperlink to the original diff at 02:40, 11 November 2010. If there is any objection to this non-word edit, please let me know. Please feel free to delete the hyperlink if it is unwelcome.

I have a question: Is this a well-known saying that is simply unknown to me, or is this only an example of words which surprised me? --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a quote from anyone, but the idea is not original.

Back to the issue

Okay, somebody isn't "BRD-ing" correctly. I've lost track, to be honest. So, first, here's a list of what I assume everyone agrees to:

• Somewhere in the article, every relevant name (for both the group and the individual islands) in every name should be mentioned at least once.
• The lead should mention all of the group names (i..e., Senkaku, Diaoyu, Diaoyutai, Pinnacle, etc.).
• All of the specific island names should be mentioned in the table.
• Whenever possible, when referring to the island group as a whole outside of the lead, the best approach is to use a neutral term like "the islands" or "the island group" or "the disputed islands".
• Of course, direct quotes always state exactly what the direct quote says.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure we all agree to the above. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think that leaves 2 main questions.

• When referring to the individual islands outside of the table (like in the picture captions), should we use just the "dominant" name (i.e., the name that matches the current article title), or should we list the Japanese name and the Chinese name (as the two "main" disputants) or should we list every avaiable name, or is there some other criteria?
• In cases where two or more names are listed (if we think that is correct), what order should they be listed in?

Before I clarify my own position (to be honest, I'm not 100% certain what it is), is that a correct summary of the 2 points at issue? And are the 5 points above that 100% agreed to? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, thank you for fulfilling your role as an experienced editor by putting this discussion back on track - which is something I have failed to do despite my efforts. I believe figure captions of photographs should always use dual names if it appears in the geography section since the photographs themselves don't have an opinion on what an island's name is. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, let's agree on the 2/5 point principles first. i myself don't mind either way. i don't mind the ordering either, but i guess we could use the google scholar search to determine the order? since that names table is for a reference of different names maybe we should just insert the island group names into the table. on the other hand, i do think for when refering to pre-1900 we should use the "old" name. San9663 (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on name-ordering either. If some people feel it is very important for them to change the name ordering, then I will not step in. The point about WP:PLACE and pre-1900 naming is also something to think about. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well as you're no longer opposed I've reinstated some of the changes I made previously. I'm not too worried about the table for the moment. John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the five points, but I don't think that there should be a deliberate avoidance of using "Senkakus" or "Senkaku islands" outside of the lead section. I think that it's best to mix it with the suggested terms to ensure that "Senkaku" isn't repeated too often in paragraphs.

The two questions seem correct to me. John Smith's (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate avoidance of using the Senkaku (outside of direct quotations) is a good idea because even the article name itself is controversial. Substituting proper nouns with pro-nouns and nouns in this case will not change the semantics of the text but will lessen the involvement of sovereignty. At the same time, it will also make the texts less prone to edit-wars over naming. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Btf2 on this last point, for now--using a generic term instead of the specific terms, when we can, seems like a good plan until such time (post RfC?) on an article name, since it dodges the issue of edit warring. However, should an RfC find in favor of using a specific name (as I still believe it must), then I think we should follow standard editing practices, like John Smith describes--it's just better writing to mix proper nouns with nouns and pronouns. This almost tempts me to start working on writing up the RfC....

As for the other issues...okay, I didn't want to do this...but it seems like too many things hinge on the article title. Oh, this refers to the RfC. I haven't put any effort into writing an RfC, because I don't believe the evidence is strong enough that the article title should change, so I didn't see any need to work on something that I thought was fine as is. But I see that not having a firmer grip on what the title should be is causing problems on other points (I think Btf2 even said that was one of his reasons for wanting to keep the full protection on the dispute page). I'll go ahead and draft something in the next day or two, and maybe we can move forward after that. Maybe, if we can pull together a consensus, that is....Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the RfC going to be on? Please don't tell me we're going to have yet another debate on the article title itself - I would have to object to having motion after motion to rename it until the "right" answer is chosen. John Smith's (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the RfC, I have to apologize for the delay. I will re-read the relevant threads again and write a draft within the coming week. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The RfC will take time and expected to be contentious. May I suggest we put a note in the lead that the Title itself is contentious (and refer reader to certain discussion page or Wiki policy regarding name convention). i.e. not just the dispute on sovereignty, but a dispute on Wiki name as well. I know there is probably no wiki policy around this. But I do think wiki should have a separate entry on Contentious Title (i.e. a wiki entry on wiki itself...listing Titles such as Dokdo/Takeshima, Senkaku/Diaoyu, etc.)San9663 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

All names are controversial if sovereignty is disputed - e.g. Falkands versus Malvinas. There is no need to say that this is a "contentious title", and I wold regard it as POV if there is no policy requirement to have it. John Smith's (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference in the degree of controversy between our scenario and the case of Falkland Islands is quite significant. Please exercise WP:COMMONSENSE. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- Please modify your diff here with the addition of numbering, e.g.,

Qwyrxian's restements

1. Somewhere in the ....
2. The lead should mention ....
3. All of the specific ....
4. Whenever possible ...
5. Of course, direct quotes ...
6. When referring to the individual ....
7. In cases where two or more ...

