Talk:Senkaku Islands

Moving forward

Right, it's gone a bit quiet here. Given there's no obvious consensus to remove the tag, should we get an RfC going to get outside input? John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, after a bit quiet, you are welcomed to add your reasons why the current title/name is NPOV. --Lvhis (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always in the back of my mind. Maybe we can do it in the same style that some policy RfC's use with positions and supporters (also used in RfC/U): first, we all agree on a question (something very simple, one paragraph or less, like "What should the title of this article (and list the 2 others) be?" Then, we could each write a position statement, including any amount of information or arguments that we want, and we could include a space for signing (like "Users who endorse this position" and a bulleted list). If you don't know what I'm talking about, look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. You can see how individual people provide positions, with whatever evidence they want (though people should keep in mind that evidence that is too long may not be read by participants), then everybody is free to support any number of positions that they prefer. If the end result is unclear, we get a neutral admin to close. Such an should run for 30 days or until useful conversation stops--whichever comes later.

An alternative would be if we all do fall into clear positions, then we could just have each "side" draft a joint position, then just open discussion from that point. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Qwyrxian. An article title is not determined by RfC but is determined by relevant policies. I think John Smith's' intension is to get opinion regarding the POV tag according to his past edit.[1] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And when different people legitimately interpret policies differently, we must come to a consensus to determine which interpretation is correct. Lvhis (and others) think the policy says the name should be Pinnacle Islands. I, you, and others think that policy says that the name should be Senkaku Islands. Since we don't agree, how do you suggest we resolve the issue if not by RfC? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pinnacle Islands? It is out of question. WP:NCGN#Multiple local names says "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine." In the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits are below a hundred at that time (May 2007). See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10#Google Book search. Over 10,000 hits are quite reliable to judge which is predominant, so the description is not applicable here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If I and others use same way as you guys use to interpret the policies and guidelines, "Pinnacle Islands" would not be our choice. It should go "Diaoyu Islands". "Pinnacle Islands" is one of the possibilities as compromised from both sides in respect of the policies and guidelines. --Lvhis (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to argue in favor of Diaoyu islands in the upcoming RfC. Heck, you can make a complex argument, like "Diaoyu first choice, second choice Pinnacle, third choice Ryukyu: the Sequel". As a side note, for anyone else watching, I've made a draft of a possible RfC at User:Qwryxian/SI RFC]; feel free to comment on it if you think I'm somehow misrepresenting the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the 2nd time you used the word "Heck". Are you really unhappy? Or are you now in an unhappy status? If you are, it is better for us to cool down a little bit. --Lvhis (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the Americanism (and the fact that my tone is probably unclear since I'm writing rather than speaking)--"Heck" means, in this context, "Go ahead and do the following, it doesn't matter to me at all:" No unhappiness at all on my part. I'm simply saying that if you want to argue in favor of Diaoyu, you are welcome to, though you're also welcome to argue for some "middle" name (Pinnacle, a hybrid name, or anything else you can think of); it's up to you to persuade people that your choice is the best one given policies, guidelines, and sources. I say it doesn't matter to me because I've already seen the arguments, and I've already decided which name I think is the most correct one per all of our policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a reference or reliable source explaining a use of this word in the same way as you explained? --Lvhis (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to "heck," right? Off the top of my head i have no references. I know my family (who've been speaking English as a first language for at least 3 generations) often use it that way. But, maybe we're out of the norm--wouldn't be the first time :). Apologies if my use of the word was upsetting or made you think I was upset. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use "we" here. I have not been out of the norm. It was you. Our Arbitration took the decorum issue very seriously that Bobthefish2 has been topic panned for this, and you were the one actively pushing such ban. Okay, by now I accept your apologies but hope you realize this can lead to a topic ban. I will move on for the discussion. --Lvhis (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

	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)

Notes and Comments, etc.

