Talk:Senkaku Islands

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 WP: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, Liancourt 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)

@btf2 & san: To me, while it's a "compromise" (obviously that's how the news agencies using it feel), it's not a compromise that is fitting for Wikipedia. I don't think that any decision we make locally can or should be able to override what is a clear, site-wide consensus. One thing I'm opposed to across Wikipedia is local groups just assuming that their situation is special, and that means they can just bend or break the rules because "obviously" their case is "special." I think that a local group (whether it's a nexus of articles controlled by "owners", an individual article, or a Wikiproject) needs to get a wider consensus to make changes that don't meet general site-wide precedence. You're both correct that the guidelines says one name is preferable, but I'd argue that the clear precedent is that one name is mandatory. Otherwise, a dual name solution would have been used in other, far more contentious situations. To me, it's no different then the rules that we can't invent our own name, or use a non-English name.

As far as proceeding with that option--I guess that if we got a consensus here that a dual name was the best, then we would have to take that dual name to the rest of Wikipedia. Wait, actually, first we'd have to agree on the order of the two names.

And finally, two other thing Btf2 mentioned. One, that the article was "renamed" to Senkaku. This is not a real issue. If that rename had happened last week, or last month, or whatever, it might be argued to have been done in bad faith or against policies. But, at 4 years ago, it has literally no relevance to deciding the name today. The consensus held for 4 years--that's enough. As for the two names being equal...well, yes, I agree that they're almost equal, but policy says we need to pick a name, and it even says that we can pick the one that is slightly higher even by slightly arbitrary reasons. We have to have a name. As a side note, I really wish someone would look at other modern encyclopedias and see what they say. I'll have the chance to do that, but not for more than a month. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to differentiate between a compromise that fits Wikipedia and a compromise that fits your preference. As San9663 has pointed out, Wikipedia did not forbid this type of dual-name usage. As a result, no rules are bent or exceptions made. Since this point has been repeated for numerous times, I want this to be made clear so that we don't have to waste time going at it again.

To repeat myself: The use of dual names do not bend or violate Wikipedia policies.

You don't need to be sarcastic about the dual name options. Of course, we know the dual name options will not have a consensus. Let us be frank: A great number of people would want nothing less than "Senkaku Islands" being used for no better reason than their cultural preferences. As for the name-ordering, it is already made clear that at least some of us (including San9663 and myself) here do not care. At the same time, you need to be aware that "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" is much less suggestive of Wikipedia's position on sovereignty than say "Senkaku Islands". Even though future editors may still dispute the ordering of two names, the usage of this dual name decreases the degree of WP:NPOV violation which is GOOD. Can you tell me why it is not a good idea to make an existing problem smaller?

I don't see a problem scrutinizing a decision made 4 years ago. No, there was no consensus. It was simply moved despite a lot of opposition (for reference, please check archives). If something's done incorrectly, there's no reason to let the mistake remain regardless of how long ago the event happened.

Finally, please don't get into the "my name is more common because I skewed my search parameters" crap because I can pull the same to support my favourite name and San9663 can pull the same to support his favourite name. The data from all of our searches already suggested they are approximately equal with no clear dominance of one name over another. In addition, if you think encyclopedias support your claim, then please also consider CNN, BBC, CBC, Reuters, and Google Earth.

Really, you seem to suggest that it is bad to lend approximately equal importance to terms that are practically used equally. I find that puzzling. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than continue to debate this point here based solely on our (local) interpretation, I've asked for input on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). I asked them not for help on the actual name of this article, but merely to get some input on what that policy actually means, especially since it's so negative towards dual names but seems to be explicitly not forbidding them. If "non-local" editors are willing to say that the dual name can be considered, then it is fruitful to consider it in our discussion here. As I said over there, part of my thinking is that I don't want to waste time hashing out an agreement on a dual name and then do the move just to have someone from "outside" come in and say that we can't because of what the guidelines say. See, part of the issue to me, and what I asked for clarification for, is that guidelines and policies aren't just what's explicitly written, but the implied consensus based on standard practice. If no article anywhere uses dual names, and if other articles in the past have tried to use dual names and failed, then that's a pretty good indication that the overall consensus is that they shouldn't be used. Maybe Bob and San are right--maybe the way the dual name is used in news sites is sufficient to make our case an exception. I don't see it, but I need to understand, at a level outside of this article, just how "special" our article needs to be to be considered an "acceptable exception." Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let me quote myself:

To repeat myself: The use of dual names do not bend or violate Wikipedia policies.

With that said, we are not talking about any kind of exception.

For reference, here's a relevant section of the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names):

Multiple local names 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; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine. 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. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have. We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive. This has been done, for example, with the communes of the province of Bolzano-Bozen, based on an officially published linguistic survey of the area (see Italy below). 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, Wikipedia's version of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute has been resolved by naming the city page Derry and the county page County Londonderry.