Tenmei's comments

1. Yes, of course.
2. Yes, of course.
3. No
4. Yes, of course.
5. Yes, of course.
6. Same as #1 and #2 above → non-issue
7. Same as #1 and #2 above → non-issue

IMO, numbering could have induced specific, item-by-item responses. --Tenmei (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On the RfC (and yes, John Smith, it's an RfC about the title of this article and by extension the dispute article)...the reason I have left all the work up to Bobthefish2 is that I think the name is correct as written now. While I accept that some English sources have switched to using a duel name, I do not believe that enough have switched to make it appropriate to change the name at this point in time. Furthermore, in English language sources which are neither Japanese nor Chinese nor Taiwanese in origin, when only a single name is chosen, that name is almost always Senkaku. Furthermore, I do believe that our policy is pretty clear that we cannot use a duel name as the title itself (i.e., this article should not be titled "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands", and that, given that far more contentious disputes do not use this title, there is no reason to set this article up as an exception to the general rule. That leaves us with Pinnacle Islands, a la the Liancourt Rocks "compromise". It won't kill me to see that as a last ditch name, but I don't think it's necessary and furthermore dislike it because it's so completely absent in any current literature. However, I don't think we need to go there. If you look back through the Liancourt Rocks talk page archives, you'll see that the arguments there were far longer, far more intractable, filled with a lot of bad faith all around, and I really feel like using Liancourt Rocks was the equivalent of throwing our hands up in the air and saying we didn't want to take the effort to determine the "proper" title.

Having said all of that, I can see that not having done the RfC on the name is preventing us from moving forward on other issues (including unprotecting Senkaku Islands dispute). As such, I will write a draft in my userspace now. I'm pretty sure I know how to format it, but I'm going to go look at other RfC's to check their level of detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we getting a bit hasty with edits?

User:John Smith's has made this edit today. I am not exactly sure if the outcome of our discussion so far actually agreed with the changes he made. Unless I am misinterpreting something, my impression is that they are not consistent with what's been discussed. I did a speedy revert on it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Btf2 here. Perhaps John Smith just misread, but what I saw Btf2 agreeing to is that the ordering doesn't matter (thus, I see a consensus to use the Japanese name first, at least so long as the article title is Senkaku Islands). I don't see anywhere a consensus that the pictures should use only the Japanese names. Again, I agree with the latter position, but I don't see the consensus to remove the Chinese names. I see almost a consensus....but as I mentioned, I guess we're stuck going to the RfC on the article title. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My impression that User:John Smith's does misread things a lot, since this isn't the first time I've seen such edits from this user. By the way, the article title is practically a separate issue. I have already contacted a few ex-regulars about whether or not they wanted to take part. You might want to ask if User:Oda Mari is interested as well. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't misread things a lot, it just seems that I have difficulty understanding certain users. When people say things like "I am not blocking/vetoing your changes", what am I supposed to believe? However, if it's the case that you're not going to revert me over name ordering at least that's something I can work with.

I think it would be best if you contact everyone who has been involved, rather than ask me to contact certain people. Otherwise it looks like I'm canvassing for support. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you misread things a lot either. Rather, I would simply attribute bad faith as the cause of such misunderstandings given prior experiences.

You should be careful about 'simplifying' the intent of others. I didn't say "I am not blocking/vetoing your changes" nor did I say the contrary was my intent. Rather, my purpose was to pause your edits to let others reflect on what you did - as I've mentioned to you for at least 5 times. And as it turns out, some editors disagreed with the way of how you conducted your business. Unfortunately, you still decided to move on ahead as if nothing has happened. Since you are a reputable editor, I'd assume you are sufficiently familiar with the WP:BRD process. This leaves me to wonder if there are reasons to believe your reputation somehow justify your obvious disrespect for Wikipedia guidelines.

No, it is still inappropriate to change name-ordering because others (notable San9663) may not agreed to it yet. Again, please respect the editorial process.

Lastly, the post you replied to was directed at Qwyrxian (in case you've somehow misread. If I was asking someone to have others contacted, it probably wouldn't be you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob, you really should assume good faith. I have made no accusations against you, so I don't see why you have to be unpleasant. I will quote what you said earlier - "but it's not my intent to filibuster in this case". Can you please explain to me how a filibuster is not a veto or blocking? Because as far as I understand it, that's exactly what it is. So why are you now saying that's not the point you were making, given that you keep doing this whenever I make edits you don't like? Also as I've pointed out before, you cite BRD as a reason why I shouldn't be making the edits I have been, yet you repeatedly fail to note that it says you cannot use BRD as a reason to revert someone multiple times.

If someone else objects to any edits I make over name-ordering, let them do it. It's not for you to make edits/reversions in the article for others. John Smith's (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it difficult to assume good faith from you given the numerous times you've disrespected the efforts of other editors either by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, removing well-justified content, or ignoring policies. In terms of contributions, you generally do very little other than changing names and name-orderings around, deleting (good and bad) references, and playing WP:LAWYER to sabotage legitimate edits of other editors. As a result, I tend to perceive you as a persistent source of destructive interference and this may very well be your overall intended role. To contrast this with another user I consistently disagree with, Tenmei always provides thorough analysis on changes he made or discussions he participated in. While he can be very stubborn at times, I generally assume good faith from him.

"Filibuster" is somewhat different to "veto". My impression is that the former term is generally associated with bad faith and is achieved by abusing procedural hurdles. The latter term, on the other hand, is more neutral and is generally achieved by exercising authorized rights/power. Since you are an Englishman, you should know their semantic differences better than I do.

As for the BRD, I am not going to repeat myself the 6th time. I'd assume this is yet another WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from you. Since I'd already offered fair explanations of my BRD use in previous posts, I encourage you to read beyond the first sentences of writing if you still have trouble understanding the rationale. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I don't know how good you think your English is, but it's not perfect. "Filibuster" is a term relating to the blocking of legislation in a legislative body. The definitions do not say there is necessarily "bad faith" involved. But it does involve something being blocked. So at the least you weren't clear and used the wrong word, and quite reasonably could have been considered as meaning that you weren't going to block my edits. I say this as someone whose first language is English. Now if you want to waste time instead of discussing the real issues, which is ironically one example of a filibuster, feel free to head off to another Wikipedia page to seek alternate views. I, however, really don't care.

