Talk:Senkaku Islands

UScontroled wiki?

Wow. This is a current event and giving the current situation a dual name title is the obvious rational solution and we all know consensus would agree. So what's with the clearly bias support. Wikipedia is taking a side with this issue . Obvious and undeniable. The majority agrees. Yet somehow the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is being restricted by a minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.208.230 (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Name change suggestion

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The last "RfC" (post-Arbitration) [18] was done in the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [19][20]. 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[21][22]. 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

• WP:VERIFY
• WP:ORIGINAL
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and 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 [23] 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 [24])
• Daniel J. Dzurek, "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996 [25]
• 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 [26] 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 [27]. 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".

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[28] 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)

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

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)

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)

The "English name" argument simply cannot stand because "Senkaku" is not and has not been more common than "Diaoyu". I'll be tagging the article. STSC (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

STSC, rather than adding a tag, which really does nothing to advance the discussion, could you consider instead starting a discussion (or even RfC) that seeks clarification of the proper name? As I said/implied above, I am willing to look anew at the evidence. I do recognize that news reports have much more commonly used both names in the last year or so, but to really make a decision, we need to weigh that against what other sources have done. However, before starting said discussion, you may want to wait...Lvhis and Oda Mari are both likely about to be topic banned for 3 months, and, no disrespect intended, but Lvhis is the definitely the best advocate that the dual name has ever had. You may be more successful if you wait for 3 months for Lvhis to rejoin us. But, of course, your path is up to you. If you add the NPOV title tag, I won't revert you personally. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I really have the energy to involve a RfC. It's unfortunate that Lvhis is banned for 3 months; for the time being, tagging maybe the best course of action. STSC (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about freedom, and Japan is a much freer country than PRC-controlled China. So I think that in the spirit of Wikipedia, and the free and democratic western culture that it comes from, the name used in Japan "Senkaku" is the correct name for these islands. Also, the Japanese military currently seems to be able to keep Chinese ships away, so from a "de facto" perspective control (and with it naming) are on the Japanese side: Senkaku. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not on basically every count. Wikipedia is not about freedom--it's about building a "free" (which is different) encyclopedia that is neutral. Second, we're not here to judge which country is "freer" (even though I think most people would agree with you). Finally, and most importantly, we are not choosing the Japanese name--we must choose the English name. Current consensus is that Senkaku is the English name, though we can discuss if people want to dredge up data to prove otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the concept that there is such a thing as an "English name" is wrong. The evidence proponents have used to support the "English name" concept is usage in areas such as other encyclopedias, newspapers, and books. But the majority of these publications are inextricably tied to the American (and British) culture from which they derive. America and Britain are strong allies of Japan; the three countries share a common culture of freedom and democracy. On the other hand, America and Britain do not view the PRC as a close ally, because of its denial of so many fundamental human rights (like viewing Wikipedia). I think it is impossible to separate the English language from the American and British culture that dominate the usage of the language worldwide. So the real reasons we are using Senkaku get back to my original post; Wikipedia has a greater cultural affinity with Japan and its allies the US and Britain. Let's call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush with false quests in search of the true "English name". --Westwind273 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia article naming policy requires that we use the English name when there is one. This group of islands is described in English newspapers, academic journals, books, and encyclopedias. When we decide what name we should use, we look at those sources. That is the one and only reason we may use to decide the title. Anything else is a violation of our policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that my beef is more with Wikipedia policy than with this particular article's use of that policy. By choosing to draw from existing popular English newspapers, journals, books, and encyclopedias, Wikipedia inserts an American/British cultural bias into the issue of article names. And that is the reason there is so much debate on this talk page, and so many Chinese-favoring people complain about it. It is pointless to go on debating the name without debating Wikipedia's policy. I favor the name Senkaku for the reasons I originally mentioned. But I don't make any pretense of not having a cultural bias. I am sympathetic to the pro-Chinese posts here, but in the end I think they need to realize that Wikipedia is unavoidably biased toward a Western culture based on long-cherished liberties: speech, press, assembly, etc. The very fact that Wikipedia itself is not viewable in the PRC should serve pro-Chinese people as the ultimate underlying reason why this article's name must remain Senkaku. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying that Wikipedia is biased towards Japan because of freedom and liberty, then are you then saying that Taiwan is not a free and democratic country? This article uses the Japanese name, and not the Chinese one recognised by Taiwan, but both countries are allies of the United States, and are freely democratic. In the end, the rationale behind the naming is based on our policy of what the common name is, however something like that is quite fluid, and not really set in stone. It's essentially up to how the community interprets the situation, and forms its own consensus. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a point about Taiwan, which is free and democratic. In fact, I think if this were simply an issue between Japan and Taiwan, there would not be so much controversy. The two countries would work something out. Keep in mind it is not Taiwanese coast guard ships that are challenging Japan's control of the islands, it is PRC coast guard ships. In the grand scheme of things, Taiwan is a small player compared to China and Japan, as evidenced by the US lack of formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan. Essentially, this is a struggle between Japan and the PRC, and in that struggle western culture (and Wikipedia's naming conventions) take the side of Japan. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "Keep in mind it is not Taiwanese coast guard ships that are challenging Japan's control of the islands" - Uhhh....