To give you an example, here's a dual name: Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen

However, I agree that it would be prudent to double check policy first. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Several discrete time points are meaningful and related:

A. Qwyrxian's explanation above is consistent with an earlier restatement here.

B. In an attempt to engage discussion on this very point, it was made explicit in a dispute matrix or wikitable format here.

C. 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)

Tenmei's requests for commentary

The following diff and response were copied from User talk:Tenmei.

I noticed you posted requests for commentary on a number of users' talk pages regarding the Senkaku Islands naming issue. My caution is that the selection of users you chose already have a pre-defined opinion on the issue (especially for John Smith's, who had already made clear his position). Since this RfC is about getting opinions of new people, I'd suggest you to instead get the attention of other non-regular users from Project China or Project Japan that you trust to be able to make objective analysis.

At the same time, you'd also want to see if WP:canvass applies to RfC's. If so, you may want to avoid doing that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- No, this illustrates a common English idiom — barking up the wrong tree.

If you review the RfC thread, you will notice that each of the ones I contacted were contributors in only one narrow section of Talk:Senkaku Islands. If you re-visit the edit history of Talk:Senkaku Islands#What should the title of this article be?, you may notice that the blandly written messages were serially posted in the same chronological order as each of the participants' initial edits. No, there was nothing wrong. This was a good thing to do.

Yes, I am aware of WP:Canvass, but this was not canvassing in any sense.

What is more relevant are these factors:

• Bobthefish2 -- You have rightly complained that the RfC comments thus far were too limited, too superficial.
• Bobthefish2 -- You arguably anticipated more engagement and greater dialog; and I had hoped for more, too.
• Bobthefish2 -- In response to your express concerns, I invited further involvement from those who might have been inclined to think that, having already posted one diff, there was no need to re-visit any issues which might have been overlooked.

Please re-read the carefully drafted message which invited explicitly constructive responses to a question you have identified as an alternate way of expressing a core issue. I invite no specific action other than expanding the scope and quality of discussion. My overview comment is neutrally presented, identifying only the history which underscores this as one crux of disagreement.

On further reflection, perhaps you will come to see that this is precisely the kind of timely invitation which enhances our prospects for developing a broader consensus.

As an acknowledgement of this misunderstanding, I can do no more than to copy this to the RfC thread. This creates an opportunity for others to help me make better guesses about how this perceived problem might have been avoided. Perhaps there will be suggestions about how I could have written differently --Tenmei (talk) 22:21, 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)

Joint Name (Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku)

Okay, feedback at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) indicates that the editors there seem to think that an exception could be carved out to allow a dual name. Based on comments I made which seemed to be well received, the key reason that we could (note: not have to, just could) use it here would be if that specific name itself is used in the relevant reliable sources. That is, we shouldn't choose it as a compromise name, but we can choose it if, in fact, it appears that the name itself is "Senkaku/Diaoyu" or vice versa. So, that brings us back to the question of whether or not that specific name is used. Note that this is not the same as asking if articles regularly use both names ("Called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China."). I just did a quick Google search; I got 13,100 hits. However, a quick check shows that this also includes results like "Senkaku, Diaoyu" (like this) and "Senkaku (Diaoyu)" (like this). That doesn't seem the same to me (the first is a grammatical issue, the second clearly gives precedence to Senkaku that the slash-version does not). We'd have to go through and count by hand. But, a further search: I search Google News Archives with "Senkaku/Diaoyu", and I only get 161 hits. That's only about 5% of the hits that we get for either Senkaku or Diaoyu separately. This makes me question: is this hybrid name really a common appellation? What am I missing here? Did I do something wrong in the search results?01:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for putting your time into this. I didn't participate because I overlooked your link. As for the discussion in the naming conventions page, I don't think any of the editors who replied requested such a course of action. On the other hand, they've already noted the applicability of the compromise that was proposed by San9663 and myself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your message confuses me. What course of action? And none of them commented on this name being okay for this article--they simply commented on whether dual names were correct when there are sources supporting them. Qwyrxian

Let's see.

For me it's not so much the possibility of arguments over the order that's the problem; it's the possibility that once we start, people will start proposing this "solution" for all sorts of cases where there isn't really a problem to solve (Gdańsk/Danzig, Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna, Londonderry/Derry, Burma/Myanmar, Oder/Odra and so on - thousands of other places have alternative names) - I suppose we could name articles like this, it wouldn't be an entirely bad style, but we must be aware that once we start it will be hard to stop.--Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable exception; let us know if compromise is attainable on those grounds. In fact, I have included a very limited statement on the acceptability of Biel/Bienne, since nobody seems to be disputing it on any grounds outside this guideline. If anybody can think of more restrictions, feel free to pile on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, this is a warning, not a prohibition. If you think you can get genuine consensus on a dual name, without perpetual move requests, and with a clear answer to newbies who want the name they were taught in middle school, there's nothing here to make it pointles to suggest it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 08:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- The word "compromise" has a mutable meaning, but it doesn't follow from any general observations posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) nor Wiktionary that "they've already noted the applicability of the compromise that was proposed by San9663 and myself." Please clarify by pointing out the specific sentences which inform this clause.