You accuse me of not taking note of what you say, but I could accuse you of doing the same thing. I don't believe that you have offered a fair explanation of why you can keep reverting me at all and continue to ignore/misread policy for your own ends. John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend you to read filibuster - most notably the last sentence of the second paragraph. If you are not convinced of the semantic differences, you can also look up the word in Webster, a dictionary established in your native British Empire. Actually, let me just quote the definitions here:

the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority - Dictionary.com

Since you are a native English speaker and a reputable editor, I believe it is important for you to exercise your innate English reading comprehension skills. The only unproductive elements of this thread are your relentless protests against the use of the BRD process and your worthless arguments about vetos, blocks, and filibusters. While I've tried my best to accommodate your complaints by providing you with appropriate explanations for numerous times over multiple posts (which you can read up on if you actually bother to), it is not my fault if you cannot control your obvious obsession to cavil and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat myself for the last time, the WP:BRD was cited because the edits you've made were either inconsistent with previously agreed ideas (i.e. preference for neutral terms) or based on ideas that were discussed but not widely agreed on (i.e. name-ordering). The reverts were not imposed to directly block your edits, but was part of the WP:BRD process to pause this part of your editorial process so that your contents could be discussed and examined. However, your edits could still be indefinitely blocked due to various issues such as non-adherence to WP:NPOV or confirmed disregard of previous agreements. If that does happen, then permanency of these reverts would be attributed to policy violations or other justified causes rather than simply the WP:BRD procedure. On the other hand, if the result of the WP:BRD discussion was that your edits were reasonable, then they would stay. Unfortunately, it appears that most of the issues I've raised with your edits were well-agreed by other participants, so maybe... at least some may not stay in the end.

I'd also like to point out that no one else has thus far raised red flags with my reverts of the edits in question. This seems especially true for my revert of this edit of your's, as others have agreed the edit was obviously disrespectful of what had been agreed upon. It is also not something a reputable editor should do.

Now, I believe I've explained enough. If you have any further objections, you can choose to file an ANI. Should that not be a desired option, you can also choose to make your own Wikia where you can write whatever fantasy you have for the world in an unimpeded manner. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why John Smith has to remove the names of the small islands, for which I believe they were not referred to before. For the first time these names appear, i think both names should be co-listed. In subsequently mentioning, it may be okay to drop the alternative name. I had thought we have agreed to agree on the principles first and I thought the that that the issue was with the name in the title of the table only and it has already been edited.San9663 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

San, you will find all the islands' names referred to in the infobox and the table. I am not proposing that the Chinese names be removed everywhere including in the infobox and table, just that having been included in both places there's no need to keep referring to both the Chinese and Japanese names throughout the article. John Smith's (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010

Endorse again the neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith's in this diff; and also

Endorse again the accuracy of the restatement of consensus in last sentence of John Smith's's diff here, e.g., " ... would seem to be a consensus that apart from in the lead and table of island details, we should use the Japanese names." However, in this context, it would be much cleaner and more pointed if the words "article name" were substituted for "Japanese name" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any unauthorized edits of his. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "unauthorised edit". Please do not encourage people to revert others' edits. John Smith's (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a lazy term to denote those policy/agreement/consensus-ignoring types of edits that you like to make. Despite your obvious objection, I'd encourage irresponsible edits such as those to be removed. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Then don't be lazy, be clear. But you still should not encourage others to revert - if you have a problem, deal with it yourself. John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

^ Obvious attempt to cavil. Feel free to continue with your diversionary tactics. Since my point's clear, I do not feel the need to reply further. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Title RfC draft

I have written a draft for a possible RfC on the name of this article and the dispute article. You may find it at User:Qwyrxian/Senkaku name RfC draft. Anyone is welcome to edit that draft. Unless there is serious objection, I will bring it here in a few days.

And, John Smith mentioned above opposing yet another RfC on this issue. To be honest, I was torn on that myself. I think 2 things warrant going forward with another RfC. First, the most recent previous RM was closed as no consensus, but many of the arguments were based on very flawed search data that seemed to show a more than 3 to 1 preponderance for Senkaku Islands, but that happened as a result of improper search terms. Second, I think that there has been a greater amount of international English press recently as a result of the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident, which might make the judgment easier. For me...well, I documented part of my explanation above for why I think we have the correct name.

Having said all of that, if this RfC ends with us keeping the current name, or even ends without a clear consensus, I think we need to drop the issue indefinitely (i.e., until someone can demonstrate some extremely strong evidence showing that conditions, either in the real world or on wiki) have changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010
Endorse the scrupulous, neutral analysis of Qwyrxian here and the draft RfC text here. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

At the very least can you amend the RfC so that it deals with all the outstanding issues, such as how the islands should be referred to in captions and in the article, as well as the ordering of the table, given that all the names are listed in the infobox and table already. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2010

We should deal with the naming issue separately, since it is, by itself, already a complicated issue to deal with. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

John Smith's -- I do not support amending Qwyrxian's draft RfC text here. However, I do also endorse again the accuracy of the restatement of consensus in last sentence of John Smith's's diff here, e.g., " ... would seem to be a consensus that apart from in the lead and table of island details, we should use the Japanese name" or "article name" .... --Tenmei (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC's are generally most successful when they have a single, clear focus. It tends (as far as I've seen, although I'm no expert) to encourage participation when the question is very straightforward, even when the answer itself may be complex. If we put several different issues, I think readers are more likely to throw up their hands and just ignore it. And, if anyone shows up who is sincerely interested, they'll keep the page watchlisted and keep editing. I will, though, look at the diffs mentioned (probably tomorrow; I'm pretty busy today). Also, I want to look at the diffs in BobtheFish2's draft. I'm not clear which part of that he intended for the RfC and which part for his responses to the RfC, but it's possible some of the diffs he presented may be good references to add to mine (since I came to this party a little later than the rest of y'all, and may have missed earlier debates). I don't want to comment on them as btf2 did, or even summarize them, just have them available to make research easier for those who are coming.

