Talk:Senkaku Islands

Suggestion: Follow Liancourt Rocks precedent

Same exact situation; Japan disputes an islet controlled by Korea, despite different naming conventions, the article title reflects a neutral mutually agreed upon alternative, "Liancourt Rocks" for the Dokdo (Korean) or Takeshima (Japanese) islands, which each automatically re-directs towards the Liancourt Rocks page. Following the Liancourt rocks precedent, I propose a change to the title to Pinnacle Islands since using the Japanese name for the disputed island as the primary title of the article is blatant violation of NPOV. The solution is acceptable because Senkaku (Japanese) and Diaoyutai automatically re-directs to "Pinnacle Islands" anyways, so it reflects different naming conventions without bias towards either claimant.Phead128 (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a possibility; however, while Liancourt Rocks is a precedent, it's not an automatic path we must follow. Consider, for example, Sea of Japan, which is somewhat similarly disputed, where the community decided long ago that Sea of Japan is the dominant name. My opinion is complex, but for me since there is a slight to significant preference for SI in academic sources and a definite (nearly unanimous) preference for SI in international almanacs, that SI is, at least for now, still the more common English name. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sea of Japan (East Sea) naming dispute is more about rectifying the colonial shame of Japanese militarism and colonization, whereas Senkaku-Diaoyutai is more about avoiding bias in suggesting a disputed claimant has more sovereign claims to the island than the other. Also, even if a certain name such as Senkaku islands is more popular, typing Senkaku islands would automatically re-direct to Pinnacle Islands, which wouldn't affect name searches at all, but would follow the Liancourt Rock precedent, which involves a highly heated island dispute between Japan and her neighbors North/South Korea oTver some islands that Korea controls.Phead128 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2011 (UC)

You do make one mistake, though. The title is not a violation of NPOV, because it's not actually using the Japanese name. In fact, the whole reason it's at the name it currently is is because myself (and many others) argue that the English name is Senkaku Islands, not Pinnacle Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought that that Senkaku Shoto (尖閣諸嶼)" is a Japanese translation of the English name, "Pinnacle Islands."Phead128 (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have clarified above. Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent the way you're saying. Rather, we have policies and guidelines that we attempt to apply in each case; particularly with contentious subjects, no single, reliable precedent is set. For geographic places, our guidelines tell us that we are supposed to choose the most common English name. You're actually incorrect to put this in terms of a territorial dispute--per Wikipedia's rules, this is a dispute about the correct English name for a group of minor, uninhabited islands. If you look at WP:Article titles, it explicitly says that NPOV is only part of the issue in determining names; and if you look specifically at WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), it tells us we must, if possible, choose the more common English name. If editors were able to show that there is no single common English name, than I, for one, would accept the "compromise" name of Pinnacle Islands. In my opinion, we've shown over and over again that the most common English name is Senkaku Islands. A parallel situation is Sakhalin--we've "chosen a side" in the dispute there, but not because we favor Russia's claims to the island, but because that's the name used in reliable English sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2011

Endorse reasoning which is explained in summary form by Qwyrxian above --compare extensive consensus-building in archived threads. --Tenmei (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The most common English name for the islands is not the most common Japanese name for the island, which obviously is Senkaku , because Senkaku is the Japanese translation of the English name "Pinnacle Islands". Senkaku isn't an English name, it is a Japanese name. Senkaku is Japanese for "Pinnacle islands," so if you want to look for a most common English name, it would be "Pinnacle island" and nothing else, since it's the only "English name" for the islands available. Also, popularity shouldn't be the measure if neutrality of the article is at stake. Popularity should not come before neutrality, which is why "Pinnacle Island" (English) should be the primary article title, with Senkaku (Japanese) and Diaoyutai (Chinese) automatically re-directing to the page. This follows the "Liancourt" (Franco-German) (coined by Library of Congress) as the primary article title, with Dokdo (Korean) and Takeshima (Japanese) auto redirect to the page, even though Liancourt is far less common than Dokdo/Takeshima.Phead128 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but your proposal has been made numerous times in the past but consensus has never been reached to move the page name. I am sorry but I don't believe in asking the same question until the "right" answer is given. Also, lots of places are referred to by their foreign names. For example, Paris is called Paris in English, as is Hannover. John Smith's (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