Refer to the above image. This was a scuffle in 2012, and there was another more recent one as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/10/national/japan-to-let-taiwanese-fish-near-the-senkakus/#.Uffit41BXh4 As one would expect of two democracies, they have a much greater ability to work things out. The main conflict is with the PRC. --Westwind273 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see very few people here pushing for Tiaoyutai (the Taiwanese name). Most are pushing for adding Diaoyu (the PRC name) to the article name. The anti-PRC bias of western publications means that Diaoyu will never be the most common name for the islands in English. Moreover, this quest for the true "English name" reminds me of Don Quixote and his impossible quest. You cannot remove the western bias from the majority of the world's English language publications. Pro-Chinese contributors here would do better to devote their energies towards freedom and democracy in mainland China. That is the only thing that will eventually change this article's name to Senkaku/Diaoyu. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please take this conversation to another website, per WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place for you to spout your views on freedom, politics, Japan, Taiwan, etc. This page is for one thing and one thing only: discussing changes to the Senkaku Islands article. Current WP policy requires that we use the English name, no matter what "biases" that may incur--by definition, if a name is widely used in English and others are not, that is the "unbiased" name. I understand the point you're trying to make, but if you want Wikipedia to work in that way, you'll have to go to our policy and guideline pages and suggest changes to them. Otherwise, once again, WP:NOTFORUM. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please take your rude arrogance to another website and stop telling others what to do. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This particular article is an English language article on an English language section of a predominantly English language online encyclopedia. It seems appropriate to use naming conventions that are most common and most widely accepted in English language publications. As previously mentioned, English language publications are making the distinction that Senkaku is the Japanese name and Diaoyu is the Chinese name. I believe it would be the most appropriate to either use "Pinnacle Islands" or "Diaoyu Islands/Senkaku Islands" in this order, explicitly because alphabetic order is a politically neutral method by which to arrange the names.160.39.202.96 (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that demonstrates that this is the regular trend used consistently (or, at least, most commonly) among English language publications? Please be sure to account for all types of reliable sources, but particularly 1) newspapers, 2) academic articles, and 3) encyclopedias/atlases/other tertiary sources. Those of us who've checked in the past have either found Senkaku to be the dominant name (for instance, when I checked in major world atlases a couple of years back, it was almost exclusively Senkaku) or, in the case of newspapers, have found weird mixed results that we can't define for certain. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian,as listed reliable sources in here,"Senkaku" is the Japanese name, but not the English name, for this group of islands whose ownership being disputed. When talking about which local name, Japanese "Senkaku" or Chinese "Diaoyu", is most commonly used among English language publications, neither one of these two local names can be defined as "most commonly used among English language publications" if you do not go "cherry-picking" way. The long history discussions/disputes on this article title/naming issue in this talk page and in the mediation also demonstrated that the frequency of using Japanese name or using Chinese name in English is not significantly different. If one is not gaming the system/wiki policies, one should honestly face this evidence. Wikipedia users cannot in an original research way create an "English name" or a "most commonly used name in English language publications" for this group of islands and this wiki articles. BTW, although I do not agree with many points raised by user Westwind273, I appreciate the frank way he/she expressed: don't make any pretense of not having a bias. --Lvhis (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And the result of that mediation was to lead to arbitration at which several of the editors who had long engaged in pushing for the use of an alternative name were blocked or banned. Furthermore, the result of the arbitration was to have a binding community RfC which found that Senakaku Islands is the most commonly used name in English. Since that was the last consensus result, the burden of changing finding evidence supporting a name change falls on those who think the current name is wrong. We will certainly need new evidence, since every prior time this has been discussed and brought to a wider discussion, the result has been that SI is the most common English name. Again, I fully accept that that may have changed in the last year or so, since the issue has reached more international prominence (and thus more mention in English language sources). But we need to look at the whole of sources--not just news reports, but also academic journal articles, books by quality publisher, and other almanacs and encyclopedias. No one, for instance, has ever produced an almanac which uses either a dual name or the Diaoyu name. No one has, for instance, provided the findings of any government body outside of China/Taiwan which supports the use of the Diaoyu or a joint name. If anyone wants to present that evidence, do so. We're waiting. Until that evidence is provided, it's very hard for consensus to change. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not honest. The arbitration has blocked or banned several of editors NOT DUE TO they "had long engaged in pushing for the use of an alternative name". The most serious ban from the arbitration was on a Japanese editor/user who firmly opposed the use of an alternative name but pushed very hard to stick on the Japanese name "Senkaku". Please be honest and do not mislead other Wikipedia users particular some new comers to here. Evidence has been there already and I listed some before [29][30]. You just like to deny them by playing "cherry-picking". When talking about naming rules, you seemed always to avoid this one "Multiple local names", and seemed to forget the most immportant Wikipedia:Five pillars the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, wikipedia users, even wikipedia community, shall not create some material in an original research way. Reliable sources show "Senkaku" is the Japanese name and "Diaoyu" is the Chinese name, no source says "Senkaku" is "the most commonly used name in English". That RfC was led and pushed by you. Using RfC created "the most commonly used name in English" is violating Wikipedia:OR, in addition to that RfC was running under the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [31][32]. It actually stifled voices from other side (opposing using "Senkaku"). Even that RfC has stood there, it does not mean it can stand forever. I'd like to point again that using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu" is not original research, it has reliable sources. From the point of no original research, this dual name is better than so called "the most commonly used name in English" that was actually created by several wikipedia editors led by you.--Lvhis (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Lvhis, of course you are correct. Most independent news sources now use both names in their articles. For example: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131107/DEFREG03/311070013/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24709148 The real reason Qwyrxian sticks to Senkaku is because of the unavoidable western bias of Wikipedia. Like it or not, the English language is primarily a creature of the free and democratic countries in the world, who will necessarily side with Japan on this issue. It is impossible to separate a language from its culture. To pretend to do so is fantasy. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Westwind273, thank you for confirming my points. Again, I appreciate the frank and honest way you expressed, but I need to clarify several points that I disagree with you. 1) The romanized name of the islands often (not always) used by official authority in Taiwan is "Diaoyutai"(see the official website), but not "Tiaoyutai", some times "Diaoyu [33][34][35]" or "Tiaoyutai" is also used. I will change the incorrect content in the article per the reliable sources. 2) Japan and Taiwan on April 10, 2013 signed a fisheries agreement, that is NOT due to these two parties are "two democracies, they have a much greater ability to work things out" as you think. Taiwan had 16 rounds of fishery negotiations with Japan regarding the waters around the Diaoyu Islands since 1996, that had taken 17 years for nothing to reach any agreement, or just failed for each time. While the dispute and conflict regarding the disputed islands has got heated up between Japan and PRC the mainland China as well as Taiwan since September 2012 when Japan made an official move to "nationalize" the Islands in order to make Japan sounded more "legally owning" the islands, Japan dislikes the potential possibility that the mainland China and Taiwan might joint together at certain extent to oppose Japan's claim. Japan then made this compromise to Taiwan in fishery issue only but not sovereign issue over the islands in this 17th round of negotiations held in this year and these two parties finally reached this agreement. This is actually due to mainland China's great efforts to oppose Japan's more and more aggressive moves and made Japan to have to give certain compromise to Taiwan the least capable independent party but a potential partner of the mainland China against Japan's claim, or Taiwan took some advantage of the mainland China's stronger efforts on the dispute. This is almost nothing to do with "democracy system" here. Otherwise, you cannot explain why Taiwan and Japan were not able to reach such agreement during past 17 year with 16 rounds of negotiation. 3) Wikipedia now is viewable or readable in the mainland China (PRC) at least for many articles I checked when I was there recently, but I did not try some article you mentioned. Theoretically, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are quite fair and in line with what it claims as a "free encyclopedia", particularly the Wikipedia:Five pillars. The problem is how the users to treat and interpret these policies and guidelines, as a typical example, what has happened for the naming issue of this topic of articles here. Some users have bias but pretend they do not have, and play some tricks to game the system of Wikipedia. Even if there is unavoidable bias from a language originated its culture, some user's bias has gone very far beyond that. Regarding this Wikipedia, if you want to educate the people in PRC to learn or accept "the freedom and democracy" from the free and democratic countries in the world, you should let them feel they are treated in way of fair and free, i.e. give them a good example of the freedom and democracy here.

Back to the naming issue, you listed two more English language sources. So by honestly following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the name for this article should go dual local name "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands"(as used by CNN [36] and Brookings Institution [37]) or "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"(as used by The Telegraph [38] and BBC [39]). I prefer using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" one because just following the alphabetic order of English language .--Lvhis (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

In the "Sovereignty dispute" section, "they" is used frequently and this should be avoided in order to minimize ambiguity especially in the last sentence in the first paragraph. It should be replaced with "the People's Republic and Taiwan" instead of "they". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken1962 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Tagging POV-title

The Japanese-originated name of the title has raised NPOV concerns. I therefore propose to tag the article until the dispute on the title is resolved. STSC (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't imagine this will ever be entirely settled, and the lead already mentions the name is generally disputed. Adding a tag is really not going to do anything productive in this case. a13ean (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As you know, STSC, in order for a the tag to remain, you need to be willing to engage in constructive dialogue to advance towards a resolution--something that shows you (or another editor) are actively trying to change the previously established consensus. If you want to engage in such a process, then fine; we'll probably need an RfC. Just so you know, though, both Oda Mari and Lvhis are topic banned for about 3 more months, and would not be able to participate in such a discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This template was removed by Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Request for comment: Article naming closed on February 2012. The closer User:NuclearWarfare reverted the addition of the template by Lvhis with an edit summary No, this is what I meant.[40] Unless a new RfC decides otherwise, the previous RfC remains effective. Therefore the template should not be included. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I know tag-less may suit you but can you comment on his invalid action as an admin? STSC (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with A13ean. The content will always be disputed, and I don't see the point in having the tag up again. It's not a form of protest, it's to encourage discussion. Phoenix also makes a good point. I have no objection to discussion, of course, but the tag isn't required to do that in this particular case. John Smith's (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why the clean-up tag was applied; it's there to alert and invite other editors to join in the process. STSC (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

THere was no improper action by the uninvolved admin. Tags do not stay up just because one editor wants them up, except in cases where the tag is indisputable (like tagging something as needing a citation). NPOV tags specifically state that they are not just supposed to be up because one person or one side doesn't like the current consensus. Unless you can show that there is at least some evidence that consensus is changing, or that you're going to try to make it change, no, it can't be tagged. The admin enforced the taglessness under the very wide latitude given to admins on pages under discretionary sanctions. Right now, there's nothing to "alert editors" to, except the fact that you, personally, don't like the title, even though the current consensus is that it meets all of our policies. As I've said above, I'm happy to engage in such a discussion, and am even willing to believe that there has been sufficient shift in the last 2 years to warrant a name change, but I'm not going to be the one to go to the effort to start such an exasperating process. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, you as an admin should have known better: assume good faith. I was trying to make use of the clean-up tag "to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made" (as documented in Wiki Policy). STSC (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, the tag can be applied to the article because the outcome of the RfC is only valid for 1 year. STSC (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has no expiry date. The only recent change is that User:NuclearWarfare's ban on new move discussions expired in Janary, 2013. Does anyone want to volunteer to rerun all the web searches cited in Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Request for comment: Article naming to see if the balance of the names has shifted? EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I just to put a couple of points here and I welcome objections. First, I am reading this article from within PRC borders and completely puzzled by the words "The very fact that Wikipedia itself is not viewable in the PRC'(@Westwind273).I'm in Beijing at the moment and if anything censorship would be tightest here. Secondly, I know this is an English-Western predominant encyclopedia,but please, China has already had enough with you calling itself and its people by the name of one of its major products, and now you people are suggesting to do what, "find an appropriate English name’for an article on an island you Westerners "discovered'nearly a thousand years after China began its official administration? Tolerating Romanized Chinese names on foreign atlases are very annoying because in doing so strips away the name cultural background just to let Westerners able to read it. I really hope you major wiki editors out there could be a little more respectful for the history behind names from other languages and the real world, because of all things Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremostand encyclopedias reflect the world.Wikireader20000 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC+8)

Also, if japanese users here claim, what,"Japan is free and democratic',gimme an explanation how japan is supposed to do that under an increasingly undemocratic, unfree, and militaristic government.Nothing political here.Everything historical.Lets start to count...the annihilation of the Northeastern Volunteers? Why do you cause resistance in a "right' cause? Why do you want there be none?