P.S.: This must be why international diplomacy takes so long--before we can actually do anything, first we have to draft ideas to discuss how we're going to discuss possibly doing something, maybe. Qwyrxian 23:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue of the article's name is closely related to how the islands should be referred to individually. I don't see why that will be too much for editors to handle. However, I am sure that if we have another RfC after this one, on the island names, it will be virtually impossible to get more comments because people will go "oh this is a waste of time, I've already given my view. Why wasn't this brought up at the same time?"

I think that this needs to be addressed, so if you don't include it I will just have to consider filing my own RfC at the same time. But I think it would make a lot more sense to have two issues in a single RfC to make it easy as possible. John Smith's (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel if you are asked to comment on a RfC post that basically says: "Hey we have some heavily debated issue with lots of different arguments and a lengthy debate history. Here's a big slab of links to all the titanic and convoluted discussions of the past that we don't care to describe to you about. Enjoy your reading." Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think qwyrxian's RfC is okay. But Tenmei confused me as he first endorsed and then opposed, what specifically did you endorse and not endorse?San9663 (talk) p.s. I also think that the RfC should be simple. Have one objective first. We can, however, have an RfC on the principle though. e.g. If the results turn out this way then this, it wuold be much easier if a principle (i.e. rules) is agreed on instead of arguing for which name should be the title and which specific ordering. 11:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

San9663 -- I accept and support Qwyrxian's draft here. As I posted my endorsement, I noticed that John Smith's suggested small changes here. My dissent was posted adjacent to John Smith's words.

Bobthefish2's subsequent diff displaced mine. I perceived nothing confusing in this, but you did. I hope this resolves any uncertainty? If any part of this remains unclear, I will try again to explain in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page name

I know that this might not be the right place to discuss this, but I would like to point out that the Wikipedia articles concerning the same topic have different names, with the Chinese article having the islands' Chinese name, and the Japanese article having the islands' Japanese name. Is this an acceptable regional variation, or should this issue be resolved? I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here! 12:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not an issue. As far as I understand it, Wikipedia articles use the names most common in that language. John Smith's (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a good question. The two-article "compromise" strategy won't work for subjects which are today paired with articles focusing only on controversies, e.g.,

• Liancourt Rocks→→
• Kuril Islands→→
• Senkaku Islands→→
• Spratly Islands→→

• Liancourt Rocks dispute
• Kuril Islands dispute
• Spratly Islands dispute
• Senkaku Islands dispute

However, there are other potentially contentious articles in which this is proving somewhat workable, e.g.,

• Goryeo missions to Imperial China
• Joseon diplomacy
• Joseon missions to Japan→→
• Joseon missions to Imperial China

.

• Japanese diplomacy (pre-1854)
• Japanese missions to Joseon
• Japanese missions to Imperial China
• Japanese missions to Tang China
• Japanese missions to Ming China

In due course, my guess is that the development of such articles as these may help establish a consensus for creating articles which would be impossible to initiate today, e.g.,

• Joseon-Japanese foreign relations before the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876
• Sino-Korean foreign relations before the China-Korea Treaty of 1882

I have often wondered if this kind of outside the box thinking could be applied to Senkaku Islands? --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just concurring with John Smith: no matter what gets decided here, assuming jp & cn wikis have the same rules about naming that we have, the only correct name at jp.wiki would be Senkaku Islands, and the only correct name at cn.wiki would be Diaoyu Islands (obviously, put both of those into the appropriate kanji and Chinese characters), as their only concern is the most common name used in the wiki's native language. Thus, in this fact, they have it easy--we're the ones stuck because both names (and many variants) get used in English. Again, the similar topic I always go back to is that the Italian article is, it:Firenze, while our article is Florence. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Island images

When I scanned our article on my laptop, the three images in the geography section caused a large blank space in the area above the table. This format problem did not appear in the wide-screen monitor of my desk computer.

Two of the island images are moved farther down the page. Alternately, one of these could have been positioned in the "Names" section? IMO, there is room for all three images. I have no preference about their locations in the article. My only concern had to do with fixing a problem I hadn't previously noticed. --Tenmei (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like where they are now, because on my current computer, it looks like picture 2 specifically goes with the dispute section, and picture 3 specifically goes with the Collision incident, which is not what I think is intended. However, I also don't like have large blank spaces, so moving them wasn't wrong. Maybe someone here is more used to playing with image layout and has a better solution for both issues? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The images are repositioned three sections? Does this look better on the page? --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What should the title of this article be?

Problem: What name should be used for this article and the related Senkaku Islands dispute article? The quick summary is that the ownership of these islands is in dispute between Japan, China, and Taiwan. As such, each side applies its own name(s) to the islands. The question is, what should the title be in English Wikipedia?

Background: In the sources, sometimes the name Senkaku Islands (Japanese name) is used, sometimes Diaoyu or Diayoutai or Tiaoyu or Tiaoyoutai Islands(Chinese names, various different transliterations), sometimes both are used, as in "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands", and, very rarely and primarily in very old texts, an English translation of the name, Pinnacle Islands, is used. There is a dispute among the various regular editors about how often each naming variant is used in various sources (scholarly articles, encyclopedias, general internet, news articles, etc.). Furthermore, there is dispute about how to interpret these results in the context of the relevant policies for naming places and article titles, the most notable of which are WP:Article titles (in particular, the section Considering title changes), WP:NPOV (in particular, the subsection Naming), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and Multiple local names).

Past discussions on this topic, along with some (incomplete) data, can be found at Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move 2, Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#Controversy and Request for change of name and other places throughout this page and the talk page archives. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the Wikiprojects listed above, as well as WP:EASIA, per the rules of WP:CANVAS. If there are other relevant wikiprojects, feel free to notify them, too.

