Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 202.108.128.130 (talk) at 12:35, 25 June 2013 (→The whole list of islands). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Senkaku Islands sanctions

Template:Copied multi

Name change suggestion

I suggest renaming the article "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" to make it more neutral.--Maps9000 (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support this suggestion to help the article's NPOV. I think a few of the admins lean towards the Japanese position, however, and locked the page the last time someone tried to rename it. Yi Ding (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, note that "neutrality" isn't quite the right way of putting it; the question is, "What name to people use when writing about the subject in English". Essentially, that is, by definition, the English name.
It is the English name because America is biased. I agree to this of changing the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBZ.LVLV (talk • contribs) 09:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you wish to pursue a renaming discussion, which is fine as long as it's done civilly, you'll need to provide evidence that when the islands are discussed in English, they are generally referred to by both names or by some sort of hybrid name. Be sure to focus especially on high quality reference works and academic sources, though journalism sources are also fine. But on the latter, you'll need to do some serious work in showing the trend; Google search numbers won't tell you anything. I recommend looking through the archives of this page to see some of the work we've done previously, along with the several RfC's we've held that each time found "Senkaku Islands" to be the standard English name. It is possible, however, that over the last several years (since the topic has become more commonly discussed in English language media) the standard usage has changed; if it has, we should change with it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reasoned response. I do think that journalists are beginning to use the names in combination more, but what you're saying does make sense. Yi Ding (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Agree. I hear more and more journalists referring to the islands as "Diaoyu" these days. --Menkus (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I will also concur that, especially in the last year, I've heard and read many journalists say something like "these uninhabited islands, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China". But we need to be sure, and we also need to account for what high quality reference/academic work says. That is, we need to follow a clear linguistic change, not jump at what may be a passing trend. I have no interest in doing the research myself, but welcome a thoughtful discussion if others are willing to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is no need to change the name of this article as long as written to be "Administered by Japan" in the infobox. Aren't those all right if exist redirects of Diaoyu, Tiaoyu, Diaoyutai, Tiaoyutai (and Senkaku), are those?--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)--(minor)--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't name articles based on who administers them, we name them based on common usage in the English language. Otherwise, Liancourt Rocks would be located at Dokdo, because I don't see Japan Self-Defence Forces stationed on that island. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, on the technical aspect. It is unfortunate that this particular usage is so closely tied to Chinese issues of perceived sovereignty. I would support Wikipedia allowing "slashed" name articles in cases as contentious as this. Although, there could be a slippery slope there. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that in this case at least, most serious news reports make it a point to use both names. I don't have any strong preference between that or the way it stands now. a13ean (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your opinions. Considering broadcasts about this area in English, the suggestion "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" is not so bad. But I'm concerned about whether it is rational, sensible and appropriate selection. We cannot be free from recent Senkaku-Diaoyu dispute as far as we think about this article's name depending on recent broadcasts. What they said and written on these islands by governments and Foreign Affairs of U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New-Zealand, ... and UN?--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to an above point, I found out fairly recently that, in fact, Wikipedia does allow slashed names. I don't recall how I found this, but we have an article Imia/Kardak. Note that I'm not suggesting that be used here, and I don't know the history behind the naming, but I just wanted to verify in good faith that it is technically possible. Of course, we can't use the name that I have seen recently, the islands called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. One thing to keep in mind is that if we somehow come to a conclusion that a slashed name is better, we would still need to determine the order. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am just hoping that it is a name that is the item this title are dealing mainly the history and geography of the islands is known. I think is not good in the title, such as first and foremost think of the territorial dispute. That, "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" in that or is suitable for the title of this article? (cf. another article, Senkaku_Islands_dispute).--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ジャコウネズミ, and other editors who came this talk page recently, I suggest reading past talks in the archives. WP:NCPLACE#Alternative names says "Wikipedia articles must have a single title". The reason we use the current title, "Senkaku Islands", is it is the name used by United States Board on Geographic Names and by nautical charts of Australia, UK, and US. Media reports are not helpful because they use the two names as basic information regarding the dispute. Oda Mari (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this, Oda Mari. I guess that settles it for now, then. I suppose this conversation would not have even come up if it weren't for recent territorial disputes. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last "RfC" (post-Arbitration) [1] was done in the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [2][3]. It actually stifled voices from other side (opposing using "Senkaku"), so that none parties from the side opposing then Qwyrxian's side took part in that "RfC". Although I strongly oppose this "RfC", I did not touch or I did not think to be worth touching the two main pages regarding the Islands and the Dispute since then. Now I unexpectedly saw some positive changes from Qwyrxian's attitude toward this naming issue after many new comers raised questions to challenge the current name. I'd like to give full AGF to Qwyrxian. The last "RfC" (post-Arbitration) has been expired on January 1, 2013. Now it may be the time to open an RfC starting from a root question to solve this years-long naming issues. This RfC was unreasonablely prohibited to open or killed on November 24, 2011[4][5]. We need to get consensus that "Senkaku" is a Japanese name or a English name for these Islands first. Then we can make effort to see which way we can go to satisfy wp's NPOV, NOR, and other related naming policies. Now I re-post my suggestted RS as follows, and the draft anyone can revises is here User:Lvhis/xI RfC. --Lvhis (talk)