One could forgive the Library of Congress use the Franco-English name for the "Liancourt Rocks" derived from from Le Liancourt, the name of a French whaling ship which came close to being wrecked on the rocks in 1849, instead of Dokdo (Korean) or Takeshima (Japanese), despite the significantly lower popularity of "Liancourt Rocks," to maintain neutrality. Similar to "Liancourt Rocks", a Franco-English name coined by the Library of Congress for the primary article title of Dokdo/Takeshima, the English name for the islands, "Pinnacle Islands" as the primary article title, since it would reach a compromise between Senkaku (Japanese) and Diaoyutai (Chinese), despite "Pinnacle Islands" relatively lower popularity. Mind you, two island disputes involving Japan are handled very differently on Wikipedia. If Liancourt was reverted to Dokdo, you know the Japanese would make a big business out of it. Phead128 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't address my point. You complained that we're using a non-English name - there's nothing to say that we can't, especially if it's adopted by English speakers to refer to a place. John Smith's (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Phead128, your trusted Library of Congress defines "Senkaku Islands" as an official name. As for "Liancourt Rocks", "Tok Island" is used. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Phead128, apologies, but your argument makes literally no sense. Are you saying that Tokyo and Osaka are not the English names of those respective cities, because those are are originally Japanese words? What about Massachusetts and Wisconsin, originally from Native American words? The way you determine what the name is in English is to, well, look at English writing and figure out what name is used. Sometimes that matches the local name (as with those above). Sometimes its different (like with Japan itself, or Florence, or Russia). But we only know by checking sources. For names, Wikipedia specifically asks us to check "encyclopedic level sources" (so, for example, blogs weigh less in this issue, newspaper reports more, scientific and tertiary sources the most). And somewhere around 5% of sources are "Pinnacle Islands", and none of the modern scholarly ones. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tokyo and Osaka are just English translation; there're no English names for these Japanese cities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by STSC (talk • contribs)

They are not translations, they are Japanese names adopted by English speakers for identifying those cities. John Smith's (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully support Phead128's reasoning and proposal to rename the title to Pinnacle Islands, simply because when there's a choice that is NPOV, we should use it. STSC (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To do that, you must refute the strong claim that Senkaku Islands is the common English name. Unless such a point is refuted, policy requires that the name stay at Senkaku. I've said all along that if the names are treated equally in sources (as they may well be in the future), then we should probably switch to Pinnacle Islands (as much as I don't like to use a name that no one else uses). But we have evidence (again, I point to the almanacs as the best evidence) that the English name is Senkaku Islands. I know I'm repeating myself, but I want to try to hammer this home: we're not choosing "Senkaku" because it's the Japanese name, we're choosing it because it is the English name. We cannot invent our own words simply because we disagree--we must follow the sources (in this and all things on WP), and the sources tell us (well, they tell me, at least), that Senkaku Islands is the English name. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The word Senkaku is an Japanese word that is transliterated into English, but it's most certainly a Japanese word. Plus, using the heated island dispute between Korea and Japan, there is a precedent set for using Franco-English word "Liancourt Rocks" to substitute Dokdo (Korean) and Takeshima (Japanese) in order to maintain neutrality, despite the relatively lower commonality of the Liancourt rocks. Dokdo and Takeshima automatically re-directs there anyways.Phead128 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku is the English translation of the Japanese name of the islands; it's definitely not an English name. It's chosen for the title because of the claim (falsely) that it's more commonly used in English media. STSC (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't translated from Japanese - translation makes something different, not the same. As with Osaka and Tokyo, it is a Japanese name that has been adopted/accepted by English speakers to refer to a place. John Smith's (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Senkaku Islands" is translated from "尖閣諸島". It's Japanese name written in English, not a proper English name like Pinnacle Islands. STSC (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're acting like there is no underlying phonological nature of the Kanji. That's fundamentally incorrect. You could say that "Senkaku Islands" is transliterated from the underlying Japanese Kanji, but translated is very much the wrong word. By your argument, the correct English name for Osaka is "Large Hill", and the correct English name of Massachusetts is "Near the great Hill", since those are what the names of the places mean in their original language. But that's not how place names work. The way we determine what the English name of a place is is by looking at English sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(indent) I'm not going to get myself too deep into this discussion, but I would like to echo that there is a difference between translation and transliteration. Translation comes from meanings/definitions, and transliterations come from sounds/readings. As an example, from Japanese to English the transliteration of 尖閣諸島 is "Senkaku Shotou" but the translation is "Sharp pavilion group of islands"; the transliteration of 北京 is "Beijing" and the translation is "Northern Capital"; the transliteration of 北海道 is "Hokkaido" and the translation is "Northern Sea Way". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Benlisquare. However I don't think it is important here to discuss what is the English name and what is not, but we should simply abide by the WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The widely accepted name is not neutral, and refers to popularity, which is against NPOV, especially in the case of a disputed island, where the primary article suggests bias towards Japanese sovereign claims, by using the Japanese name for the island, despite the English transliterated Japanese name being a translation of the proper English name "Pinnacle Island."Phead128 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