Summary on Previous Discussions: To help keep this discussion to a manageable scale, I took care to avoid bringing up issues that were not actually used to justify the naming of the article.

The original adaptation of the current article naming was initiated by User:Delirium 4 years ago on the grounds that the Japanese 'controls the islands' and that 'They are Japanese territories right now as far as international law is concerned'.

Numerous debates were conducted (1)(2)(3) on whether or not the islands should be renamed "Pinnacle Island" (the pure English name of the islands). The proposals were all defeated. Smaller-scale articles also occurred sporadically.

The main supporting arguments were: - Wikipedia:NPOV due to the level of controversy dealing with sovereignty. - Liancourt Rocks, a similarly contested territory between South Korea and Japan, was given a similar treatment - Relative frequency of name usage in practice based on search engine results - "Senkaku Islands" was the most commonly used based on some search engine results.

The main opposing arguments were: - CIA world factbook uses Senkaku Islands as the official name - "Pinnacle Islands" is rarely used as a name - "Pinnacle Islands" is not the same as "Senkaku Islands". - The are notable differences between Liancourt Rock's scenario and this situation. The specifics of the differences were not explained in the thread, however. - "Diaoyu" had very similar or greater number of hits based on other search engine results.

Other points to consider: (1) Was the renaming of the article to the current name (Senkaku Island) backed by compelling reasoning? If not, is there any reason for the name to remain? (2) Were the past reasons used to advocate status quo or change in fact applicable? (3) There are a few possible options to consider. One is to keep the article name as Senaku Islands. Another is to rename it to Diaoyu Islands. A third option would be to use a dual name such as Senkaku Islands. And a fourth option would be to use Pinnacle Islands as proposed in the past. — Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Senkaku Islands. The islands are currently possessed by Japan, and so the Japanese name should be used. The alternate names should be listed in the intro and have redirects pointing to this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was considering clarifying this above, but thought I could wait. Please take a look at some of the policies, and you will note that possession of the islands is not actually the sole factor when Wikipedia determines what an article should be named (the classic example is that even the Italy possesses the city of Firenze, and uses that name exclusively, the Wikipedia article is title Florence). So while ownership of islands may be somewhat important, it's not as important as other things. We do not want this RfC to devolve into an argument over who rightly or currently owns, posseses or otherwise controls the islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorse final sentence summary of Qwyrxian's diff here, e.g., ... do not want this RfC to devolve into an argument over who rightly or currently owns, posseses or otherwise controls the islands. --Tenmei (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Name as Is. I was looking at several folding maps in my possession, including one by National Geographic, and there is no mention of either of these names in any of the maps. These are exceedingly tiny and uninhabited islands. Further, in my humble opinion, the islands are terra nullis (not claimable by any nation.) That being said, I believe that we should keep the name as is, as it would appear based off of the 2010 collision incident that the vast majority of English language coverage not connected to one of the claimant states uses Senkaku. Then again, the literalist in me would just say "Contested East China Sea Micro-island Chain" and call it a day... Sven Manguard _Talk 04:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as Senkaku. It's been fairly well established that Senkaku has a distinct edge over Diaoyu as far as popularity in English does, and it leaves the near-unused exonym "Pinnacle Islands" in the dust. Like it or not, possession is nine-tenths of the law, and Japan does control the islands. For other datapoints, see Pedra Branca, Singapore, which was moved to that name on Wikipedia pretty much the same instant that the ICJ adjudicated in Singapore's favor, and Kunashir Island, which uses the name used by the controlling party (Russia) despite Japan's claims over it. Jpatokal (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on Bobthefish2's summary above--while I admit to not being here at the time, his summary is not what I would consider a neutral summary of the issues, at least as the debate has occurred recently. For one, what the article was named originally, or when it changed, actually has no bearing on the issue (I think perhaps he's confused with the rules that govern things like spelling, e.g., WP:ENGVAR, that cares about what was done originally). Second, those arguments, while they may have been used previously, aren't necessarily the strongest or most current. I do encourage those truly interested to review some of the linked discussions.