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

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

Policies and guidelines

Arguments from involved editors

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name

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

2. The Naming history on this group islands tells that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. Names for this group islands are from three languages, that I have pointed out during the Mediation [10]. Per the order of their generated time, they are Chinese name, English name, and Japanese name.

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

2) English name: In 1843, the British naval battleship "Samarang" surveyed areas around this group islands and gave a name "Pinnacle islands" for them according to how the shape of one of the islands looked like.[2][3][4]

3) Japanese name: Before 1886, at least some Japanese documents used Chinese name for these islands. Since 1886, the Japanese Imperial Naval Records used "Pinnacle Islands" with Japanese Katakana form (Transliteration). It was until 1900, a Japanese teacher Tsune Kuroiwa (黑岩恆) translated the "Pinnacle Islands" into Japanese "Senkaku Island". Its original form is 尖閣諸島. While the "Senkaku Island" was not yet officially used until 1950s by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [5][2]

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

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

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

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name
Put argument here.
Other comments from involved editors

==== Comments from uninvolved editors ====

And an old discussion with a talbe[11] may also be worth being reviwed as follows:

Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV?

The original section has been archived POV_or_NPOV.3F, which was intially posted starting on 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC). The left column accusing "POV" was mainly completed by users Lvhis and Stuartyeates, and the right column defending "NPOV" was mainly completed by users Qwyrxian and Oda_Mari. User Kusunose helped in formatting the table.

Please: editors believing the current name as NPOV can edit NPOV side ONLY, and as the same, editors believing the current name as POV can edit POV side ONLY. By comparing the reasons from both sides, we may be able to gradually reach some consensus or compromise.

POV (It needs to be changed) NPOV (no need for change)
Reasons
  • It is the (romanised) Japanese name for the islands, that is the fact supported by many reliable sources including those from Japanese writers.
  • The ownership of these islands is officially disputed between Japan and Chinese sides (PRC and ROC).
  • The frequency of using Japanese name or using Chinese name in English is not significantly different, or slightly in certain search way, that of using Japanese name is less than that of using Chinese name.
  • The name used in related documents of the United Nations (UN) since the dispute over the islands emerged after 1970s: On December 30, 1996, the name "Diaoyu Islands" was used in a letter in English by the Secretary-General of the United Nations addressing to the permanent representative of the People's Republic of China to the UN; while on February 14, 1997, neither Japanese nor Chinese name of these islands was mentioned in a letter in English by the Secretary-General of the United Nations addressing to the permanent representative of Japan to the UN. (pages 107-108 of this documentary year book)
  • In most circumstances including this Wikipedia project, using which language name represents or implies supporting which party's claim over the disputed islands, i.e. giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view (national POV).
  • Based on Wikipedia's spirit, policies, and guidelines, particularly the WP:NPOV and WP:NCGN, the current Japanese name for this Wikipedia page and its related pages is POV, and it shall be changed.
  • The US-government's use of "Senkaku Islands" appears to be a hold-over from their involvement in the Occupation of Japan, when Japanese naming conventions were adopted wholesale.
  • The real world dispute has absolutely nothing to do with this question. Our only responsibility per WP:Article titles and WP:NCGN is to determine which name is most commonly used in English. If one name is used significantly more than another, particularly in high quality sources, then that is the English name. If such a name exists, it must be used as the name for the article. Thus, the "NPOV side" is concerned that the very phrasing of this dispute as POV vs. NPOV asks the wrong question.
  • The name "Senkaku Islands" is the name used in every major international English almanac that could be found. Only one almanac even provided a reference to the name Diaoyu Islands.
  • No contemporary encyclopedia has been found which uses any name other than "Senkaku Islands".
  • Google searches (including Web, Scholar, and News) have been spotty, produce different results over time, and are extremely sensitive to the exact search terms and formatting of the search. Thus, they don't really provide useful information about which name is more commonly used in those sources. On average, the numbers were very close to equal, particularly depending on how you count the use of the multiple different "versions" of the Chinese name.
  • The US government (a key source when looking at official English names) uses the term "Senkaku Islands".
  • Major English official nautical charts (US, UK, elsewhere) use "Senkaku Islands" as the official designation. (Note that I have not actually checked this myself, it is a claim put forward by Oda Mari.
    US chart (please zoom) and
    UK chart (see page 76)

Pushing to use single "Senkaku" is same as pushing to use single "Diaoyu". Good quality reliable sources such as Times, CNN, Fox news and more almost always use "called Senkaku in Japan (or Japanese) and Diaoyu in China (or Chinese)". They also use "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Many editors (now including Qwyrxian) mentioned to use this slash way. One very important point I want to emphasis here is this "D/S" or "S/D" is not a original research, it is from very reliable resources! As for which one goes to first for the slash form, I believe it is easy to reach consensus. I myself won't care which one is put first.