Phead128, if you really wish to discuss the change of the name, you should review all the discussion made from 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident on 7 September 2010 and discuss the flaw found in previous discussions made on this talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever in technical term, the name "Senkaku" is still originated from Japanese. Using it in the title would obviously imply that the islands belong to Japan. While multiple local names exist, we should choose the neutral one Pinnacle Islands. "Senkaku Islands" is certainly not a widely accepted name, it's just a very Japanese POV name widely promoted by the pro-Japanese editors on here. STSC (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The word Senkaku is an Japanese word that is transliterated into English, but it's most certainly a Japanese word. Plus, using the heated island dispute between Korea and Japan, there is a precedent set for using Franco-English word "Liancourt Rocks" to substitute Dokdo (Korean) and Takeshima (Japanese) in order to maintain neutrality, despite the relatively lower commonality of the Liancourt rocks. Dokdo and Takeshima automatically re-directs there anyways.Phead128 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Strategy A. Paraphrasing John Smith's analysis here in October 2010, there was a discussion on this here in September 2010 and more discussion here in November 2010 ..., etc. A demonstrable strategy has become recognizable — to keep proposing name changes without acknowledging previous threads which address variants of the same subjects. --Tenmei (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter we had millions bytes of text on the issue in the past, it does not change the fact that the current title is unsatisfactory in terms of the NPOV policy. Wikipedia clearly states that:

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it... The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
STSC (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And how is NPOV being violated here? We have chosen the name that is used in English. I would argue that choosing "Pinnacle Islands" is a POV title, since it is basically never used in English (especially in the past 20 years), and thus picking it is saying "this claims made by PRC/ROC are so strong and obvious that we can ignore what our sources tell us." In other words, you're asking us to ignore WP:V in order to satisfy what you think is NPOV. This is essentially the same as the fact that we call the event the Boston massacre, despite the fact that it doesn't fit the contemporary definition of a massacre and the word itself is highly POV. By extension, your position, STSC, means that every single place in the world that has a disputed name (because 2 or more entities claim ownership) must have some "neutral" name, even if sources don't use a neutral name. The title of this article is neutral because it is the title most commonly used in English sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you considering using the transliterated Japanese -> English name for the islands, instead of the transliterated Chinese -> English name for the islands? Despite the fact that the transliterated Japanese to English name is the translation of the proper English name "Pinnacle Island" into Japanese? That is very bias, and the only solution therefore is to use the neutral Pinnacle Island name, following the Liancourt Rocks precedent. The Liancourt Rocks precedent indicates the proper English word is used instead, despite the less common usage of Liancourt rocks, it is a transliteration of the French word Le Liancourt, and attempts to create compromise between Dokdo (Korean) and Takeshima (Japanese), similar to Diaoyutai (Chinese) and Senkaku (Japanese).

Senkaku Shoto is clearly a Japanese word that was transliterated into English. The article title is too POV.Phead128 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Strategy B. Thus far, the mild language, measured tone and careful analysis of Qwyrxian and others has produced no meaningful engagement.

In sequential diffs, the participants in this thread are "talking past each other", are they not?

• The diffs in the thread function at cross purposes. There is a mismatch.
• In other words, the development of this thread proceeds like the Chinese idiomatic expression — like a "chicken talking to a duck" (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講).

When viewed from this perspective, a demonstrable strategy becomes identifiable — to keep reciting a mantra of complaints without acknowledging the existence of responses or the existence of archived threads which address similar claims. --Tenmei (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, monkey in silk suit is still a monkey! "Senkaku" is still a Japanese name however you put it. Whether it is commonly used would not make it a neutral name (while Japan is a participant in the ongoing dispute). My point is simple: if a neutral name exists we should use it for the disputed territory (as in Liancourt Rocks' case). STSC (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether "Senkaku" is Japanese or not does not affect whether the article can use it in the title. I believe that the naming convention is clear that the most common name should be used. You may be of the opinion that it would be better to use a "neutral" name, but there is no consensus over that. John Smith's (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Policy states neutrality is above popularity of a common term, and the Liancourt Rocks precedent shows the preference for a Franco-English name, despite the relatively lower popularity of the term, to preserve neutrality. This is clearly a violation of the NPOV, because using a Japanese name instead of a English name (more neutral, despite lower popularity, akin to Liancourt Rocks precedent) is a violation of NPOV.Phead128 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And again, you're misunderstanding--Senkaku Islands is the English name. It happens that the English and Japanese names are the same. How do I know it's the English name? Because that's the name used most often in sources. That's the same way how I decide to Japan instead of Nihon, and how to use Massachusetts rather than "Near the Great Hill". The fact that, in the past, a small group of people called it Pinnacle Islands doesn't change what the English name is now. Now, if we could show that there is no clear, common English name, then we could go with some other title. But we already have shown that. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, as I pointed out earlier:

The NPOV principle cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. STSC (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't shout please.