More importantly, I, like Btf2 and Tenmei, encourage (as I said above), everyone to try to focus on what policy says about naming articles. Though I support the use of Senkaku Islands as the article title, that support is only a little based on current possession of the islands. Our policy actually doesn't really care who possesses the islands--rather it cares about what name is regularly used in English. In cases where there are multiple competing names (as there are here), we can look at subtle details, but we always want to focus on the name that is most commonly used. Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I beg the differ. If the arguments that rationalized the previous move to "Senkaku Islands" are not appropriate, then the move should be reversed unless stronger arguments are found to keep it. This is simply WP:COMMONSENSE. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Senkaku Islands - The question of possession is largely irrelevant. Generally WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:NPOV. NickCT (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Senkaku Islands - First, this has been discussed many times, including one recent page move request. No one discussion will forever resolve this, so I don't see the need to keep asking the question. A cynic could say that the question will be asked until the "right" response is given, but I wouldn't accuse Qwyrxian of being motivated in such a way. But as we have the discussion, I agree with others that we should keep the name due to the fact it's more common in the English language. Possession is an issue, but not necessarily the overriding one. It would be inappropriate to use "Pinnacle", especially given that it's so rarely used. John Smith's (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we examine the data first? e.g. for those who claim Senkaku or Daioyu is an "English name" (neither of them sound "English" to me), shouldn't they look at the evidence, such as google scohlar or goole search result first? As we know, the previous searches were fundamentally flawed. It looks rather hasty when one reaches a conclusion without even looking at the data. The wiki principles, as I understand, ask for data to support any claim. Otherwise, there is no difference from just another discussion forum. San9663 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur...there's a point or two above that relates to actual usage, but not as much as I would have hoped. Should we not get clear input, then perhaps we'll have to move to mediation. While, as you know, I believe the data supports the use of Senkaku (that is, the data is close, but the alternative of Pinnacle is significantly worse, so the slight favor for Senkaku seems like our best choice), I will without hesitation agree to mediation (either formal or the Cabal). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You should accept that at least a few of us are NOT suggesting "Pinnacle Islands" as the principle alternative. This is another issue, in fact, since we haven't outlined all the possible/feasible alternatives in the introduction. Guess it's me that has to do it? Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You can examine data if you like, but you can't force people to go about a RfC in any particular way. It is a referral for comment - people leave their comments. If you want to make a point and then ask people to revisit their views, feel free. But don't be surprised that people have been fairly brief (so far) in their comments. Not everyone has the time or interest to get into in-depth analysis. John Smith's (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's indeed a problem. My observation of the past discussions is that people like to give their input or "vote" however they like and often disregarding good analysis of issues. This is why this would likely go to a mediation or ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, bob. That really goes to show, despite what you say, you don't read my comments. I've said over half a dozen times that ANI is solely for resolving editor behaviour that breaks the rules. It is not to give judicial judgment on article content or titles - not even Wikipedia arbitration does that. Please drop this idea of seeking a solution through admins. John Smith's (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember, you've only made such a comment in the context of arbitration and not ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then for your information ANI is no different from arbitration in that it deals with editor behaviour and not article content disputes. It's just that arbitration makes a final decision, whereas ANI is more about individual admins taking action. There is no way to get a binding decision on article content for a situation like this. John Smith's (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, but mediation can sometimes be a way to get all parties to accept some version or another. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason for sticking to data and adopting some wiki-endorsed rule is to have something such that we do not have to come back every few months in future. The past discussion (as I read) said that if google searches yield one result with thrice the amount over the other then the former is prevalent, but it did not say what to do if the result is not "overwhelming". Maybe let us decide this first (just in case the results differ in future we will still have a rule to refer to). Shall we?San9663 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The policy, in short, says to pick the most common name. The 3 times rule says that if you get 3 times as many, then it's obvious what the most common name is, and no more discussion is necessary. If the results are closer, the rules still say to pick the more common one. However, the problem is when we can't actually tell which is more common. Note, also, that we cannot decide based only on search results of any type--we also have to consider the importance of the sources. For example, the policy implies that how other encyclopedias call the thing matter more than other sources, just like how the least preferred results are plain google searches. There's more details, of course, and you can review all of the policy links I previously posted. But the end result is that policy says that our primary concern is which is more common in English. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Well, in that case, the "most common name", by any search so far (including all the search experiments you did in the past 2 months), is "senkaku/diaoyu". I think that should be highlighted in your introduction paragraph? I have no problem using that for the time being. San9663 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that the guidelines say we don't do joint names. One policy says explicitly that "Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system." Another says, "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first" and "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one." Yes, that second gives leeway ("unsatisfactory" and "recommend" are not binding), but I don't see that alternate approach as working. I still don't believe that deciding between S/D or D/S will be any easier than what we're doing now. Furthermore, I'm not even sure that an RfC is sufficient to allow us to bend such a strong recommendation in a guideline (we might have to go to something like the WP:Village pump (policy)). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion already, Qwyrxian. S/D or D/S is a name that less problematic than simply using 'S'. Even though it is not a perfect solution, the guidelines did not forbid it being adopted as a solution. At the same time, you should ask yourself why partial solution should not be taken when it clearly improves upon the current state of the issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear in that previous discussion. I don't think S/D is better--I actually think it's worse—by far. In fact, it's so much worse, that for me it's not even an option. The name of these tiny little islands is not so important that it's worth being literally the only exception to the rule that articles have a single title (as far as I know; someone tell me if I'm mistaken). It's not a partial solution—it's a total failure. I seriously doubt you could get consensus to have a dual article name. And by consensus, I mean you need consensus at WT:Article names, and probably a larger venue, because you're talking about going directly against the strong recommendations of a guideline which were made for very good reason based on past experiences. If I have to personally rank the possible choices, it's 1) Senkaku, 2) Pinnacle, 3) Diaoyu. S/D or D/S literally isn't even on my list. Yes, if you could get consensus at a very large venue to show that breaking the strong recommendations is worth it in this case, I will, as always, bow to that consensus. But if Londonderry, Macedonia, Lianocourt Rocks, and [[Sea of Japan] were all able to come up with a solution without breaking that recommendation, then I don't see why we can't. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that a compromise is 'total failure'. If our argument is based on common name usage (which was a main argument of concern), then it lends little support to "Senkaku Islands" since we've already observed that Diaoyu and Senkaku Islands are on the same order of usage for this geographical entity. In fact, if you've paid attention to the arguments I've outlined below in the collapsible block or in previous discussions, then you might discover that I've shown the utter failure of previous arguments that were used to rationalize the use of "Senkaku Islands" over all other names. At the same time, the renaming to "Senkaku Islands" that took place 4 years ago was not a result of consensus either - It stayed because users who wanted WP:NPOV lost either the edit-wars or their patience in trying to do things the right way.

So, tell me this: Why should a rename supported by dubious reasoning be allowed to stay? At the same time, why should only one of two equally qualified names be chosen when the choice of name has notable real world consequences? I have my hypothesis for this. Do you? Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

While I respect your personal opinion (that you do not like S/D), but I found no where in the guideline that says this cannot be used. All it said is that it is less preferrable? It is still an option, especially if it is THE MOST COMMONLY USED term in all searches. It is not invented by us here. We shall not rule out anything before we even start a discussion, right? San9663 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's explanation above is consistent with an earlier restatement here. In an attempt to engage discussion on this very point, it was made explicit in a dispute matrix or wikitable format here and it was re-emphasized in a second spreadsheet context here. In other words, Qwyrxian distilled a core concept in colloquial wording: Policy says we really really really shouldn't use Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa.