Initial input and comments

I generated a chat or table as below above for reasons or justifications why the current name/title is POV or NPOV. I have added some reasons for POV side. The space for NPOV reasons currently is blank. It is very welcomed for editors believing the current name/title as NPOV to add their reasons in the given space. Of course the editors believing the current name/title as POV are also very welcomed to add more reasons or modify the reasons I have listed here. But 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. I am sorry I have currently been very busy in/for my real life and cannot input my thoughts promptly sometimes. --Lvhis (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added some NPOV points. Apologies--I don't know why the NPOV side is suddenly much wider than the POV side. I try to not use tables whenever possible, so I don't know the formatting required to make the two sides balanced. If anyone knows, I'd be obliged. Also, please note my very first point: I am concerned that characterizing this dispute as one of NPOV vs. POV asks the wrong question: WP:Article titles tells us that POV is not the only concern in determining a title, as per, for example, the Boston massacre. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the table witdh issue. --Kusunose 07:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the table width.--Lvhis (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Article titles and its WP:POVTITLE, "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids", the example Boston massacre was given. In this precedent case, the name "Boston massacre" is overwhemingly more commonly used than the name "Boston Riot"; namely, the popular or common usage of Boston massacre surpasses that of "Boston Riot" so significantly that with which its POV can be overridden. In our current case, overall if not cherry-picked, neither "DI" nor "SI" can be asserted as a title/name used more common in English over its rival, respectively. If downplaying POV issue here, one can push using "DI" as hard as other can push using "SI", and there is no way to reach consensus. So for this case the very applicable guideline is WP:NCGN#Multiple local names. --Lvhis (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

More comments and discussions

Stuartyeates (who added the point about the cause for the US gov't using SI), the causes for the US governments choice of using Senkaku Islands are irrelevant. The question is not why is this the name, but simply what is the name. We're not here to argue about what should be the name in English (nor who should own the islands), but rather about what the current, common name is (if there is one). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the question of why is irrelevant to the question of what the widely accepted English name is. The question of why is not irrelevant to other NPOV issues, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank Stuartyeates for your input! US-Government was involved in this territory dispute including the name usage, at certain extent, already. --Lvhis (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1. The "POV" UN point is meaningless. What do two letters indicate? Nothing.
2. What is the "POV" US point based on? John Smith's (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN is the only authority I see mentioned here that hasn't been militarily involved in this situation, as such they're the closest we have to an impartial authority on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN point is extremely misleading. The UN Secretary General only used the term because he was responding specifically to a letter from the Chinese representative. As both of the letters from the UNSG explicitly state that the UN takes no position in the dispute whatsoever, the point means nothing. There is no way that this represents anything whatsoever. Note the Chinese complaint for instance--the Chinese complaint objects to an earlier report because it notes the islands as being 200 miles from China's coast, which implies that Taiwan is not a portion of China--are we to now think that the UNSG is actually implying that it is taking an official position that Taiwan is not part of the PRC? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, the UN point is to see the name usage or frequency of its usage only. As said in "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision#Disputes regarding article titles": "it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, ...". The UN is or may be the most major one of the international organizations. Please do not go too far beyond this. --Lvhis (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And seeing what the UN says is helpful. However, this letter is not an official commentary by the UN; the fact that Kofi Annan used one term in one letter does not in any way represent an official position by the UN. As far as I know, in fact, the UN's official position is that they do not have an official position on either the names or the ownership of the islands. Again, the Chinese letter plus Annan's response w.r.t. the Taiwan issue explicitly show that we cannot somehow take the exact wording in these documents as any sort of representation of any sort of official position. Now, if someone can produce more official UN documents that use the term, that would, in fact, be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No matter as what you view it from your point, it is a kind of documents of the UN. You can downplay it by whatever you want from your stance. I input it in a very plain way. Again, here we are talking about name usage, so it is only for seeing name usage with this. For other issue you mentioned you can go to page relating to "UN General Assembly Resolution 2758" to talk if you are very interested in it (but I am not now). We should not be distracted by this here. I agree it would be more helpful if we can find more UN documents using name(s) for the islands. Since we were in the Arb case, this is what I have been able to find out online. --Lvhis (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, if you were using it as just one example of many UN references to the islands by a single name, you might have a point. But as Qwyrxian said, it's just a letter. And the Secretary General does not have the authority to speak for the UN on matters like this. Remember when Taiwan applied to join the UN in 2007 and the Secretariat's response was taken to mean that Taiwan part of the PRC? That kicked up a shitstorm, precisely because he doesn't have the authority to do that. John Smith's (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@John Smith's, Those were very formal official letters from SGUN (two persons for different serving term), not just some verbal speech. While you can downplay those upon whatever you want from your stance as I said. And it is welcomed if you can find more UN documents using name(s) for the islands in question. --Lvhis (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I've been waiting for you to edit the factual error The ownership of these islands is officially disputed between Japan and Chinese sides (PRC and ROC). But it seems to me that you have no intention to edit/remove the sentence, and I am posting this. Japan officially says that there is no issue to be resolved. See [2] and [3]. Please remove the factual error. It is inappropriate and unconstructive to discuss something based on a factual error. I think other editors do not want it too. If it is not removed, the table would be nonsense and meaningless, and I think this thread should be abandoned. Oda Mari (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari, first I hope you not mind I relocated your interrogatory and I am making my response here. Regarding that description you questioned, it is not only me who believes it is in line with the fact but not as you said "factual error", also other editors believe so. That Japan's government officially states "no issue to be resolved" is its stance for the international dispute over these islands, opposing the disputes or claims from PR.China and ROC (Taiwan). PR.China government and ROC government also declare their ownership over the islands are "indisputable" [4][5][6][7][8]. If you believe the ownership or sovereignty over these islands does not have official dispute between these parties, so as the current title is of course as NPOV, you can input your such reason into the "NPOV" side. Japan's official stance is Japan's national point of view. If you really believes Japan's official stance is very NPOV applied with WP's policies and guidelines, you can go through WP:AfD to request deletion of the page now under its current name "Senkaku Islands dispute". The reason and logic is so obvious: if no official dispute between these parties, why Wikipedia bothers to have such article? --Lvhis (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I do mind. I didn't say there was no dispute. I just showed you the Japanese government's official statement and pointed out your OR and wrong use of the adverb "officially". You seem not to understand the meaning of "officially". See the definition. [9] [10] [11] PRC and ROC only state that the islands belong to them officially. Japan/PRC/ROC officially protest when something happens. But the official statements on their sovereignty of the islands and official protests cannot be described as a official dispute, other countries see it as a territorial dispute among the three countries though. It's your personal interpretation or OR to say "The ownership of these islands is officially disputed between Japan and Chinese sides (PRC and ROC). Have PRC and ROC officially declared/stated that their country had a territorial dispute with Japan? If not, you cannot use the adverb. Even if they have, you cannot use the adverb as Japan does not say so. You should remove "officially" from the sentence. If you disagree with me, ask any native en speaker who knows politics and diplomacy well or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language about the usage of "officially". Oda Mari (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari, you said you "do mind". Do you mean you do not agree I moved your interrogatory input on 10:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC) from below to this sub-subsection? Do you want to move it back to below? As for the part you challenged, if it indeed was not correct including with OR error, other editors believing the current title is as POV would correct it. But so far no one has changed it. If you are very, very confident on your judgement and on your comprehension of English language, you can do two things as follows: (1) input your such criticism in the "NPOV side"; (2) bring this sentence/description along with your criticism to what you mentioned the place Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. If you prove you are right from there, I will correct it as what the native English speakers suggest. Although I believe you must be, or you should be, familiar with the Japan government's very official statement "The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands" by Japan MOFA, I would still like to link it here for you: [12]. BTW, when mentioning the three parties disputing over these islands, namely Japan, PRC (Mainland China), and ROC(Taiwan), you would be better not to call them three "countries". Otherwise it would be some POV pushing. --Lvhis (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Other comments