NPOV policy does not contradict the naming convention. Whilst the policy asks editors to strive for neutrality, total neutrality is impossible. The only way to be neutral on disputed issues would be to have blank pages, because as soon as you start writing something what you include or do not include, how you include it, etc is favouring one side over the other. John Smith's (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Strategy C. The last clause of John Smith's diff above and STSC's terse diff below are emblematic of an identifiable "false dilemma" strategy -- to keep reiterating a bifurcated overview, implicitly and explicitly characterising both contributors and issues as "favouring one side over the other" while marginalizing all other parsing analysis. --Tenmei (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Break

Phead, I'm not sure how you are getting that Senkaku (尖閣) is the Japanese translation of Pinnacle Islands. Do you have some source to back yourself up? The closest I can get is Pinakuru (ピナクル) or Sentō (尖塔). – Ajl^talk 18:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It says it in the article...In Japanese, Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼?) and Senkaku Shosho (尖閣諸嶼?) were translations used for these "Pinnacle Islands" by various Japanese sources. As an example, from Japanese to English the transliteration of 尖閣諸島 is "Senkaku Shotou" but the translation is "Sharp pavilion group of islands" or "Pinnacle Islands." So I'm wondering why not use the English name, in accordance with the Liancourt Rocks precedent over island disputes involving Korea/Japan that uses Franco-English name "Liancourt Rocks", despite lower popularity, to maintain neutrality. Phead128 (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. That implies that the name "Pinnacle Islands" predates Senkaku or Diaoyu, which it does not. In fact, "Pinnacle Islands" is an English translation from the Japanese and/or Chinese. Not the other way around. And, please see below for why the Liancourt Rocks were done that way--it was a different issue. In that case, there was no evidence for one name being more common than the other in English, but, in this case, there is evidence that SI is the current, most common English name. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly though, this dispute has come up so many numerous times, it might be time for ArbCom to step in and make a ruling... – Ajl^talk 18:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Liancourt Rocks decision was settled by a binding vote. Not sure who decided that was an acceptable solution, as it's not our normal method of working. We've had RfC's before that didn't reach consensus (although they had majorities for the current name). In any event, ArbCom almost never rules on content. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is correct. ArbCom is unlikely to rule on content, their whole ethos is to do with content and let the Wikipedia Community decide how to deal with content. I'm not going to object if someone refers this dispute there, but they will have to be proactive about it. Ajl772, if you think ArbCom needs to deal with it I suggest you make an application as an uninvolved party. Otherwise there's no point in raising the prospect. I think Mediation would be more productive. John Smith's (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see it reasonable to use the Japanese word for the Pinnacle Islands, because that is clearly unfit for the standards of a NPOV article. Plus, if Senkaku auto-redirects to Pinnacle Islands, the popularity of Senkaku would be neglibly affected, as Dokdo is far more popular than Liancourt Rocks, but people reading Liancourt rocks article will realize Dokdo is merely a Korean word that Korean nationlist use to claim their sovereignty over their island, and same for Takeshima for the Japanese, but the Franco-English neutral term Liancourt, derived from Le Liancourt suggested by the Library of Congress attempts for neutrality, despite the lower popularity of the word.Phead128 (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you all missed my point here... I know ArbCom doesn't (usually) make a ruling on content. I was trying to imply that unless some authoritative figure steps in and says "Stop fighting!", this debate will continue to be rehashed and brought back up over and over and over... – Ajl^talk 02:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As always, I remain willing to enter mediation (at this point, I'd prefer formal mediation over MEDCAB, as I think we've past that point), if that would put a rest to the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Request for Mediation

I have opened this article for MedCom at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. – AJL^talk 04:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have to step away from the computer for the rest of the night, but I will continue work on it in the morning. – AJL^talk 04:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

An "involved user" has already disagreed, so the MedCom will decline the request then? That casual user should not have been invited because his involvement in the articles is minimal. STSC (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I mentioned on AJL's talk page that xe, as the one filing for mediation, technically needs to complete the "Issues to be Mediated" section so we can know what we're planning to mediate. I assume that it's the same issue we've been discussing here; i.e., the proper name for this article. But I just want to be sure before I sign on.