：For those users who have a relatively correct view of history, I want you to help contribute to the renaming of the Ryukyu Islands article [[41]] as its current name is derived from the Chinese Liuqiu Qundao and it was historically a Chinese protectorate. [[42]]Wikireader2000018:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC+8) ：A use of wider historical reference for article naming including Romanized versions of names of other languages would be more internationally acceptable. Wikipedia in other languages just isn't enough.

Wikireader, try going to a Beijing internet cafe and try to look up the article on the Tiananmen Massacre in Chinese (i.e. the June 4th incident). You will not be able to read it. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have tried that 3 times with 2 successful reads...and we should be talking about the islands right? 14:15,27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader20000 (talk • contribs)

Cross-language Comparison

The Chinese article on these islands contains the Japanese name Senkaku (尖閣) 22 times, including references in the introduction. The Japanese article on these islands only mentions the name Diaoyu (釣魚) 5 times, with no reference in the introduction. I would suggest that the Chinese part of Wikipedia is more open-minded than the Japanese part. I would also suggest that it is flawed to think of the various language versions of Wikipedia as completely separate from each other. The quixotic "English name" of the islands is an unattainable ideal. The name difference "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" does not exist solely in English. In Japan/China it is 尖閣 vs 釣魚. All four of these characters are pronounceable in both languages, so the different naming is purely political. It is like Falkands vs Malvinas. History (and Wikipedia) are written by the winners. Bias is unavoidable. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's your point exactly? John Smith's (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines act as if each language were a completely separate encyclopedia, with no relationship whatsoever. But human knowledge is human knowledge, regardless of which language it is in. There is a certain unity to all language versions of Wikipedia, which is being overlooked. The Japanese don't insist on calling the islands "Senkaku" because of language purity issues; they do it for political reasons. Same for the Chinese and Diaoyu. This English name, Japanese name, Chinese name language debate is a smoke screen for underlying political differences. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

English speakers are also unaware of the practice between Japan and China of pronouncing each other's place names in one's own language. For example, the Japanese call the city of Dalian as "Dairen". And they call Guangzhao "Koushuu". Similarly, the Chinese call Tokyo "Dongjing". What westerners don't realize is that the Chinese name for the islands (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) are in fact the same word in Chinese characters (i.e. kanji). So the choice is not really which name are we choosing for the islands, but rather which local pronunciation are we choosing in English for what is the same word in east asian characters. It is like asking whether the correct name of the capital of France is "per-is" or "pah-rie". It is the same word "Paris", just pronounced differently. So the choice is an English-centric one. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Specific References

Some pro-Senkaku contributors say that standard English references use Senkaku, and that previous RfC's have shown this. Is there a link to these previous RfC's? I find it difficult to easily get at the documentation that supports the Senkaku-only view. As for encyclopedias, Britannica seems to use both Senkaku and Diaoyu. See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/158244/Dependent-States-Year-In-Review-1996/91925/Pacific Other encyclopedias simply copy the Columbia Encyclopedia article (with references), which chooses to stick with just Senkaku. Google Maps uses both Senkaku and Diaoyu. This is compared to Google Maps usage of "Liancourt" for the islands between Korea and Japan. University research papers seem to favor the dual use of Senkaku and Diaoyu. See http://international.uiowa.edu/files/international.uiowa.edu/files/file_uploads/drifte_senkaku_article_1.pdf and http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/bfa92a47-1f5f-4c23-974c-f92e1ed27be4/The-Senkaku-Diaoyu-Island-Controversy--A-Crisis-Po.aspx and http://scar.gmu.edu/book-chapter/daioyusenkaku-dispute-identity-based-conflict-toward-sino-japan-reconciliation I have trouble seeing how the pro-Senkaku people stipulate that English language encyclopedias, maps, news and research papers all overwhelmingly confirm Senkaku. It seems that the majority of evidence now weighs in favor of joint use of Senkaku and Diaoyu. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the Britannica reference, but if does use both as you say, that's a good sign (in favor of a joint name). Since I assume you have access, would you mind providing the exact quotation of the sentence/sentences that talk about these islands? I also see that those recent academic articles do seem to be using joint names. And, as I've said before, I have also seen a shift towards more use of both names in newspaper articles.

As for previous findings, they're scattered throughout the archives; one specific place that I remember was the key one for me that lead me to continue supporting strictly Senkaku Islands, which is my finding that every atlas used in a major university library that listed the islands used Senkaku Islands; see Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#Almanacs (sorry, I don't know why I used the word almanac for a book of maps, which is obviously an atlas). However, I admit that all of those books date to 2008 or earlier, and the shift that many have claimed to be observing is certainly more recent than that.

I must say that these references do actually make me much more likely to accept an alternate name, and I strongly appreciate you finding them. Let me start a new section to start asking what sort of alternate name we might consider choosing. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say thanks to Westwind273 for the efforts finding out more reliable sources regarding the naming issue, which are adding more of evidence on what correct name should be for this article of Wikipedia. Westwind273, if you still want to look at that previous RfC that I think is violating Wikipedia:Five pillars particularly WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, it is here: [43]. Qwyrxian, I can see or read Britannica reference Westwind273 linked, I don't know why you cannot see it. It dated on 1996.--Lvhis (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I get like the first paragraph and a half (which don't mention SI/DI), then it has this "To continue reading, activate your no risk free trial..." which I'm not inclined to do at the moment. If necessary, I can, but I figure since (the two of you) can read it, it's easier to get your cut and paste. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My Times Atlas Eighth comprehensive edition, 1990, calls them "Senkaku guntō (Taio-yu-tai)". Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to want references to other "encyclopedias" as examples of naming. But I think Wikipedia has lost sight of how it has made other encyclopedias largely irrelevant. According to Alexa, Wikipedia is the 6th most popular website in the world, whereas britannica.com's ranking is 5,873. The world has moved beyond old standard encyclopedia's. Researchers today use Wikipedia or go directly to the original source documents. There is very little reason to do anything else. I could make the same case for atlases other than Google Maps and a few other online maps. Printed atlases at libraries are frequently several decades old and have little relevance to the world of today. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just providing a counter-example to "every atlas used in a major university library that listed the islands used Senkaku Islands." Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Westwind273, it's part of our naming guidelines; see the first bullet point at WP:WIAN. With basically everything we do, we're supposed to follow the pack, not lead it. You're welcome to propose changes to that rule, but you'll need to do that on that page, not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:WIAN says that Microsoft Encarta should be used as a reference. Encarta was discontinued five years ago. Also, WP:WIAN says that sources must be modern. Twenty-year-old atlases are not modern. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Westwind273, I am grateful that you correctly interpreted some relevant Wiki policies and guidelines.--Lvhis (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If we chose a different name...

...what would it be? I think that Pinnacle Islands is the worst choice, because the name is totally unused in any of the major works (except as a note like "called Pinnacle in English", and even that's rare). While, yes, a long time ago Wikipedia chose Liancourt Rocks as a compromise name, a lot of that was because they couldn't really find hardly any references in English at all, and thus choosing either the Korean or Japanese name seemed wholly arbitrary. In the case of these islands, however, there's been tons of press; and it seems that there has been a shift (probably, we'll need to RfC later on on the matter) towards both journalists and scholars, and maybe even other tertiary sources, towards using both names.

If that's the case (that most use both), then the "logical" choice would be Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku (just to clarify, I believe that I used to assert that names with slashes are not allowed, but I've found out that they are, you just have to take care with the talk pages). But how do we choose which one? The argument I'd lay out in favor of S/D is that 1) Japan still maintains de facto control of the islands, including a continuing promise from the US to intervene on Japan's behalf, and 2) Senkaku was for quite a long time the much more dominant term in English. In favor of D/S, I'd argue just alphabetical. But I'm interested in the opinion of others.