It is possible that I may have misread or misconstrued something. Alternately, is is not also possible that your interpretatoin misallocates one or more of the significant decision-making factors which were identified in this relatively short discussion thread? --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a hybrid name as being common or especially helpful - it would just lead to arguments about which way around the names should go. Best to stick with what we have an move on. That was the view of almost everyone who participated in the RfC. (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case this page would need three names, since the name "Diaoyutai" and not "Diaoyu" is used in Taiwan. I think it's unworkable.--Jiang (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My thinking was very much affected by one sentence John Smith's added here in mid-October:

"It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the 'right' answer."

IMO, the word "ridiculous" was obviously off-target, wrong in every significant way; but my strong reflexive response only served to focus attention on the rest of the sentence. The sentence solidified my belief that, in fact, the tactical step of "proposing name changes until people come up with the 'right answer'" was strategically sound; but I didn't really "get it" until San9663's subsequent edits clarified the insight. In simple terms, our "name change" discussion about Senkaku Islands is a moving target -- not a static issue.

Google algorithm. The Google search algorithm is based on "hits"; and this is the crucial factor which explains why the numbers have changed as they have in the past six months.

A. The argument put forward by Bobthefish2 and San9663 is based on an appealing and generally accepted premise -- that Google search results are a useful indicator of current English usage and that the algorithm is not being manipulated to achieve any specific goals. This arguable proposition is dubious.

B. Qwyrxian appears to have accepted the theory that previous Google searches were somehow flawed and that we need to repeat them ad nauseam in order to resolve those perceived mistakes. This arguable proposition is also dubious.

In the context which has evolved, the word "compromise" is misleading. It may be ridiculous too.

It is constructive and timely to acknowledge this openly. --Tenmei (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree in part with what you say/imply (that there needs to be a limit to the act of proposing name changes), the previous search results were fundamentally flawed, not because of changes in the internet over time, but because of searching methods--they didn't correctly exclude or include the right terms. While the small changes are certainly part of the expected fluctuation over time, that wasn't what we saw. The previous results showed an almost 3 to 1 numerical favor for Senkaku. Current results show a slight favor for Senkaku. That can't just be the result of changes in Google's algorithm. Furthermore, we actually identified the mistake in the previous results; unfortunately, I don't remember what that was (something about using the wrong term). So, yes, it's not appropriate to just keep redoing results until one side is satisfied, but it is appropriate to make sure that we have at least 1 accurate set of results.

As a side note, I mentioned before (here or on my talk page) that in about 1 month I will have access to a university library. At that time I'll see what information I can get about print encyclopedias, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, @Jiang, your comment about Diaoyutai is not correct. I mean, it's correct that that is the name used in Taiwan, but it has no bearing on this discussion, because that name is used much more rarely in English. The only reason we're even considering (and, again, I'm still not comfortable with this, especially given my numbers above) a dual name is because articles in reliable English sources themselves use a dual name. I don't recall ever seeing an article that says "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai" or even "islands called Senkaku in Japan, Diaoyu in China, and Diaoyutai in the Republic of China." We're not considering the name as a compromise between various possible choices, we're considering it as an actually used name. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are not insinuating that I am "redoing results until my POV is satisfied", because in that previous discussion we had, you were the one who were "unconvinced" with the search results provided by others and had to keep redoing the searches with all sorts of parameters until you found some output from India that somehow supported whatever position you preferred.

I'd also caution you that there is nothing called an "accurate set of results" when it comes to search engine output. If there is, then linguists in the field would've based their corpora entirely on Google. Since I've commented on this with a great deal of detail in the past, I assume you should be able to remember what I said

At the same time, I still do not see a convincing argument coming from any party here that suggests "Senkaku Islands" must be the name to be used. The fact that it has been the status quo for 4 years isn't a good excuse. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, San9663's argument was convincing and conclusive about the significance of earlier mistakes. We don't need to revisit it.

• Yes, I do not dispute that San9663's research was constructive, persuasive, appropriate; but there was also another significant factor which was given inadequate attention in the context of questions about methodology.
• Yes, I do not dispute that Qwyrxian was correct to investigate further based on this demonstrated, relevant problem with the data on which earlier consensus had been reached.