My last words are: the development of the real world outside Wikipedia can be and has been totally independent on what name/title the related wp pages take. If Wikipedia inside pages/articles cannot reflect the real world outside Wikipedia or cannot catch up the changes and development of the outside real world, the one who looks like embarrassed or even stupid is the related wp pages, but not the outside real world. If one tries to use wp pages to change outside real world, one will be finally disappointed. But the changes of outside real world can eventually change the wp pages, pages of called online free encyclopedia. --Lvhis (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use "Pinnacle Islands (Diaoyu/Senkaku)" to avoid POV? --202.108.128.130 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Lvhis' proposed RfC above: just like last time, if you attempt to launch the RfC under this formatting and title, I will request it be stopped, and, at this point, I'll have to request you be topic banned. It was explained clearly last time why the way you've phrased that RfC 1) doesn't help us answer the question of what to title the article (because POV isn't actually the governing rule for article titles), 2) is itself biased, and 3)contains far more information than is allowed for an RfC to start (from WP:RFC: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template."). You've complained about the last RfC that was run, but you're trying to run one that is extremely unbalanced and against the rules. If you want the name to change (and, as you've correctly intuited above, I'm far more open to a name change than I was before, though I'm not entirely sold, and insist that we must account for what high quality references use, not just what newspapers use), you're going to have to do it fairly and neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian, this one "Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV?" is NOT an RfC. It is an old discussion and worth being reviewed. You may have misunderstood. --Lvhis (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we revert to the original location map ?

I came to this page after reading yet another article in the news paper and I am quite surprised by the location map. It's the first time I see a map on Wikipedia featuring distances to claimants. Furthermore, said distances seem to be quite biased to me, distances from Taiwan and China are coast to coast, but for Japan, it's distance to Naha. As it is highly unusual and there is nothing really backing the provided distances, should we revert to the previous neutral map ? I would do it but I don't want to create an account just for that.

-- Benoit

I do not see an issue using the milage map, which helps visitors have an idea where the islands are to the respective claiments. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though, where should the measurements be to? There are two to Japanese territories - Ishigaki and Okinawa islands. Perhaps the map should have the one to Naha removed? John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd be inclined to remove the distances. Should we trace from closest land point to closest land point? If so, I'd want a source for that data. Alternatively, should we trace from "port to port"--i.e., the closest distance a seafarer would probably travel, especially historically? Should we trace center to center? Any such decision would probably be a POV one, and thus it seems better to leave it out. However, if we keep the distances, my preference would be to use closest to closest land point, and we'd have to verify the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The location map that this article using now has I made referenced on Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, and every distances of the map show coast to coast. The distances of the coast of Okinawa-Island and Naha City, and the coast of Ishigaki-Island and Ishigaki City are quite near on the map.--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing wording

In the "Early history" section, the last paragraph states "the Chinese name for the island group (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) both mean "fishing"." Later in the same section, there is a sentence that reads "The name "Pinnacle Islands" is used by some as an English-language equivalent to "Senkaku" or "Diaoyu".

The latter sentence implies that "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" mean (roughly) "Pinnacle" or "Pinnacle islands". As this contradicts the first sentence I quote I presume that this is not the intended meaning? I would assume that the meaning "fishing" is more likely than "pinnacle", but the latter has a source (which I can't read atm) and the former doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify the names. The name of the group of islands is Pinnacle in en, Senkaku (Pinnacle) in ja, and Diaoyu (fishing) in zh. Each islands has its own name in ja and zh, but not in en and the main island's name is Uotsuri (fishing) in ja and Diaoyu (fishing) in zh. Is my clarification understandable? If it is, please rewrite the section. Oda Mari (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole list of islands

  • zh:釣魚臺列嶼#组成 lists a full list of islands names as used in PRC, ROC and Japan, and other informations.
  • I propose to either remove Bei Yu/Oki-no-Kita-iwa, Nan Yu/Oki-no-Minami-iwa, and Fei Yu/Tobise islets from #Geography or provide a full list of islands, because these three islets are too small to be distinguished from other small islets. --202.108.128.130 (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody disagree with the removal of Bei Yu/Oki-no-Kita-iwa, Nan Yu/Oki-no-Minami-iwa, and Fei Yu/Tobise islets? --202.108.128.130 (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands&oldid=561509551"