Finally, let me be very clear: it is well known that I have long been the strongest "supporter" of the Senkaku Islands name. I'm not stating with complete certainty that I accept that the names have fully shifted, enough that we should change our article (I'll want to do some searches myself). But the newest presented evidence (see the above section) does make me think that there is at least good reason to believe it may have changed, and thus the time is ripe for another community reconideration, and that I myself might even be inclined to support a dual name. But I'm not quite there yet, so please don't quote me as solidly in one "camp" or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Now maybe you do can 2 things Qwyrxian: 1. Keep up with the news.From a little while ago, if any Japanese aircraft dare even approach the Diaoyu Islands not even the US guarantees they can go home the way they came. 2. If you can't find anything within 30 years, go through Qing records. There is a record of the then Fujian supreme naval commander patrolling the Diaoyu Islands somewhere... Really sorry I can't give a link, the info was on paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader20000 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I do keep up with the news, and...I could argue with you, but it's irrelevant. This isn't the place to debate the matter. As for some Qing records, they're also irrelevant. Please either contribute to the actual discussion, or find a blog to post on. This discussion is difficult enough to have based on long running tensions that any sort of soapboxing is disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Among the huge number of reliable sources regarding the islands published in English language, now it is seems only this en-wiki use the so biased single "Senkaku". This has made en-wiki shameful as it has claimed having Five pillars particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR but here is actually much less neutral than any independent English publications. Qwyrxian, we can forget about the past and start new page from now. Be sure not to do cherry-picking. As for using dual name, I prefer using Diaoyu/Senkaku as a result of purely nothing connecting the realistic conflicts on the disputed islands, but just alphabetical order. This is better than the reason you listed, particularly your reason 1. You should not complain about "any sort of soapboxing is disruptive" regarding Wikireader20000's comment, as I would say you started so first. I could argue that now Japan has lost de facto total control of the islands and current de facto control of the islands seems to have shifted to two parties Japan and China, but I do not want to involve with this kind of argument. Anyway, if we go the dual local name, we can use simple vote to decide which one, "D/S"or "S/D", should be used. This should not become a big deal.--Lvhis (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This week's news articles on the B-52 flyover seem to overwhelming favor "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Just do a Google News search on "Senkaku" and see the results. Also, the US government (on the State Department's website) seems to have shifted to use of both Senkaku and Daioyu. See http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/204084.pdf --Westwind273 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

More evidence for use of both names. The US Naval War College uses both: http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2953602971/the-senkaku-diaoyu-island-controversy And the National Geographic Atlas uses both names http://maps.nationalgeographic.com/maps You have to register to see it, but both names are used. As for word order, I think Senkaku/Diaoyu seems to be much more common in English than Diaoyu/Senkaku. I think this is because Japan is maintaining effective political control of the islands, which is supported by the United States. The US government is officially neutral on the ultimate fate of the islands, but opposes any use of force to change the status quo of Japanese administration of the islands. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, maybe this isn't the place to pull the discussion back two centuries, but I still insist on the point that the renaming of this article should 1.follow global events and 2.go further back in time. I just can't agree that "because US government...' or "because Google search...' and then a conclusion. China had, is trying to, and will retake the Diaoyu Islands.And Westwind, if you are a American and having pretty rough times now, tell your government to back off and really stay neutral. Wikireader20000 (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on world politics is 100% irrelevant to this article. We do not choose article titles based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors about who should or should not own a particular piece of land. Obviously. You should review our naming policies (start with WP:Article title, and from there you'll find links to the specific policies regarding geographic locations, especially those with disputed ownership and multiple local names). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The habits of major news broadcasters (not just print media) should also be taken into consideration. CNN and PBS Newshour seem to use both names. See http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asia/china-japan-island-explainer/ and http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/11/us-bombers-defy-disputed-chinese-air-space.html --Westwind273 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the article name should be changed to either Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku. Choosing between the two is difficult. In the interest of making slow and conservative changes, I would suggest first changing the article name to Senkaku/Diaoyu, and then continuing the discussion on whether the order should be switched. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Because this article is under discretionary sanctions (see WP:SENKAKU), we can't just change the name; we'll have to hold an RfC first. I've been thinking about whether we should hold one RfC ("what should the name of this article be") or two ("Should the name change to something other than Senkaku" and then, if the first has consensus, "What should the new name of this article be?"). The first is probably better. The key to doing this is to provide a simple, neutral statement of the question. It should be short, and provide links to prior info. But neutrality is the most important. I can draft a quick paragraph in my sandbox, though I don't know if I can get to that for the next two days. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly a very small minority with way too much authority is determined to maintain the bias in this article for whatever their own personal reasons are. This is not a forum. It is Wikipedia. Love how you played the RfC card. Very political and the status quo of bias is maintained. The merit and reliability of Wikipedia is damaged but the current status quo is maintained.98.200.208.230 (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow you're way out of line. Anyone who moved this article without an RfC finding in favor of a new title would probably be immediately blocked, per WP:SENKAKU. In fact, right now, only an admin can move the article (it's move-protected to lock out all non-admin editors). While I am an admin, if I moved it without a clear consensus, not only would I be blocked, I'd lose my adminship for flagrantly violating sanctions. May I also remind you (since I'm pretty sure you're not a new user) that I have always been the primary person insisting on and arguing for the use of SI, and now I'm probably no longer opposing a move to a joint name? Sure, it's status quo, in that I'm maintaining the exact same stance I've always maintained (we need to follow the sources), but it's quite likely that we're going to be shifting the actual title of the article. The fact that this takes time is good: it allows us to establish a solid consensus that isn't likely to be challenged again a few weeks later. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need a new RfC to change the name of this topic of articles into a proper one following reliable sources, but I still wonder if you Qwyrxian have really learned key lessons from past despite I have started to appreciate some of your changes. I disagree on using "what should the name of this article be" for the new RfC because this one will lead people go nowhere again like what happened before, as it is mainly not focusing enough. This one "Should the name change to something other than Senkaku" is also not focusing enough. Per the discussions particularly the recent discussions on this talk page, we can narrow down the RfC title into this one: "Request to change the current name of this article into a dual local name". Under this title, there can be two specific questions: 1)"Change into a dual local name", then participants list their opinions as "Yes, (my reasons)" or "No, (my reasons)". Here we need to emphases the reasons listed shall follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines particularly the Five pillars. 2)"Which dual name should be used?" This one is for the participants who choose "Yes" for the question 1, and obviously there will be only two options "Diaoyu/Senkaku" and "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Participants give their vote under respective option, and their reasons can be very simple and will be better nothing related to the territory dispute in the real world. Qwyrxian, if you think this kind of RfC is not easy to draft for you, I can do it, but please give me a little bit more time as I am very, very busy on my real life outside Wikipedia, though I hope the current improper name can be changed as soon as possible. I also would like to refresh or remind a fact here that Qwyrxian has privilege of adminship but Qwyrxian can only act as a regular user in this topic as he has been involved in this topic very deep and very long (long before he stated to become an admin).--Lvhis (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Now may I ask the only reason you call the the Diaoyu Islands SI is the same reason you call Haishenwai Vladivostok and the Liuqiu Islands Ryukyu? (Interestingly, my computer marked the pinyin but not the currently used names)Wikireader20000 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikireader, I have no idea what you're talking about, but we are supposed to call things based on what RS say. Please note that there is absolutely no chance that I would ever support (nor, I think, would Lvhis) calling the names Diaoyu Islands, since the only reliable sources that only use "Diaoyu" (and not also "Senkaku") are those of the Chinese government and Chinese newspapers.