However, please recall that I did try to introduce this factor into our discussions at Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#Logical fallacy. No harm is caused by delay in pressing this issue; and in fact, it may still be premature. --Tenmei (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You should be careful about supporting one's "questions about methodology" when he has yet to make any actual arguments to support such allegations. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Judging by google hits as the basis for "most common in English" we would be using "Diaoyu Island" as the sole name for this article. Keeping Senkaku would be for the sake of political compromise, and for the same reasons, Diaoyutai would also fall into place. There are 8 million hits for diaoyu, and 400 thousand for Senkaku, wikipedia excluded. I suspect though that this is a function of how much text each country throws onto the internet. What does a Jstor search reveal?

I think this name change is more trouble than it's worth and should be avoided.--Jiang (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost any controversial issues is a lot of trouble with little actual reward for those who'd try to promote WP:NPOV there. Guess we should all avoid battleground topics then? Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jiang, please redo those searches and search only for Diaoyu Islands and Senkaku Islands, because Diaoyu also refers to some cities, parks, and other things beyond just the islands (as far as I know, Senkaku isn't used for anything other than the Islands, but I could be wrong). Plus, I don't know where you're searching. Google gives 532,000+ hits on Diaoyu, 366,000+ on Senkaku, 75,500 on "Diaoyu Islands", and 555,000 on "Senkaku Islands". Proving, if nothing else that, once again, main Google is not the best place to do a search (it obviously makes no sense that Senkaku + Islands gets more hits than Senkaku alone). I'm not going to redo the searches, but in a collapse box above BtF2 has a list of what we found before using other terms, on Google News, Google Scholar, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To BobtheFish2: Not sure if you meant me or Tenmei, but I'm certainly not implying you're redoing the search results until you get the result you want. I don't think Tenmei is either, but, alas, it's harder for me to tell, there.

But back to something above. Can anyone point to convincing results (search results or anything else) that 1) shows that S/D or D/S is a common English name, at least as common if not more common than either S or D separately, and 2) helps us know which order is more common? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot locate searches above. Here are mine, redone as you requested:

• diaoyu island -wikipedia 840000
• senkaku -wikipedia 422000
• diaoyutai islands OR tiaoyutai islands -wikipedia 104000

--Jiang (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem--it's the use of the "NOT" (-). Google does something very strange with "NOT" results when combine with more than one word that shows us, yet again, how difficult it is to use Google as our primary mechanism. As an example, compare Diaoyu Island = 67,100 and Diaoyu Island -Wikipedia = 396,000. Obviously, the "NOT" does not work right; if it did, every plain search would yield more results than a search with a negative term. "NOT" does work Google News and Google Scholar, for some reason. Yet another reason why we usually prefer other search mechanisms than plain Google. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names: "Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test"

In our good faith efforts to identify a wiki-appropriate name for our article about disputed islands, the following restatements of wiki-policy are significant:

• WP:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies
  • WP:Search engine test#Verifiability
  • WP:Search engine test#Neutrality
  • WP:Search engine test#Notability

We can each recall reading news stories about manipulating search engine results. The subject is becoming noteworthy, for example:

• Major/Systemic. Sawer, Patrick. "Wikileaks: Top Chinese officials ordered attack on Google, Wikileaks cables claim," The Telegraph (UK). December 4, 2010; excerpt, "Classified information sent by US diplomats to the State Department in Washington and published on WikiLeaks, claims that ... the attack on Google was orchestrated by Communist party leaders. ... The cyber assault was described to the Americans by a high-level Chinese source as '100% political in nature' and having 'nothing to do with removing Google... as a competitor to Chinese search engines'"; "Cables Discuss Vast Hacking by a China That Fears the Web," China Digital Times (US). December 7, 2010.
  • Cullifer, Bill. "China’s Internet ‘Hijacking’ Creates Worries," Webprofessionals.org (US) (World Organization of Webmasters). November 27, 2010; excerpt, " ... a congressionally chartered commission released a report about what China’s rise means for the U.S. economy and security. Included in the findings were the details of a little-known incident involving the hijacking of online data by a firm owned by the Chinese government"; "Report States China Hijacked 15% of Internet, China Rejects Allegations," China Digital Times (US). November 19, 2010.
• Minor/Local. Segal, David. "A Bully Finds a Pulpit on the Web," New York Times (US). November 28, 2020; excerpt, "Google is just cagey about everything ... because the company is perpetually worried that the more it reveals about the vaunted mathematical formula it uses to drive search results, the more people will try to game it."

See also Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine limitations - technical notes As I explained in an earlier diff: IMO, no harm is caused by delay in pressing this issue; and in fact, it may still be premature. --Tenmei (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor change for legibility purposes

If no-one objects, I will clarify the 1st sentence of the 1sy paragraph under heading "Names" by rearranging the words to shorten the sentence. The intended change is as follows :

Original : "...first recorded name of the islands, Diaoyu, used in books such as..."