I am not interested in this discussion intiated by Lvhis cooperating with a banned user STSC whether "Senkaku Islands" is POV or NPOV. Article title is not determined by whether it is POV or NPOV according to WP:NPOV#Naming, WP:TITLE#Neutrality in article titles, and WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name. However if any of you are interested in this discussion, please continue until you reach to a satisfactory conclusion. I would rather like to discuss the legitimacy of POV-tag. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't get side-tracked. This is the sort of thing that could be used in the RfC in arguing as to whether the tag is justified or not. John Smith's (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, you feel free not to join in this discussion, but your assumption is groundless and close to cross the line of Decorum. This table and discussion is nothing "cooperating with a banned user STSC" at all. Check my comments input above on October 6, October 8, and my sandbox edit. STSC was banned by admin Fut Perf on October 10. This table and discussion was triggered by the above "Straw poll on article title". --Lvhis (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready for an RfC

Given Oda Mari's links to the US and UK nautical charts, I'm pretty much ready to take this to RfC. I see the debate as fairly simple. We have two, generally, different categories of sources:

1. The various Google searches (Web, News, Scholar, and Book). These searches are problematic (the numbers that appear don't actually mean what they seem to mean, and the searches are highly sensitive to minute changes in search query). But, these searches, on average, tend to show approximately equal representation for Senkaku and Diaoyu, with some slightly favoring SI and others slightly favoring DI.
2. Encyclopedias, international almanacs, the US government, and both US and UK official nautical charts all without exception use Senkaku Islands.