Lvhis, I agree that a "what should the name of this be" is wrong. How about a ranked list? Something like: "Introduction, explanation,etc. (no more than 3 sentences, per RfC listing rules requiring brevity). Please rank the following possible names for this article 1. Senkaku Islands, 2. Diaoyu Islands, 3. Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, 4. Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, 5. Pinnacle Islands." We include no arguments in favor of any given name in that opening paragraph. Then, as usual, any participant would be allowed to list, below the RfC intro paragraph, their own arguments for one or more names. What do you think? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, more straightforward is much better. No need of going around or giving too much options (ranked) to make participants deviated, and then this will result in the RfC failed. If we respect the current rational discussion and reliable sources provided, we should be clear single "Senkaku" same as single "Diaoyu" is not in line with RSs and wiki policies and guidelines. "Pinnacle Islands" is less used in the modern time. As Westwind273 pointed out: "WP:WIAN says that sources must be modern". So it is very reasonable that the new RfC straightforwardly asks participants if use dual name and which dual name they want to choose. Much simpler. Let me draft it but please be patient. BTW, your ranked order is created by you but not supported by reliable sources.--Lvhis (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, yes, according to the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki,"Articles 2 & 3: China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty of the Penghu group, Taiwan' (from en wikipedia on the treaty), which has become Japan's legal support to its claim of the Islands prior US conquest. After the Xinghai Revolution, President Sun Zhongshan renounced, on behalf of the country, all unequal treaties signed with Japan, but it was then impossible to retake the islands. And according to the Potsdam Declaration, China has full rights to reclaim the Islands but was again unable to do so, and the Islands were under de facto US occupation, and then there was The Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan, which Japan currently uses to support its claim over the Islands. This is very similar to what happened to Haishenwai. According to the Treaty of Beijing, the Qing government ceded Outer Manchuria to Russia, and the area was, as a result, completely Russian-renamed, and is not returned even till to today. I admit that the Japan part is confusing, so I make my point here: what you are implying here if seen from the point of Chinese history is that you are promoting a winner's history and resulting namings.

Though hardly as important, Westwind273, when we discuss the Islands we discuss them as a whole. The fact that one island has the same name in both languages does not stand for the entire group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader2000 (talk • contribs)

I'll have to ask you again to go look at our policies on naming articles, because nothing you're saying here has even a tiny bit to do with that. You're arguing over who should actually own the islands; that's not a debate that belongs here on Wikipedia (I mean, we should and of course do report on the debate, but we are not allowed to sit here on the talk page and debate the quality of the evidence). We care about one and only one thing: how the islands are usually called in English language sources. Previously, consensus was that the name "Senkaku Islands" was the dominant language in English language sources. Recently, due to the fact that the conflict over ownership has become more visible to the wider world, a large number of sources seem to have switched to using both names. Thus, what we have to do is figure out how to account for that. I've proposed a rough idea of how we can phrase the question above (asking WP editors to rank the naming choices); I'd like other people's input, especially Lvhis's, given his long history with the article and the naming dispute. I think both he and I want basically the same thing (a switch to some sort of dual name), so we have to figure out how to easily present the question to the wider community to establish consensus and sort out the finer details. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that it's going to be possible to have a discussion about renaming at this time. Maybe try again later? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Giving some time for feelings about the name to cool so it can be discussed rationally is not a bad idea. Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say move forward, but move forward slowly. Get the RfC started now, but take time with it. By the time the RfC is completed, the current dust-up on Senkaku will either have passed or become permanent, either of which should allow us to continue with the name change. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best to leave the issue for now. John Smith's (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Westwind273 that we should move forward but cautiously. So far the recent discussion has mainly been quite calm, peaceful, rational, and civilized/polite. If one is not playing some tricks to keep the current improper name, or to keep the merit and reliability of en-Wikipedia being damaged in using this name, one should not reject to move forward. Remember how hurried you guys to do the previous RfC? Do not apply double standards. Honestly obey the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Lvhis (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, if I get you right, Wikipedia's naming regulations are too rigid too adapt to the fact that any naming, any naming, has too take into account of all related historical information?--Wikireader20000 (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikireader, if you're not willing to follow Wikipedia policies, you will have little influence on Wikipedia content. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that we do need to move forward on this; waiting until some theoretical time when the issue is "cool" could conceivably mean waiting for years until this issue becomes less of a real world problem (which it may never). And I am personally persuaded that there has been enough of a change in the way RS refer to the subject that it's probably time to change the article to some sort of hybrid name (note that this is despite my own personal feelings about who "actually" owns the islands). However, I'm not willing to unilaterally start the RfC, since Lvhis was so unhappy last time. Which returns me to my earlier question: Lvhis, what do you think about the idea of asking RfC respondents to rank 5 names (S, D, S/D, D/S, P)?

Wikireader20000, Kendall-K1 is correct here. Plus, you have to think about what you're saying: you're trying to make this an argument about what is really "true", about who the islands "really" belong to (and thus, who deserves the right to name them). Well, obviously, we're not going to answer that question here on Wikipedia; if we could, the matter wouldn't be such a big deal in the real world. Our job here is not to figure out the "Truth" about the islands--rather, our only job, on this or any subject, is to present an adequate, neutral summary of what reliable sources say about the subject.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a fascinating problem. Most of WP:WIAN doesn't even apply, and the news media are not being much help. I've read two stories in the last few days in major papers that didn't even name the islands. I'm almost tempted to propose The Disputed Islands since that's the most common name I've seen lately. I'm just worried about keeping the discussion on track. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a slashed name, but in order for that to happen, we would either need a really strong consensus towards making this a WP:IAR case, or make an amendment to WP:AT to allow for it. Though, I'd presume that if we were to open a discussion up, a lot of the "policy purists" on Wikipedia wouldn't react too kindly to the idea of having a X/Y article title. It's the same reason why we don't have a Dokdo/Takeshima article, or a Macedonia/FYROM article; similar proposals have been met with opposition in the past. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Here I would like to point out that the dual name (or hybrid name as Qwyrxian likes to refer) is from and supported by reliable sources, not created by wiki users. The most important Wikipedia policies and guidelines is Wikipedia:Five pillars. Besides Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it is also saying "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, .... Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception." Actually using a dual name has not been an exception even according to the detail wording in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). --Lvhis (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I responded to your "ranked options" already. You may missed it so I re-posted it for you as below:

Qwyrxian, more straightforward is much better. No need of going around or giving too much options (ranked) to make participants deviated, and then this will result in the RfC failed. If we respect the current rational discussion and reliable sources provided, we should be clear single "Senkaku" same as single "Diaoyu" is not in line with RSs and wiki policies and guidelines. "Pinnacle Islands" is less used in the modern time. As Westwind273 pointed out: "WP:WIAN says that sources must be modern". So it is very reasonable that the new RfC straightforwardly asks participants if use dual name and which dual name they want to choose. Much simpler. Let me draft it but please be patient. BTW, your ranked order is created by you but not supported by reliable sources.--Lvhis (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

--Lvhis (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Lvhis, I did miss your reponse in the last flurry. As to your points: yes, you and I and several others here agree that Senkaku alone is not acceptable, but we need a community-wide decision, and given that this article is under sanctions, we can't ourselves eliminate them as possibilities. We need a clear consensus that a dual name is even desirable (while I'd hate it, I can imagine the community preferring "Pinnacle Islands" under the same flawed logic that got us Liancourt Rocks. However we present it, retaining the current name or choosing Pinnacle need to be somehow given as options, even though, again, as I say, I think either such choice would be wrong. But I'm not in any hurry--I'm happy to let you draft the RfC. I would like, though, that you provide us with a draft copy first; no offense, but your last attempt to draft an RfC here flatly failed RfC rules by being overly long and non-neutral.