Clarified sentence : "...first recorded name of the islands was Diaoyu. It was used in books such as ..."

I will change it tomorrow if no objections Marcopolo112233 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've made that change and a further one in the same section. John Smith's (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming section

Ok, Tenmei, I don't understand fully what you're trying to say. Can you please write out what Isaac Titsingh did with regard to the name of the Senkaku Islands and Europe? At the moment it suggests he brought a book or books back to Europe. There's no explanation of why the books were brought back, what they said, how they were distributed (if at all), etc.

Can you just start from scratch and write out here what he did and why it is important.

Similarly what's the story with Edward Belcher and what is "Pinnacle Island"?

I think the whole naming section is problematic and is a collection of random "facts". I'm not even sure that these facts are all correct. Can someone confirm, for example, where the potentially controversial statement The collective use of the name "Senkaku" to denote the entire group began with the advent of the controversy in the 1970s is supported? The link in the citation doesn't seem to direct me to anything useful. John Smith's (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's -- Does the article need a timeline summary like this?

Timeline

• 1796 Isaac Titsingh returns to Europe, importing Japanese history books written and published in context of non-Eurocentric (Japanese) historiography. Among these books is Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説, An Illustrated Description of Three Countries) by Hayashi Shihei (1738–93). The book includes the first published reference to islands in East China Sea which can be examined directly and studied by European scholars such as William Marsden in London and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat in Paris.
• 1832 Julius Klaproth publishes posthumous translation of Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu in French
• 1848 first published reference in book published in English

A 1785 map in Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説) by Hayashi Shihei --- see digitized original, Waseda University [1] 三国通覧図説.

John Smith's -- Perhaps I can do no better than to respond seriatim to your questions:

A. "...what Isaac Titsingh did with regard to the name of the Senkaku Islands and Europe? At the moment it suggests he brought a book or books back to Europe."</ref>

Yes, one book mentioning the East China Sea islands — (a) text written by a non-European historian, and also (b) text discussed by Western scholars in European settings

B. There's no explanation of why the books were brought back, what they said, how they were distributed (if at all), etc.

Yes, no explanation or analysis is presented in this "Names" section. Rémusat added the original to the collection of the Bibliotheque Nationale; and the 1832 books was distributed by subscription. I don't construe this contextual information as relevant in the narrow context of this article.

C. "... what's the story with Edward Belcher and what is 'Pinnacle Island'?"

Yes, the facts set forth in the one-sentence paragraph are clear, accurate, and supported by citations from reliable sources (with embedded hyperlinks to make double-checking easy and straightforward).

• "The first reference to the islands in a book published in English was Edward Belcher's 1848 account of the voyages of HMS Sammarang<:ref>Suganuma, Unryu. (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations, pp. 87, 89-90, p. 87, at Google Books; excerpt at bottom of page, "The first book recording the name of the Diaoyu Islands in the English language was written by Sir Edward Belcher, the captain of the British battleships Samarang in 1843."</ref>
• "... which anchored off Pinnacle Island in 1845." <:ref>Belcher, Edward. (1848). Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Samarang, Vols. I-II, pp. 316-318, 573., p. 316, at Google Books; excerpt at bottom of page, "Having embarked our instruments in the morning, and obtained another station on the Pinnacle Island, we rejoined the ship." Compare 1st sentence of our article, "The Senkaku Islands ... or the Pinnacle Islands, are a group of disputed uninhabited islands in the East China Sea."</ref> See also <:ref>Belcher, Vol. I, pp. 317-318., p. 317, at Google Books; and <:ref>Belcher, Vol. II, p. 573., p. 573, at Google Books.

D Can someone confirm, for example, where the potentially controversial statement The collective use of the name "Senkaku" to denote the entire group began with the advent of the controversy in the 1970s is supported?

Yes, see "advent" I don't understand this question. The direct relationship between the sentence in our article and the explicitly cited source could not be more on-point. This was supposed to become like the grain of sand around which a pearl is developed over time.

Strategy. A review of the edit history of Senkaku Islands will show that this section was not created by me. I discerned an unstated purpose in this section; and my guess was that it was initially intended to further a specific, non-neutral point of view. The additions I contributed were designed to begin a process of mitigating any perceived flaws and to establish a potentially useful model for assessing the academic credibility and consequences of assertions about these islands. As a closer examination reveals, there is no contemporary POV in the paragraphs which are deconstructed in A+B+C+D above. The way in which each element of each sentence is supported per WP:V becomes a kind of small step towards a generalized model of scholarly transparence. For example, in the above

• the context of the reliable source is expanded in order to assess the degree of weight which should be accorded in the context of a specific section of our article
• the specific sentences in the reliable source are made explicit on request, etc.