Policy/guidelines say our only job is to evaluate what name is in common use in English, assuming there is one. I accept that people may disagree about which of these categories of sources has more merit in determining the name of this article; an RfC should be able to tell us what the community consensus is.

Last time I started an RfC, I got criticized for starting it too fast. Please speak now if you have any objection to starting the RfC; note that I would provide only the tiniest description in that RfC (something like "What should the name of this article be?"), a link to relevant policies/guidelines, and a space for any editor to provide links to prior discussions (I myself would likely link to this thread and the one above it). It's time to move forward, it's time to settle on a community consensus name, and it's time to get that tag off the article (whatever name is chosen). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't object. Just to check, are you RfCing the name or whether the current one is NPOV - or both? John Smith's (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you were quite objective in your point1, but may not be so in your point2 except US and UK nautical charts that you mentioned and Oda Mari provided the links in the "NPOV side" above. As saying "international almanacs ... all without exception use Senkaku Islands", this is wrong. The documentary year book with which I found that "Diaoyu Islands" but no "Senkaku Islands" was used by SG of the UN in his official letter is an international almanac, named "International Organizations and the Law of the Sea: Documentary Yearbook 1996" of "NILOS Documentary Yearbook". It is for collection of related documents from the United Nations system. Therefore, this is a very high, if not the highest, quality of year book or almanac. Another UN document a UN General Assembly document can be found in page 85 of this year book, which mentioned "D" and "S" as follows:"Since the 1970s, China and Japan have continued to dispute sovereignty over a group of five islets and barren rocks, known in Japan as Senkaku and in China as Diaoyu, ..."[13]. And for encyclopedias, I checked Britannica, neither "Senkaku Islands" nor "Diaoyu Islands" can be found [14]. When you asserted "all" Encyclopedias, "all" almanacs, can you list all of them you checked? Please don't do cherry-picking. Don't assert too much more than what you actually did. Bobthefish2 ever gave a search result on Library of Congress, I re-checked it and am sure it is correct:

Library of Congress:

• Diaoyu: 5 results
• Senkaku: 4 results
• Search parameters: 2005 or later, English; (not bothering with Diaoyutai).
• URL: http://catalog.loc.gov/

(note: Bobthefish2 has been topic banned for a year due to "Decorum" issue, but it does not mean that the objective contents he used before cannot be used by us)

So, your point1 can be used by us to reach certain consensus. Your point2 is biased and it asserted too much more than reality and objectivity.

--Lvhis (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are not almanacs. An almanac is a book of maps. Those are various publications by the UN; the first one is trivial in that it's a solitary letter written by a solitary person, not approved by the UN. The latter is a UN document, and you are correct that it mentions both names, and this is evidence of a refusal to choose a name in English, thus is evidence against SI as the name.

For the encyclopedias, my point is that I have asked, over and over and over again, and no one has ever found an encyclopedia that lists Diaoyu as the main entry. If I recall correctly, we did confirm that Encyclopedia uses SI as the main entry; again, I'd have to search through to find it (I think Phoenix7777 found it). I actually asked once at the resource exchange for help...unfortunately, the only person who answered was Penwhale, who essentially stopped any discussion by falsely asserting (in direct contradiction to WP:NCGN) that encyclopedias don't matter here. So, no, I haven't checked all of the encyclopedias, because, sadly, I don't have access to any here in Japan. I wish someone who had access to a good English library would check. On the almanacs, I had time last summer in a US public research university library, and every single almanac that I could find that was published after 2000 either didn't include the islands (they are, after all, pretty small), or used the SI name (and only 1 of 5 even mentioned Diaoyu). A list of the almanacs is somewhere in the archives; I'm short on time, but can pull it out later.

The LoC search does show even use among titles of books that they curate. That is additional evidence for the position against the current name. You are welcome to use that as an argument.

In any event, none of this answers the question of whether or not we are ready for an RfC. We clearly aren't going to reach a consensus amongst ourselves; I (and others) have seen tons of data and arguments, and I am firmly convinced that the current name is the correct one per policies and guidelines (I'm even more convinced after seeing the nautical charts). You and others are firmly convinced of the opposite. All we can do now, as far as I can tell, is ask the community.