Benlinsquare, I thought so, too--I had long assumed that slashes couldn't be used in article titles, because that's usually used to indicate a subpage, but I found an example of a similarly disputed territory where there is a slash: Imia/Kardak (interestingly, also a set of unoccupied islands). Plus WP:TSC, which deals with technical concerns in titles, doesn't list slashes as one of the problems. So there's at least precedent that it's possible. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I am now drafting it and will provide a draft copy first. I do not agree on your comment on my last RfC attempt, but no need of arguing it any more now. We just move forward.--Lvhis (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with John Smith's and RFC is not needed now. Lvhis, forget about using the dispute-related sources as RS and provide non-dispute-related material with two names, then ask for consensus of RFC first. Oda Mari (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would the sources need to be unrelated to the dispute? Why would there ever even be any coverage of these islands other than about the dispute? As a side note, though, at least two of the sources provided above were non-dispute related: Brittanica and one map site (I'd have to check back to see which one). In any event, running an RfC is what we do because we can't clearly tell the consensus among already involved editors. Since we've long passed the admin-mandated "no RfC period", and since some editors have presented evidence of a change in sources, I don't really see any way that editors can refuse the holding of an RfC. And, Lvhis, feel free to take as much time as you need; I'm trying to focus more on real life, too :). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Every dispute-related source mentions D and S as the basic information of the islands. They do not tell us which one is the commonly used name. The more PRC/ROC do/say something the more media use the names, but that does not mean Chinese names are common names. What if there is no dispute? What would be the name? That is why I think non-dispute-related sources like nautical charts are more important. There has been a lot of media coverages because China is loud, but the situation has not changed. BTW, I don't think Liancourt Rocks is a compromise name. Like Senkaku, it's the name adopted by the United States Board on Geographic Names. And Deputy Spokesperson, Mark C. Toner said "You’re referring to what are broadly known as – or internationally known as the Liancourt Rocks, I think?". Oda Mari (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite typical "cherry-picking" and a criteria created by you. You can insist on your such point but whether this is valid is another issue. At this point I agree with Qwyrxian.--Lvhis (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian you worte "under the same flawed logic that got us Liancourt Rocks". There was no flawed logic in the name follows procedure (and indeed the U.S. Board on Geographic Names wanted to follow Wikipedia's lead on this name until the Koreans complained through diplomatic and political channels [44]). For example your suggested solution of placing both names in the article title has been rejected repeatedly for other article titles two reasons. The first is technical see although subpages have been disabled in article space they have not for talk pages and so archiving and searching becomes confusing see AC/DC is an article but talk pages are under talk:AC/DC where the parent page is talk:AC (if you do not understand this point then you would not be alone, it took me some time to understand what the problem was and why it is undesirable -- but it is a known technical issue against this type of page name). The second and more important one is it tends to move the debate from the title to the first name in the title, and as such the name is no more stable than before (see WP:STROKE CITY), but there are dozens of examples of where a slash solution would be used if it were accepted (most Belgium names for a start). If it could be shown that the name order predominated in most English language usage (including across national variates of English) then such a solution would be possible. In the case of Liancourt Rocks given the non neutrality of the other names "Liancourt Rocks" was the best choice (meeting both the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV).-- PBS (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If the dispute is over an article's title, then the procedure to use is WP:RM, not RfC. The reason for this is that the RM procedure is tailored for move requests in ways that an RfC is not. The RM procedure follows the Wikipedia Policy page for article titles and its naming conventions, RfCs tend to get sidetracked into all sorts of of other guidance that is not focused on names. The RM procedure has a review process to review if the closing administrator has followed the procedures the RfC does not. The last time an RfC was used for a really controversial move it took months for the fireworks to died down (see Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 12#Action at WP:ANI concerning the RFC and its closure (August 2012) and follow it from there). So I strongly recommend that you use RM and not RfC for requested moves on this page. -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the matter of LR, which even though I disagree on, isn't worth getting into a discussion about here, as I mentioned the slashed title is used for at least one other set of disputed islands, so I think it's at least worthy of consideration here, and I don't think there's a single regular editor who supports "Pinnacle Islands".

As for using RM rather than RfC, I think that's an excellent idea. I haven't used the process recently, so I'd have to look up the details, but it does sound like a better fit. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I should have asked, though, PBS: can RM be used even though we don't actually know what name we want to move it to yet? When part of the point of the community discussion is that we want to present options for everyone to decide? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered)." (WP:RM/CM) -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not digested the WP:RM/CM yet. I am thinking we may have a RfC first to get a consensus on which dual/hybrid name we agree to use and then go WP:RM. PBS, thank you for your advise. Is taking WP:RM/CM directly faster than taking RfC+RM?--Lvhis (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

See my replay below (no point spreading the conversation around) -- PBS (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw it after posted my question here as we edited almost at same time then. I strikethrough it. --Lvhis (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

use of the name "Senkaku" to denote the entire group

We've got this in the article:

The collective use of the name "Senkaku" to denote the entire group began with the advent of the controversy in the 1970s.

but I can't find this in the given source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right. From the given source I found "Although the name of the main island, Diaoyutai, dates back to the early fiftieth <typo for fifteenth?> century according to an existing Chinese record, the collective use of the name to denote the entire group began with the advent of the controversy between Japan and Taiwan in 1970 (Park 1973: 248–9)." The sentence in the article should be deleted or rewritten. A bad example of false using the given source and cheating readers.--Lvhis (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Kendall, if you look all I did was remove the space from the front of your quotation. With the space there, the entire thing is pushed into a box that is cut off--I (and I assume anyone else without a massive monitor) can't read anything past the first screen-length of words. I've gone ahead and wrapped it in a quote template; that will still keep it indented, but also prevent it from going off screen. Is that closer to what you meant to do?

As for the edit itself, if it isn't verified in the source, then I agree that we should delete it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, my intent was to make it clear that was a quote from the article and not my words. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I just restored and corrected the text of the deleted edit to reflect what the sources says, and I believe that it points to a problem, perhaps, with the dispute denying name of this article. To deny that there is a dispute is clearly pushing a pro 'right-wing Japan' approach (i.e., not everyone in Japan agrees with that approach).--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-dispute-related sources?

I think it is wrong to require that sources be non-dispute-related. The fact of the matter is, if there were not a dispute, then there would not be an English-language article about these islands. These islands are uninhabited and only 7 km2 in size. You can find many island groups near both Japan and China of similar size, about which there are no English-language articles. If the dispute is the only reason for the article's existence, then it is ridiculous to stipulate that all naming resources must be non-dispute-related. The dispute itself is the only reason for the article's existence and length in the first place. Furthermore, in terms of common usage, the number of people viewing Senkaku/Diaoyu in dispute-related sources is likely to be millions of times higher than the number of people viewing obscure nautical charts used by ship captains. If we are looking for the most common English name, then we must be realistic about the most common English sources. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

These are uninhabited islands of Japan and some islands are smaller than Senkaku. Probably there are more articles like this one. Considering the Koga family's life on the island and Senkaku mole, the article would be definitely here at en:WP without dispute. Oda Mari (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: If these islands are not really notable outside of the dispute, then maybe this article should be merged into the Senkaku Islands Dispute article. --Westwind273 (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the idea that we would use only "non-dispute related sources" when deciding the name is a bad one; not only would it leave us with little to examine, it would be simply counter to policy. But as for the idea that it should be merged into the dispute article (that's esentially how the article used to be, in that the dispute stuff was all mentioned here in this article and there was no dispute article); well, we can't simply remove the article on the islands, because all major geographic features (those important enough to have been described in details in sources) should usually have their own article. Additionally, I wouldn't agree with merging the dispute article back into this one, but that's purely because it would be too long as one article. That matter, though, is certainly up for discussion, though I think it would be easier to hold such a discussion after naming issue is put through an RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The first problem with this "dispute related" question is how to define "dispute". One would assume that you would have to go back to a period before ownership of the islands (rocks) was contested, which would appear to be the 19th century (Suganuma, 2001): Edo period Japan, when the Japanese maps used the Chinese name; and Meiji period Japan, when Japanese diplomatic communications caution about angering the Chinese in relation to the islands (as Chinese territory).--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us do the naming RfC first. The draft for this RfC now is ready and I posted it in the page User:Lvhis/dn RfC. Please give yous suggestions on its talk page.--Lvhis (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Westwind273 pointed out the very right reason why "dispute-related-sources" cannot be "cherry-pickingly" excluded. This group of islands has been notable enough to exist in Wikipedia as it perfectly fits what requires in the notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability, no matter its notability results from its ownership dispute or not. Once it is notable enough, its geographic features and other non-dispute-related information is worth being included in such independent article, as Qwyrxian mentioned. So I don't think we need to bother to merge this article to other one. It can stand alone in such free encyclopedia. Let us move forward to have the naming RfC first.--Lvhis (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lvhis's draft RfC

Quick comments (only minutes to spend on WP today): 1) remove all of the policy links; we expect RfC commenters to seek out policies as needed, and to have them come up in the discussion itself. 2) The intro paragraph must to be changed as it's not neutral. It is not stating the dispute, it's taking the strong position that the sources clearly show the use of a dual name. Even though I agree that the sources lean that way, we cannot make the RfC intro paragraph say that. If you want to say that, you (or anyone else) should add that in your own comments in the responses section.The RfC is not seeking to get consensus to change to a dual name. The RfC is extended our current dispute of "what should the name be" to the wider community. So, the part after sentence 1 of paragraph 1 should be replaced with something like,

A number of editors have raised the concern that, particularly in light of changing representation in sources, the community should revisit the issue of the article name. Specifically, as discussed in the talk page section above Talk:Senkaku Islands#Specific References, some editors have proposed changing this to a dual name, such as "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu"