IMO, this section was already an essential element of this article before my participation began; and the significance of this section is underscored in the arguments which are to be found at Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Tenmei

Names in Early Historical Context of Senkaku Islands

I am unsure as to why you made this change where you deleted a mention of how the early Japanese text 順風相送 referred the island as "Diaoyu". While I suggested to keep the name usage as neutral as possible, I believe what the island was first called is quite relevant. If you feel the need to add in a Japanese-usage reference, feel free to dig up some legacy European-drawn Asian map that uses Senkaku Islands instead.

I am not going to revert your changes since I don't want to bother with page-long discussion, but this is something for you to think about. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2-- This edit responded explicitly to the questions John Smith's asked above; and the context was informed by Cla68's addition of a "modern history" section heading here and here.

As originally conceived, the "Names" section appeared to be an element of Senkaku Islands dispute, but a slightly refocused text presents the same information as the historical background against which that contemporary dispute becomes a silhouetted issue. In other words, minor word changes are consistent with a non-controversial plan mirroring an etymological development section in the Oxford English Dictionary

• ¶1: Earliest reference to minor geographical features of the East China Sea, 1403–1534
• ¶2: Earliest reference in the West, 1796–1832
• ¶3: Earliest reference in any English-language source, 1848
• ¶4: Early references in British Admiralty sources, 1870-1880
• ¶5: Early references in Japanese sources, 1900-1950s
• ¶6: Earliest reference using collective proper noun, 1970s

Bobthefish2 -- Your question focuses our attention on a short paragraph without in-line citations or bibliographic reference source supports. As formerly drafted, the sole subject of this paragraph was the name "Diayou". As re-drafted, the subject is two Chinese books or the earliest recorded references to islands which are the subject of a dispute in the 21st century. You will have noticed that the somewhat unclear concluding sentence in this paragraph remains unedited for now.

• Former:
  

"The first recorded name of the islands was Diaoyu. It was used in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù), dated 1403 and 1534 respectively.

• Re-drafted:
  

The earliest recorded mention of these islands is found in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) (1403) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù) (1534).

Now that the point is emphasized with a question, I can see how the 21st century argument requires that the former opening sentence is restored; and this has been done here as supplementary amplification of the paragraph subject sentence.

In addition, please note that "citation needed templates" were added to all sentences in this section which do not have verifying support.

Bobthefish2 -- This explanation demonstrates that my edit was mindful of the issues highlighted by discussion threads on this page and at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. I would hope this summary is construed to be consistent with WP:Burden.--Tenmei (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, this doesn't have to be so complicated if we use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE. It is good that you made changes in response to my criticism, but I much prefer the paragraph as I last saw it weeks ago. As I recall, it was much simpler and the reference to the name "Diaoyu" was directly accompanied with the a reliable source (順風相送). The sentence you added in just now had a "citation needed" bracket appended to it giving an impression that there's no supporting evidence.

If I want to manipulate the presentation of information to create an illusion of unreliability over certain elements, then I would do just that. But again, I am not going to modify any of your changes. While I have a degree of trust in your respect for WP:NPOV, potential new comers may see things differentlyBobthefish2 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Non-response is a constructive reply to needlessly provocative phrases here. Acknowledgement is married with "No".

• No. Neither 順風相送 nor 順風相送 ≠ WP:Cite
• No. There is no justification for these words: "... manipulate the presentation of information ...."
• No. Nothing justifies this phrase: "... illusion of unreliability ...."

As you know, a request for citation support is modest and reasonable, e.g.,

1. ¶1 — The earliest recorded mention of these islands is found in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) (1403) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù) (1534).
2. ¶1 — The first recorded name of the islands was Diaoyu.
3. ¶1 — Adopted by the Chinese Imperial Map of the Ming Dynasty, both the Chinese name for the island group (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) both literally mean "angling".
4. ¶5 — In 1900, when Tsune Kuroiwa, a teacher at the Okinawa Prefecture Normal School, visited the islands, he adopted the name Senkaku Retto (simplified Chinese: 尖阁列岛; traditional Chinese: 尖閣列島; pinyin: Jiāngéliè Dăo), literally Pinnacle Islands, to refer the whole island group, based on the British name.
5. ¶5 — The first official document recording the name Senkaku Retto was by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nihon Gaiko Monjo (日本外交文書, Documents on Japanese Foreign Relations) in the 1950s.
6. ¶5 — In Japanese, Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼) and Senkaku Shosho (尖閣諸嶼) were translations used for these "Pinnacle Islands" by various Japanese sources.
7. ¶5 — Subsequently, the entire island group came to be called Senkaku Rettō, which later evolved into Senkaku Shotō.