Also, @ John Smith's, I'm saying we need an RfC on the name. Winner take all. The decision holds, the tag comes off, the article gets moved (or doesn't), and we stop fighting about this (at least for a good long while). An RfC on the tag doesn't make any sense to me, since it would cover basically the same issues as the article name, and just necessitate a second RfC in a short while anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And what happens if the RfC is inconclusive and the name doesn't change as there's no consensus either way? Does the tag still get removed? John Smith's (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I expect it will be conclusive, just like the last one. But if we get a no consensus result...I don't know. I guess a second RfC about the tag? Or possibly WP:DRN, as we shouldn't really need community consensus on a maintenance tag. My logic behind doing the name first is that dealing with the tag doesn't solve anything either way... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose that we would need a second RfC. I've got no more questions, do you want to start drafting? There's no point wasting more time talking about it. John Smith's (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep getting sidetracked with other things...I will have a draft ready in no less than a week; however, I don't mind if someone else wants to start one instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, when you say "An almanac is a book of maps", you may mean an atlas, not almanac. But this is not a big deal. The core point here is, with the methods recommended in WP:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name which are noted "not listed in any particular order", the overall searching results have shown neither "SI" nor "DI" can be asserted as overwhelmingly common name in English over its rival. Otherwise, you do not need working so hard to make so many tries. Please do not downplay the results that are not favoring "SI" and overplay the results that are favoring "SI". For example, that the use of "DI" in a letter from the SG of the UN when responding to the representative of PR.China to the UN while not use of "SI" in a letter from the SG of the UN when responding to the representative of Japan to the UN is not pure solitary letter by pure solitary person. The SG responded to China then was Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and the SG responded to Japan then was Kofi Annan. If "SI" was really a name for the islands commonly used in English, they would have naturally used it in such official letters. If I want to push, I can say "Diaoyu Islands" is more naturally used in this very major international organization. I did not say that. I went to the resource exchange and reviewed the question and answer you mentioned. It was not Penwhale who answered you. It was LeadSongDog, a native English speaker, answering you. He reminded you the POV issue and suggested an example (or another example) from WP:NCGN#Multiple localnames, the Derry/Londonderry example. As I responded you above [15], the example "Boston massacre" is not appropriate for our current case. As for RfC, before you start it, I think it is necessary to request MedCom to have the pages in mediation recovered or undone-deletion. There are some useful data there for users from community coming to the RfC to review. Also please include the POV/NPOV table above when you draft. It is input by both sides and a kind of summary easily to read to compare. --Lvhis (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@John Smith's, if we have RfC, I hope you be more open. As I said before, if you think the current title as NPOV, you need to give your reasons, not just say "yes". So far you have not contributed any reason in the "NPOV" part above. We need to be reasonable, or to be reasonable person, to reach consensus hopefully. --Lvhis (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked Feezo, and xe said that since arbitration is over, xe has no special authority over the pages; I can't undo the deletion myself, as I'm involved here and taking an admin action in that case is a big no-no. I'm not even sure who to ask...WP:DRV, perhaps? To be honest, I'm willing to simply stipulate your claims--that the results were approximately even, sometimes with an edge for DI, sometimes with an edge for DI, never more than about 10% either way; these are results from Google Scholar, Book, and Web searches; I will personally stipulate that from memory, so long as you are willing to stipulate that we also determined in mediation that those results are practically meaningless because of the way Google handles searches with over a thousand results (i.e., the "number" you get back from a search is different from the actual number of results obtained, and there is no way to actually determine how many "real" results you get)....aw, heck, I'll be helpful. I'll ask User:AGK, who is the current chair of Medcom, what the procedure for you to request undeletion is. I don't particularly care either way if its undeleted.

I will not include the table in the draft. The draft will contain only 4 things: a statement of the question/problem, a list of relevant policies and guidelines, a blank space for each "side" to include their arguments, and a blank space for comments from uninvolved editors. I will, of course, draft my own argument to be placed in that third section, and will likely include some or all of the points I had listed in what you call the "NPOV side"; you're welcome to format your own arguments with your own evidence as you like. I think we should both try to keep the evidence to a reasonable length. I'm not sure what exactly that is, but I know that RfC's that are too long generate less interest. Maybe we should even put our arguments in collapse boxes...we can figure that out later, though.