That would also then require changes to later parts, since, for example, there's no "list of reliable sources" to refer back to. My big message, though, is this: that RfC draft is not neutral (it pushes a specific position in the debate), and doing so would be grounds for the immediate termination of that RfC and possible arbitration-related enforcement against anyone posting it. Please note that I mean no disrespect to you, Lvhis--I totally understand why you've phrased it the way you did, and this sort of "proposal" would be acceptable in most types of writing, but not in the very specific set of rules relating to how we make RfC proposals on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, first thank you for checking the draft and giving your quick comments. My question for your point 1: "remove all of the policy links; we expect RfC commenters to seek out policies as needed, and to have them come up in the discussion itself", please review the last RfC drafted and initiated by you on that you listed the policies and guidelines with their links. I checked the Wikipedia:RFC and no place saying policy links cannot be listed. Can you give some detail that based on what you think the policy links have to be removed? I will take most part you suggested in your point 2 to consider to revise the draft, though I am still waiting for others comments and am reading more detail on Wikipedia:RFC. As for your "big message", please do not worry too much (as I do not worry to much either). I said we should move forward but cautiously. Actually, when I read the Wikipedia:RFC, I am even thinking we may not need to have RfC this time, because from the current discussion on this talk page, we have almost got a consensus to use a dual (hybrid) name, and only a small issue (D/S or S/D?) left. But anyway, I am still going ahead to revise the draft.--Lvhis (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Two points: first, only pro-Japanese sources use the name Senkaku(s); second, that would be obvious to anyone that has actually read the most reliable academic source on this topic, that being the book by Suganuma.

I see above that someone has claimed that because someone has managed to categorize the subject of this article under "uninhabited Japanese islands" that the article is notable, or something to that effect, along with an equally fantastic story about the naming of a mouse, which has apparently been called after the name Senkakus for the past few years. With respect to the Koga family, that is another topic addressed by Suganuma (see p. 34 top paragraph, for example), and it clearly does not support the claims made above. It should be noted that Suganuma refers to the islets by the Chinese name 'Diaoyu', though I have only had time to read the first 40 pages.

Accordingly, I'm not sure that a simple RfC on the name is sufficient in this case. There is a problem with the categorization under "uninhabited Japanese islands", for starters, as that would seem to be an obvious form of POV-pushing abuse of categories. I would suggest that people that want to seriously edit this contentious topic at least read the sources. The notability of these islets outside of the dispute is indeed questionable, but Suganuma discusses the relevance to the Chinese of the islets from their first appearance in recorded history (16th century) an earlier, as well as the important 19th century interactions with the Japanese. For example, on pp. 37-8, Suganuma states

Despite the "rediscovery" of the Diaoyu islands by Koga in 1884, the decree by Empress Dowager Cixi in 1893 will provide the key evidence to terminate the Japanese soi-distant rediscovery theory. Therefore, all evidence suggests that the Chinese fulfilled their sovereign duty to manifest effective control of the Diaoyu islands.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Lvhis, you're 100% right on the list of policies point. I have no idea what I was thinking. Somehow when I read yours it struck me as unnecessary, but that's completely unfair of me. I have no problem with them being included. On the broader question as to whether or not we should have an RfC, normally I would agree with you that we could do without an RfC, but we already know that there are several objections to the name change, and given that this is under sanctions, I'm not sure we can do without one. Maybe we could ask one of the uninvolved admins who've previously helped us with this article? On the other point (the neutrality of the message), thanks for understanding.

Ubikwit, I do see how the categorization could be a concern; I've never noticed before because I rarely look at categories except on BLP articles. Would it be better to remove the Japanese category, or to add an equivalent Chinese category? Or would that still be a problem due to the status of Taiwan? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian It's kind of a complicated scenario, as you point out. Aside from th category problem, it has been a strategy of Japan to claim that there is no dispute for the past some odd years (need to confirm when they officially adopted that line), so the assertion that there should be an article about these islets that only uses sourced not related to the dispute is inherently POV )i.e., pro-Japanese nationalists (not all Japanese are happy about the scenario, and Suganuma is Japanese)). Accordingly, one would imagine that if there is to be an article that deals with the history of the physical islands in a manner that tries to avoid the dispute, it would have to bear both names, and probably with the Japanese name not being used until the 19th century comes under discussion.

With regard to the categories, is there a category called "Disputed territories", for example. I suppose it would be possible to create respective categories for each country laying a claim, such as "Disputed territory claimed by Taiwan", etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the difficult status of Taiwan should be too much of a problem in regards to article categories; Wikipedia essentially already recognises Taiwan as a de facto country with limited recognition and complicated situation; since we have two country articles at China and Taiwan, it wouldn't be that much of a problem to include separate categories for "Chinese" and "Taiwanese" disputed territories. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I was responding to the above without looking at the article, and it looks like all of the concerns addressed above are already in the categories. It's in "Uninhabited islands of Japan" as well as "Unihabited islands of China" and "Islands of Taiwan" (I'm guessing there's no separate "uninhabited" sub-cat for Taiwan). It's also in "Disputed islands", "Territorial disputes of China", "Territorial disputes of Japan", and "Territorial disputes of Republic of China". It seems to be more than appropriately categorized. What change are you actually seeking here, Ubikwit? It seems like the cats are quite neutral. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, only the editor comment above in the preceding section. Actually, I don't even know where the categories are listed.

In that case, it would appear that we have uncovered a self-evident problem with naming the islands using only the Japanese name, as even the Wikipedia categories would not be in agreement with that. There is a contradiction between the name of the article and the categoriztion of its subject.

The Taiwan issue is more complicated, as Taiwan was considered to be a province of China in 1895, which is the relevant date of the dispute according to the China position. The Japanese position is that it is 1971, if I'm not wrong. At any rate, Taiwan (another territory once controlled by the Japanese) is certainly not uninvolved in the dispute but a party to it due to subsequent developments and in conjunction with the divided China issue. Moreover, the use the Taiwanese name in sources is comparatively sparse. The Chinese claim is based on a history that goes back into ancient times, with the oldest records dating to the 16th century, the Japanese claim as a result of conflict in the late 19th century, and Taiwan indirectly as a result of subsequent events/(suspended) status/treaty agreements. etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed what Qwyrxian did for the categories issue. Now Ubikwit has been also aware that. The category issue itself is over, but I agree with Ubikwit that even from the view of categories point the name/title here should be changed. PBS suggested we probably should go RM instead of RfC, but I think we still need an RfC to decide which dual (hybrid) name we should use and then go RM. I will revise the draft and our emphasis should be on "Issue II: which dual name should be used".--Lvhis (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pointless having two different processes to decide on an article title, most people who have a passing interest but not a passion on the subject will not want to have to repeat themselves in two separate discussions, but they are the ones most likely to form a consensus. Also it is potentially divisive to have two processes discussing the same thing -- suppose the consensus varies between the two? Decisions on article titles should be made using the RM process for the reasons I gave above. -- PBS (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"The result of this part will be decided by simple straw polls or votes." This is contrary to the RM process which explains that decisions are based on opinions expressed within the context of the the WP:AT and WP:CONSENSUS policies (see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions and more specifically the section Determining consensus). This is yet another example of why the RM process and its rules based around interpreting WP:AT is a better way to decide a page title than using an RfC with ad-hock rule made up by those who wish to initiate an RfC. -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You answered my question posted above [45] when we edited almost at same time. Thank you. So we should go WP:RM/CM and this is not only a right procedure but also faster, is it? And abandon "... by simple straw polls or votes."--Lvhis (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- PBS (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Lvhis (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please wait until I have a chance to post a few passages from the Suganuma book to provide a little context with respect to the question of notability, which bears on naming. He places the naming of the islets in Chinese to the first half of the 13 century, with the earliest surviving records from the 16 century relating to Chinese (Investiture) missions to the Liuqiu (Ryukyu) Kingdom during the Ming Dynasty. I believe that the earliest use of the name Senkaku was in the late 19th century, but haven't gotten that far in the book. One thing that is notable and relevant is that it appears the islets were not considered a part of the Liuqiu Kingdom, though I haven't gotten to the part of the book that definitively lays out that scenario.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going to post my request per WP:RM/CM for changing the name/title. Thank admin PBS again for advising us to use the right procedure. Please give me more suggestion, admin PBS, if anything in my RM/CM below needs to be revised.--Lvhis (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I have written on this page should be taken as administrative instruction. I simple gave advise as an experienced editor on the advantages of using the RM process. You are free to follow my advise or not as you would any other experienced editor who expresses an opinion on a talk page. -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That is fine. No matter what, as long as your advice has been indeed helpful.--Lvhis (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