"Talking past each other" Table 2

Talking past each other 2 WP:Straw poll proposiions Qwyrxian yes?/no? no response? Tenmei yes?/no? no response? San9663 yes?/no? no response? Bobthefish2 yes?/no? no response? John Smith's yes?/no? no response? Other2 yes?/no? no response? Context: Qwyrxian's analysis here, e.g., WP:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles which links to WP:Neutral point of view#Naming which explains that "if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." Yes Yes No response Yes Context: 1. Policy says neutrality has to be balanced by clarity. Yes Yes No response Yes Context: 2. Policy says we base our decision not on what is "morally or politically right," but only based on what name is widely used. Yes Yes No response Yes Context: 3a. Policy says we really really really shouldn't use Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa. Yes Yes No response Yes Yes Context: 3b. Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution? No Response No No Response Yes No Context: 4. Policy gives us a number of steps we can take to determine the widely used name. Yes Yes No response Yes The article title should be changed No response No Yes Yes No This table correctly summarizes Qwyrxian's discussion with Bobthefish2 and San9663 No response No No response No. This table is extremely biased. N/A N/A

The hoop is missing from this picture.

Bobthefish2 directly engaged this pivotal premise here by proposing a new spreadsheet line in the "Talking past each other Table 2":

Context: 3b. Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names,
is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

This re-focused policy proposition was not accepted. The question was answered in the negative here and here. IMO, The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. --Tenmei (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I requested comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Senkaku Islands again. Oda Mari (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More Recent Analysis

It is strange that this RfC was simply brought up without a follow up on the latest discussions about the topic (which are a major reason for this to be brought up in the first place). It would've been good etiquette if he at least have notified us of his intent of submitting the RfC to ensure readiness of other parties, given this was supposed to be a joint effort between Qwyrxian, myself, and a few other editors. Since I am a chief opponent of his position on the issue and I've clearly stated that I am busy for this week, it makes me wonder if this is really set up to fail.

Conversation on above paragraph

My apologies--I didn't notice/remember that you said you'd be busy this week. In any event, the whole point behind an RfC is to get comments from non-regulars anyway. Since the only purpose of the announcement is to provide a neutral summary, and I had the approval of several other editors, and since one editor was anxious to get under way because of other issues that are contingent upon this RfC, and, to an extent, the dispute article is fully protected until this is resolved, I felt we needed to go ahead. My apologies if you think I did something wrong...but I don't see how you could be being "set up to fail", since RfCs "run" for 30 days, and they aren't votes. And I don't even know what you need to be "ready" for, since RfC's are just a way to make a question that's bogging down between a limited number of editors more visible to the wider community. or that matter, I don't even know what "failing" means, since the question is "What should the article title be?" If we get a strong policy-based consensus answer, that's a success, no matter what the result is. If we don't get a clear policy-based consensus, then I guess we move on to some other phase of dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC) If you are acting this on the basis of one editor's needs, then I'd suppose you could've also accounted for the preferences of other editors. As I've commented previously, if you are anxious to get this over with, you could've given a definite deadline on this, although again, a better way of doing this is to ask for readiness. I understand you really want to finish this up and that I am taking time with my preparation, but you have to understand that similar motions have failed in the past due to lack of professionalism and organization. As well, since there is a history of bad arguments being endorsed as the reason to oppose the motion, it is all the more important for good sources to be found and references (which take time). On the other hand, your favoured position on this issue (which we both already know) is the current status quo and there's really nothing you need to add or prepare for. Okay, say you had neglected all of that, then wouldn't it still be important for you to at least talk about the recent debates on search engine results? As far as I know, it constituted a large part of your intent to make this RfC proposal. However, for some reason, you didn't bring this up! So, I wouldn't say it is at all ridiculous for me to suspect this whole thing is set up to fail despite my trust of your character and professionalism. Anyhow, I've some time to spare for this tonight. I'll try to add at least part of what I planned to discuss. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, I opened this sub-section for the purpose of presenting the more recent arguments/analyses of involved editors who are regulars of this talk page and have been discussing about this topic for a while.

The following is my piece and I will more add to it over the next few days. Other regulars are welcomed to present their own ideas in this section as well. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Arguments of Bobthefish2