There is nothing unconventional nor out-of-the-ordinary in adding as a tag for sentences without inline citation support per WP:V + WP:Cite. --Tenmei (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can you condense what you just wrote into 2 sentences? Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Non-response is the only constructive reply to the disingenuous question here. Acknowledgement is married with "No". --Tenmei (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't help me adequately understand what you are attempting to express. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Almanacs

As I had mentioned before, I said that when I had the chance, I would check a university library for more background on the naming issue. I was able to check a number of almanacs, but, unfortunately, did not have time to check encyclopedias (research I was doing for real life writing needs took precedence, sorry). I checked every international geographical Atlas published after 2000 that I could find in the main "map" section of the UC library I was at. Many of the atlases didn't list the islands at all (they are, after all, not really all that important to anyone other than the principals). The 5 atlases that included a name for these islands were:

Concise Atlas of the World, Dorling Kindersley, 5th edition, 2008 The Great World Atlas, Dorling Kindersley, 2nd Edition, 2002 Oxford Essential World Atlas', Oxford University Press, 5th edition 2008 Touring Club Italiano nuovissimo Atlanti Geogratico Mondiale', Touring Club Italiano, 2002 National Geographic Atlas of the World, 8th Edition, 2004

In all 5 maps, the only name that appeared was Senkaku-shoto. None listed an alternate name on the map itself. In Oxford, the name Diaoyu Island was listed in the index (it said Diaoyu Tai = Senkaku Shoto); none of the rest listed Diaoyutai, Diaoyu, Tiaoyu, or any other variant that I could find in their indexes. To clarify, the Touring Club Italiano gave the name as "Isole Senkaku", as the atlas was in Italian.

For additional info, both the 2 DK atlases wrote on the map "Senkaku-shoto", and underneath it said "claimed by China, Japan, and Taiwan"; the Touring Italiano said "Isole Senkaku", and underneath said "GIAPPONE rivend. da Corea del Sud e Giappone" (this makes me doubt this atlas a little, since I think that says that it's disputed with South Korea, which is of course not at all true), and National Geogrpahic said "Senkaku Shoto" and afterward said "Administered by Japan/Claimed by China and Taiwan").

Again, apologies that I couldn't check the encyclopedias; I really wish I had access to an English university library all of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a map I found about 3 months ago in the American Geographic Society Library. It dates back to 1818 and recorded the islands as "Tiaoyuou". There are other links to other maps I saved somewhere, but I haven't had the time to look through them yet. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dual-name usage in text, captions and table

This section re-introduces an archived thread; and it re-engages issues which have been held in abeyance for two months.

November 2010

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 .... John Smith's (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010

January 2011

The neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith's in this diff were valid in November. The passing of time has in no way diminished the correctness of the modest edits which were proposed. No good reason for further procrastination been put forward. I endorse these modest changes, especially in light of the newly added "Geography" section here at Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a huge thread about this issue with numerous debates. If you are to say John Smith's was right and those who disagreed with him were wrong, then you may want to point out the specific reasons.

Also, the content in the geography section is not new at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Responding to your two points,

A> No, this thread does not present a "right/wrong" dichotomy.

The misconception and duality implied by the word "right" is both inaccurate and unhelpful. Issues of "right" or "not right" can only be resolved in real world venues outside the scope of our Wikipedia project. The explicit term used was "valid" meaning "verifiable". In other words, John Smith's words are valid and congruent with WP:Five Pillars. Subsequent talk page threads clarified the validity of John Smith's's analysis here and here. In the alternative, no subsequent investigation has served to invalidate the conclusory statements John Smith's put forward in October 2010 and in November 2010. We have invested more than enough time and discussion in going around the mulberry bush.

Going around the mulberry bush tends to happen when people decide to ignore issues addressed in the past or try to unnecessarily complicate matters. What I've said earlier was clear and perfectly reasonable. I don't see any cause to start a fuss about it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

B> No, the quibble here about the content of Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Geography is a red herring.

As you know, (a) the "Geography" section (with its table) was added here in January 2001; the edit was proposed here in November 2010.

This thread highlights a number of related edits which have been on hold. In the intervening period, neither extra research nor an RfC has produced persuasive reasons for further delay.