To reflect the ongoing RM/CM as follows and to attract more participants, I am adding NPOV-Title tag on corresponding articles. This tag can be removed when the RM/CM closed.--Lvhis (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

• Senkaku Islands → Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands
• Senkaku Islands dispute → Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute
• 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident → 2010 Diaoyu/Senkaku boat collision incident

– The name/title "Senkaku Islands" currently used for this article and its related articles has been disputed for quite a long time even after the previous RfC. A number of editors have raised the concern and recently have basically reached a consensus in light of great and increasing numbers of reliable sources published in English lanuage, as discussed in the talk page sections [46][47][48][49][50] , that a dual (hybrid) name such as "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu" should be applied for the name/title of this articles and its related articles. According to reliable sources, for the name of the islands, "Senkaku" is Romanized Japanese name and "Diaoyu" is Romanized Chinese name (or described like "called Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan"), and "Pinnacle Islands" is the name from English language but less used in the moden time. Many reliable sources in English language directly use a dual (hybrid) form "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu" making the two local names equally together and brief, and to keep these sources on independent neutral stand for this ownership disputed islands . Using current single "Senkaku" for the name of this article and its related article has deviated far away from the main stream of reliable sources published in English language and is much less neutral than any independent English publications, having resulted in damaging the merit and reliability of Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia:Five pillars particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and other relevant policies including WP:V, Article title policy, and WP:NCGN (in particular Multiple local names), now I request to move this article and its related articles under name "Diaoyu/Senkaku" as indicated above as soon as possible. Whether using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or using "Senkaku/Diaoyu" should not become a substantial issue to preven this move, as both of them have been used in many reliable sources published in English language, and both are relatively neutral. I tried to search them on Google Books or Google News Archive but it is almost impossible to clearly or completely separate them, i.e. a search for one dual (hybrid) name will always contain the other dual (hybrid) one, and the result of Google Books search gave an almost equal results for the two forms searches. After all we have to choose one from these two to request move, and I choose "Diaoyu/Senkaku" based on simple reasons: 1) the alphabetical order of English language, and 2 ) the historical order of names generated: "Diaoyu" generated as early as 1403 while "Senkaku" was generated around 1900.

Reliable Sources shown in my request above:

Lvhis (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, move see WP:STROKE CITY there has been for may years agreement that placing a forward slash in a name is a bad idea unless it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Support move to Pinnacle Islands. See the arguments a for the move to Liancourt Rocks where there is a similar ownership dispute and where the name used in English language publications is often promoted as a form of propaganda. Moving to Pinnacle Islands can be justified by the policy statement in WP:COMMONNAME "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". -- PBS (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did (or do) not really have a problem with moving to Pinnacle Islands. See my comments two year ago here[51], here[52], and here ("Senkaku Islands" is NOT a English name but a POV name/title). My only concern is if it fits what are required in WP:MPN. While if consensus tells no better choice than this "Pinnacle Islands", maybe we can ignore this WP:MPN?--Lvhis (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MPN is part of a naming convention (guideline) it is not policy (WP:AT) and I think it can be discounted in this case by simply referring to its last paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:STROKE CITY/User:PBS. According to this Google Books Ngram, "Senkaku" is marginally more common so the current title works fine. However, I could support Pinnacle Islands per WP:UE. —  AjaxSmack  23:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per PBS. Pinnacle Islands should be considered, per UE, but sticking two non-English names together with a slash is poor style. Jonathunder (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Support move to Pinnacle Islands. There isn't really a common name in English. I've even read two newspaper accounts that don't use any name for the islands when discussing the dispute. That leaves us free to pick a name that is most neutral. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious how a newspaper would manage that. How did they refer to this place? Jonathunder (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are a couple: [53][54] There was one in a US paper too but I can't find it now. This is what prompted me to propose, only half in jest, that we call them the Disputed Islands. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The reason why I think Pinnacle Islands is the best name can be seen in comparing the first sentences of the articles Liancourt Rocks with Senkaku Islands. This is because using a neutral name as the article title allows the first sentence of the introduction to be structured in a more neutral way. I think that the name ordering in the Senkaku Islands article appears to favour Japan's claim. Compare it for example with the lead in the Gdansk article, that is clearly a Polish city under international law but also mentions the German name in the lead for use when the history of the city is mentioned.
  • The Liancourt Rocks, also known as Dokdo or Tokto in Korean, and Takeshima in Japanese,
  • The Senkaku Islands also known as the Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyutai Islands or the Pinnacle Islands...
  • Gdańsk (Kashubian: Gduńsk; German: Danzig]) is a Polish city on the Baltic coast...

  --PBS (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support the move to the slashed title, Vehemently Oppose the a move to "Pinnacle Islands". That name is never used. Like, really, never. No modern source uses it. It's not a neutral name if it's never used--it's placing extreme value over a small number of very old sources as opposed to modern names. Using Pinnacle Islands is a flat out and obvious violation of WP:AT. If we cannot use a slashed title, we must keep it at either Senkaku or Diaoyu, based on whichever one is used slightly more often, however we discern that. This article is in no way similar to Liancourt Rocks--these islands are discussed often in English language articles, especially in the last year.

Question: Is there some other way we can call these islands to demonstrate that there are two distinct terms used? "Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands"? Ugh, that's awful, even as I type it...but it's still better (in my opinion), than Pinnacle Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian please keep you comments factual. "That name is never used" that is incorrect see the ngram above provided by User:AjaxSmack, and these four examples: [55], [56], [57], [58] -- PBS (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Prefer Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands: Although the ordering isn't really that much of an issue, and I'd be fine either way, realistically speaking it would be fairer to have the Japanese name first, as any realistic administrative control is presently within the hands of Japan. That said, I'm not going to get too hung up over the ordering. Strongly oppose Pinnacle Islands (a name nobody uses apart from a bunch of dead people buried underground), weak oppose exclusive use of either Chinese or Japanese name, as having "no solution" isn't a solution to our current problem (that the present title isn't fair to all sides). This case is not a Liancourt Rocks case, nor is it a London/derry case; it is a completely separate case, and users really should stop making reference to them as if they are the holy grail examples that we must follow for every single case.

  There is no technical reason why we should prohibit slashed articles: Wikipedia does not have technical limitations which disallow them (see Imia/Kardak); currently it seems that we have a "Wikipedia old guard" who vehemently oppose slashes based on old, unwritten "laws", and prefer the Liancourt Rocks solution from years back which in reality is a poorly-constructed compromise. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• While consensus can change it has not been shown to have changed (in regards to putting a slash into a name that is not constructed that way in reliable sources), in this debate so far. Experience has shown that ordering is considered as important to many editors as an article title so why do you favour "Senkaku/Diaoyu" over "Diaoyu/Senkaku" and can you show that either version with a slash is a COMMONNAME? ngrams have been provided by AjaxSmack, and I have just provided four examples above of people who use the name so "a name nobody uses apart from a bunch of dead people buried underground" has been shown to be inaccurate. "There is no technical reason" not strictly true, a forwards slash in a url represents a dir marker, but in the case of Wikipedia these have been turned off for articles, but it has not been turned off for talk pages. Ie the page AC/DC is a page but talk:AC/DC are two pages. -- PBS (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

With reference to those sources

1. 1. [59].Note that that is the LoC listing, which uses Senkaku Islands. The reference to Pinnacle is from 1979: not a current reference.
   2. [60]. A much better source that does in fact seem to use Pinnacle Islands.
   3. [61]. That source doesn't use Pinnacle Islands. It mentions it. But note the actual title of the article uses "Senkaku". So, yes, it mentions it, but doesn't use it.
   4. [62]. First, that's basically a blog. Second, please read the article and it's style--it's a farcical approach, done deliberately to be humorous. Third, read this: "This author will refer to them by their English name, Pinnacle Islands, simply because this name is so gloriously inappropriate for what the damn thing is - a jagged bunch of rocks sticking out in the middle of nowhere. " He's chosen Pinnacle Islands specifically because he thinks it's funny, because it's entirely wrong. So I don't think we can count that as a legitimate use of the name.

So, that's exactly two sources relevant to this discussion that use the name "Pinnacle Islands". Compared to, literally, thousands, that use either "Senkaku/Diaoyu" or "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or something like "called Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan". I definitely do not count Pinnacle Islands as a legitimate choice here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)