Finally, think what you want about the UN letterrs, and use them as you wish in your argument; obviously we're not going to convince each other. Also, sorry about misusing "almanac"; you are right that I meant "atlas". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume most of you still have it watchlisted, but, if not, AGK has undeleted Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. I don't think he deleted the sub pages like the discussion of the proposed rules that we never got around to finishing, but I think the data itself is on the primary talk page. Do with it as you will. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of "refute"

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

Perhaps "rebut" is a better word choice. Rklawton (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP editor and Qwyrxian are right at this point. As an encyclopedia emphasizing NPOV, "deny" is more proper and neutral, while "refute" may imply that this article endorses Japan's stance at the issue in question. Using "rebut" is better than using "refute" but not better than using "deny" . Vocabulary.com explains these words with some examples. --Lvhis (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Lvhis for a reference. Went to Vocaburary.com and read an article "rebut/refute", as well as definitions of "refute", "rebut", and "deny". As Japanese refutaion/rebuttal/denial is not conclusive, "rebut" certainly is a better choice. Not sure "deny" is better than "rebut" here. --Kusunose 06:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "rebut" is a better word than the other options. "Deny" simply suggests Japan has said China is wrong without providing an argument. John Smith's (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Rebut is a fair compromise for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, can you give a reference/reliable source that explains "deny" implying to say something wrong or to refuse something exclusively without providing an argument? "Deny" is very neutral here, implying the party who deny something is maybe right or maybe wrong, 50 to 50. No matter if there is some subtle different between "deny" and "rebut", your reverting "deny" back to "refute" was a blatant POV pushing or non-constructive. I don't think we need to bother to change "deny" into "rebut". --Lvhis (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, it's really not helpful when you frequently reply to my comments with "can you give a reference/source that..." You're the only person objecting to using "rebut" here, so would you accept the compromise? John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, if you feel very uncomfortable (or fear) to be asked for providing reference or reliable source to support your argument, the Wikipedia may not be the right/good place for you. Again, the word "deny" has been there as a result of edits by 2 editors and good enough per wp's policy, so it is not necessary to bother to change it. --Lvhis (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're avoiding the issue. The only editor currently objecting (or not agreeing to) the use of "rebut" is you. Are you going to try to block it being used? John Smith's (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Intention to start RFC

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

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

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

After several discussions there, it is quite clear that a root question regarding the naming issue and some article content is focusing this one: Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the "Japanese name" or "English name"? An RfC directly deals with this should go first, and I have prepared a draft a User:Lvhis/xI RfC. I am moving on preparing my argument there. For others, it is similar to what you suggested on your draft. --Lvhis (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That is completely unnecessary. You can ask that question/put forward an argument on that point when Qwyrxian's RfC goes up. It's not like your RfC would be considered once his is active in any event. Or are you announcing your intent to put yours up first? John Smith's (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I've been waiting for you to answer this. But you didn't. Please answer all of my questions in the post at here first. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari, whether "Senkaku Islands" is the English name or the Japanese name cannot be defined by me or by you, or by any Wikipedian. It is defined or told by Reliable Sources. You are not qualified to disqualify what the author Kimie Hara (原貴美恵) described for the three names, unless you can find other reliable sources disqualify hers. I made my complain on your such comment during the Arbitration [16]. For more debating on whether "SI" is the Japanese name or English name, we can go the RfC I have suggested. --Lvhis (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Policies and guidelines

• WP:VERIFY
• WP:ORIGINAL
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Multiple local names)

Arguments from involved editors

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name

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

• A UN General Assembly document [17] page 85, International Organizations and the Law of the Sea: Documentary Yearbook 1996 By Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea.
• Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands". CNN World. CNN (US).
• Hara, Kimie (原貴美恵) (2007). Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system. New York, USA: Routledge, c/o Taylor & Francis. p. 51. ISBN 9780415412087.
• Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593.
• Kiyoshi Inoue (井上清). Senkaku Letto /Diaoyu Islands The Historical Treatise. (English synopsis [18])
• Daniel J. Dzurek, "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996 [19]
• Jeff Hays. "DISPUTE OVER THE SENKAKU ISLANDS (JAPANESE NAME)---DIAOYU ISLANDS (CHINESE NAME)" Facts and Details
• Koji Taira. The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands [20] This is an article that originally appeared in "The Ryukyuanist", spring 2004.
• Joyman Lee. Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict Published in History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011
• Jesper Schlæger. Senkakuphonia: The East China Sea Dispute page 4 of 31
• Peter J Brown. China ire at sea chase signals wider reach Asia Times Sep 16, 2010

2. The Naming history on this group islands tells that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. Names for this group islands are from three languages, that I have pointed out during the Mediation [21]. Per the order of their generated time, they are Chinese name, English name, and Japanese name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name

Put argument here.