The modest changes John Smith's proposed in October may now proceed without diminishing any open-ended prospective edits at Senkaku Islands dispute and on-going discussions at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This "new" Geography section that was "added" was almost directly copied and pasted from another page and that section existed for a very long time there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's comment

I very strongly disagree with half of the changes you just made. I think that removing the second name from the image caption was correct, in that I don't believe that we should use both names in every time we have the opportunity. However, moving the one mention of the Chinese names to the references section is extremely POV and a misunderstanding of consensus. I guess I have to go back and look again, but I am pretty sure that John Smith never advocated hiding the one and only mention of the Chinese names for individual items down in the references section. I would prefer that User:Tenmei self-revert or fix that part themselves, as I don't want this article getting locked for edit warring, but I will make the change myself as I believe this change is against consensus. I believe the best solution for the table would be 2 columns, labeled "Japanese name" and "Chinese name". Actually, are there separate Taiwanese names? If so, three columns. But putting them down in the references section is POV--just like we have the main name (Diaoyu) listed right in the lead, so should the Chinese names be in the main table. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Without actively tracking Tenmei's activities, I've already noticed a few other things he did or proposed to do:

1. Have Japanese names go first in the table of names

2. Remove reference to an early Japanese book dated in the 19th century that cited the usage of the name "Diaoyu"

3. Remove the reference of the name Diaoyu being used in early history

I don't know, but that sounds like what a POV-pusher would do... Oh yeah.. he did give me a reply when I asked him about some of these issues and his style of writing makes it very hard for others to interpret what his reasonings. Maybe you can give that a try. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- Please look again at the article. Japanese and Chinese names are fully explained in the introductory paragraph; and the context of dispute is clarified and expanded in the other paragraphs of the introduction and the infobox. This represents a full and sufficient identification of an unresolved naming dispute. In addition, the Chinese alternative naming is specifically explained by explicit inline notes in the context of the table. No inappropriate bias or confusion is contrived or implied.

Please explain again in different words. I don't understand the following sentences:

Qwyrxian's sentences

• A. "However, moving the one mention of the Chinese names to the references section is extremely POV and a misunderstanding of consensus."

Responsive analysis/rebuttal

FACT: no, the asserted Chinese names are not solely in the references section. They are explicitly presented in the 1st paragraph and in the infobox.

---

• B. "I guess I have to go back and look again, but I am pretty sure that John Smith never advocated hiding the one and only mention of the Chinese names for individual items down in the references section."

FACT: No, the asserted Chinese names are not hidden. A neutral view of this subject presumes — as does John Smith's — that the Chinese alternative names will continue to be explained in the intro and in the infobox, as can be seen in the current version of the article.

---

• C. "But putting them down in the references section is POV ...."

FACT: No, the asserted Chinese names are not "down in the references section," not "POV" ( ? )

---

• D. "... just like we have the main name (Diaoyu) listed right in the lead, so should the Chinese names be in the main table."

No, the rationale which informs what needs to appear in the lead paragraph or in the infobox is not equivalent to the factors which need to be taken into consideration in an analysis of the table.

---

Three lines indicate the express POV of Japan, the PRC and the ROC ... and "feasible region" is the intersection of disparate data sets which are undisputed in our article about the Senkaku Islands?

Qwyrxian -- In order to discuss this subject calmly and rationally, we need to be factually on the same page. In addition to the introduction, is it your view that usefulness of the infobox is arguably enhanced by the following?

1. Uotsuri Jima (a/k/a Diaoyu Dao)?
2. Taisho Jima (a/k/a Chiwei Yu)?
3. Kuba Jima (a/k/a Huangwei Yu)?
4. Kita Kojima (a/k/a Bei Xiaodao)?
5. Minami Kojima (a/k/a Nan Xiaodao)?
6. Okino Kitaiwa (a/k/a Da Bei Xiaodao)?
7. Okino Minami-iwa (a/k/a Da Nan Xiaodao)?
8. Tobise (a/k/a Yan Jiaoyan or Fei Jiaoyan)?

If so, it is not timely for me to ask you to explain the reasoning which informs that kind of personal opinion?

The research which underlies the unchanged name of this article also supports the edits you appear to misconstrue as controversial. --Tenmei (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

First, to clarify, I'm talking about the names for the individual islands, not the whole chain. All of the names for the chain are listed in the lead, as they should be. The Chinese names for the individual islands are not in the lead; neither are they in the infobox. I see the Chinese names for the individual islands in two places. One is in the middle of "Early historical context"; there placement here and within that paragraph imply that these are strictly historical names. The other place I see them are in notes 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, and 35. I believe that the chart at Senkaku Islands dispute#Geography should be copied here (although, to match the title of this article, I believe the Japanese column should come first).

I just looked back at John Smith's comment, and, more importantly, at the page as it existed after JS edited it. At that point, JS did have the Chinese names of the individual islands in the infobox. For me, that is an acceptable solution. In other words, I'm not saying we need to list both every time. But I do believe the Chinese names for the individual islands need to be listed either in the infobox or in the table in the Geography section. Are you perhaps somehow thinking that they are still in the infobox right now?

Finally, could you please stop making graphs that you believe represent our dispute or conversation or argument? You need to understand that they are only helpful for you or someone else with experience in symbolic argument, which is not the majority of WP users (including myself). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)