On "Pinnacle Islands" is not the same as "Senkaku Islands": Analysis This argument was the principle rationale of the opposing the name change in move request #2 and about half of the "oppose" votes cited it as the exclusive rationale for their votes. However, subsequent discussions (1)(2) suggested this argument may not in fact valid. If one is interested in the specific sources used to refute this controversial argument, they can be found in the discussions I've cited. For our convenience, the results from Google book search is more than enough to contradict the false notion that Pinnacle Islands and Senkaku Islands are not aliases of each other. While one can say that the refutation of this false notion is insignificant to the greater issue, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight it was the chief reason used by many naysayers in the past in an RfC's like this - Hopefully, participants of this RfC will not exercise efforts that show similar perfunctory quality. On 'Japanese control of the Islands': Analysis The question of whether or not Japan controls the islands is not as clear as what some would assert. As an user pointed out, the islands are currently uninhabited. While Japanese naval ships occasionally patrol those waters, naval vessels from both Chinese governments had entered those waters on their own accord (1)(2). Chinese civilians (mostly fishermen) had also made numerous trips to the dispute territory without acknowledging the authority of Japanese coast guards, which includes the most recent incident. While some may want to equate this circumstance to that of the Falkland Islands in terms of their status, it is not actually proper to do so. Despite the conflicting claims of the Argentine and British governments, the Falkland Islands differ from the islands in questions on several important factors: - The Falkland Islands are inhabited - The islands have been under British control for many decades before the World Wars - The Argentine government has not contested the islands' sovereignty through physical action since its last defeat 20 years ago. - Britain, unlike Japan, was a victorious power of World War II Similarly, the circumstances of the Kuril Islands are also not the same due to the following: - USSR formally annexed the territory during World War II - USSR, unlike Japan, was a victorious power of World War II - Russia is the successor state of USSR and has suffered no unauthorized sojourns by Japanese military With this said, the degree at which Japan controls these islands is not strong at all since they are unable to prevent Chinese ships from entering and neither the Chinese governments nor fishermen acknowledged Japanese authority. More importantly, the islands are uninhabited and there is a distinct lack of official recognition of Japanese control by any other nation (including the U.S.). Since this argument of "territorial control" is the original rationale of changing the article's name to "Senkaku Islands" 4 years ago. I'd advocate special attention to be given to this. After all, if this idea of "territorial control" is a weak argument, then the original renaming of the article should not be allowed to stay. On "search engine results" and "common name usage": Analysis Numerous discussions have been made about the relative degree of usage for "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyu Islands", "Pinnacle Islands", and other synonyms (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). They are almost all search engine based. While some favour one name, others favour another. One can look through the references I linked to if interested, although they overlap significantly with the more recent analyses made by regular editors of this page. In a recent discussion on the relative usage of the various aliases, a number of editors have collected some statistics on search engine outputs. In general, the results differ depending on how the search parameters were used (which is expected). The following is a listing of all the collected data from that thread formated as [Searching Mechanism] - [Keywords]: [Results] || [Time of Retrieval] Search Engine Results from Recent Discussion Google - Diaoyu: About 3,460,000 results (0.12 seconds) || 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google - Senkaku: About 842,000 results (0.19 seconds) || 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Diaoyu" and "islands": 72,200 hits || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Senkaku" and "Islands": 83,000 hits. || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Diaoyu" and "Island": 66,200 hits || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Senkaku" and "Island": 74,200 hits. || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Diaoyu Islands": 64,000 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Senkaku Islands": 72,800 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Diaoyu Island": 27,600 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Senkaku Island": 2,470 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Pinnacle Islands": 3590 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google (English) - "Pinnacle Island": 5450 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google News - "Diaoyu": 1570 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google News - "Senkaku": 1710 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Yahoo News - "Diaoyu": 2224 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Yahoo News - "Senkaku": 2367 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Bing News - "Diaoyu": 2230 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Bing News - "Senkaku": 2220 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar on items since 1991 - (Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu) AND islands: 1,700 || 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar on items since 1991 - Senkaku AND islands: 1,220 || 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar on items since 2000 - (Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu) AND islands: 1,700 || 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar on items since 2000 - Senkaku AND islands: 1,270 || 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Google News for English articles in India - "Senkaku Islands": 27 || 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Google News for English articles in India - "Diaoyu Islands": 17 || 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Google News for English articles in India - Both "Senkaku Islands" and "Diaoyu Islands": 13 || 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Google in Philippines - diaoyutai OR diaoyu -diaoyu-castle -guesthouse -hotel: 2,110,000 || 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Google in Philippines - senkaku: 895,000 || 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar - Senkaku Islands = 1270 || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar# - (Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu) AND Islands = 1270 || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar# - Senkaku Islands -Diaoyu -Diaoyutai -Tiaoyutai -Tiaoyu = 434 ## || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar# - Islands Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu -Senkaku = 441 ### || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar# - Senkaku Islands Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu = 837 || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Since Google Scholar doesn't support "OR" and "-", this was accounted for manually by User:Qwyrxian || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) (Note that at least 17 are non English (mostly Korean and Japanese)) || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) (Note that at least 32 are non English (mostly Chinese)) || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Here are a couple of search results I've retrieved just now: Google - diaoyu -state -guesthouse -guest -house -fishing -fish: About 5,980,000 Google - senkaku: About 758,000 Anyhow, the general trend of these results is that both names are very frequently used. While one can cook up their own favourite type of results by tinkering with the search methodologies or doing their searches in India or Philippines, the Japanese name does not consistently dominate over the Chinese name. In numerous cases, the Chinese name is more frequently found than the Japanese name. In most cases where the Japanese name does happen to generate more hits, the difference in hits is usually small compared to the total number of hits returned. So, suppose we are indeed following the Wikipedia guideline in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name, then the results that were retrieve do not seem to clearly suggest the "Senkaku Islands" is unambiguously the most commonly-used name for this geographic entity. Now of course, one can legitimately raise a concern regarding the reliability of search engine results. My answer to that is: Search engine results are indeed imperfect and can be highly biased as a result of search heuristics (which, in Google's case, is a top secret). In addition, word-usage in web documents may not be reflective of the overall distribution of word-types/token frequency in the English language. Another factor compounding this issue is that some articles are generally more important than others (such as BBC vs a minor local newspaper in New Zealand). On the other hand, it is one of the only tractable strategies in approximating word usage in a language and is the method cited when the "common word usage" argument was first brought up. With all this said, my inclination is that the argument that "Senkaku Island" is unambiguously the most commonly-used name is not really true especially if we look at the issue at a search engine level (which, again, was the platform of the previous debates). At the same time, it is important to note that practically all major English media outlets such as BBC, CNN, The Huffington Post, NY Times, and so on, have a habit of using both names. Not surprisngly, even Google Map now uses both names. While Wikipedia has no obligation in following the lead of any of these media or organizations, this observation is definitely worth noting. On 'International Law': (To be continued...) —— Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Work in Progess...

We are not the judge so I do not think we can do this based on reference to international law. People will not agree to this unless it is decided by the ICJ. I suggest we simply list the search results (with links for readers to verify) as the first step? i.e. simply a list of search results, without any comment first. Once we agree to the results we can proceed on the discussion around the interpretation. San9663 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have listed practically all the search results we've done. They can be found in my collapsible block. As Qwyrxian has noted, this RfC is not a voting session, so I encourage everyone to read my comments (which are still in progress) and provide feedback. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)