Also, I strongly encourage everyone who is now or has been in the past a regular editor of this page to join the mediation. I think that most of us would really like to settle this issue one way or the other. While mediation is technically still just a part of the process, and doesn't actually lock-in any sort of solution, if we could come to a mediated solution (especially if we got wider community input), we wouldn't need to have this same conversation over and over again--we could just say "Hey, we hashed that all out over a serious, formal process, so unless you have something new to raise that wasn't raised before, the issue has been settled." I for one would rather spend my time dealing with new issues (here and elsewhere) to having this same argument over and over again. Mediation will help put a stamp on whatever consensus we come to. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to STSC, my understanding is that MedCom gets to decide who actually counts as "involved". The point, as far as I know, to requiring all involved users to be involved in mediation is that it's useless to mediate if someone who is a solid, regular user sits on the sidelines and says "I don't care what you all decide, I'm editing the way I want to no matter what". I think that MedCom can look at HXL's involvement, see it's minimal, and move forward anyway. If, on the other hand, someone like John Smith, yourself (STSC), or I declined involvement, I think we'd have a problem that could tank the mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, I doubt that MedCom will reject mediation if Bobthefish2 doesn't join, given that he hasn't edited Wikipedia at all since March 7. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have removed struck HXL from the list of involved users. It appears I was a little bit too hasty in attempting to save the page and did not thoroughly check his contributions to the issue I am intending to raise. – AJL^talk 07:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose the Primary Issue as "Dispute in the neutrality and implications of the article's title".STSC (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just one issue. It would be better to address all outstanding issues, rather than just deal with one in mediation and then have a fresh argument after that was dealt with. John Smith's (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd prefer to focus on just the name, at least at first. Because I don't even know what "all of our outstanding issues" means. Plus, doing that is going to make it much more likely that we won't get full participation (remember, for instance, that Tenmei rejected general mediation). Plus I'm sure that some of our newer participants aren't so interested in the article as a whole. However, if you have a specific set of outstanding issues, we could consider including them. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just let the MedCom concentrate on the major issue about the title. We'll deal with John Smith's and his gang on other side issues. STSC (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that it would be a good idea to address all outstanding issues, I believe the most common issue we as fellow editors deal with on this article is the title. Most other issues (as far as I can tell) have been resolved to a certain level of general consensus. I'd rather not have to deal with re-hashing the "NPOV-title" argument every few weeks after the current argument gets archived. My intention with putting this through MedCom is to be able to say, as Qwyrxian so adequately put it, "Hey, we hashed that all out over a serious, formal process, so unless you have something new to raise that wasn't raised before, the issue has been settled." (emphasis added). Once we get this recurring problem out of the way, I believe it will be much easier to address all other issues anyone might have. – AJL^talk 07:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have removed struck HXL from the list of involved users. It appears I was a little bit too hasty in attempting to save the page and did not thoroughly check his contributions to the issue I am intending to raise. – AJL^talk 07:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a message to the top of the page informing editors who come here that there is a ongoing Request for Mediation. – AJL^talk 02:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

This source can be used to cite the date that Japan formally annexed the islands in 1895. So, could an admin please replace the "citation needed" tag at the end of that sentence in the History section and add that cite? Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what Cla68 is requesting. It already described in this article:

"On December 17, 2010, Ishigaki declared January 14 as "Pioneering Day". China condemned Ishigaki's actions."

However I request to Change/Add refs as follows:

From

Around 1900, Japanese entrepreneur Tatsushiro Koga constructed a bonito processing plant on the islands with 200 workers.[citation needed] The business failed in 1940 and the islands have remained deserted ever since. The plots of land on the islands still technically belong as private property to Koga's descendants.[citation needed]

To:

From 1897 to 1937, Japanese entrepreneur Tatsushiro Koga constructed a bonito processing plant on the islands with 200 workers. The business failed in 1937 and the islands have remained deserted ever since. The plots of land on the islands still technically belong as private property to Koga's descendants.

If there is no objection, I will make this request to an official Template:Edit protected.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of the "History under Japanese and US control" section, Phoenix7777 is seeking to add support per WP:V + WP:RS. This proposed edit responds to the two "citation needed" templates which were added in January by PalaceGuard008 here and by STSC here.

There is additional citation support which can be bundled with the citation which follows the last sentence in the segment Phoenix7777 reproduced above. In other words, the citation identified as "Note 3" should be modified, e.g.,

<:ref>Hiraoka, p. 505; excerpt, 1932: Zenji Koga was granted ownership of the Senkaku Islands with charge; Blazevic, Jason. "Japan and the East China Sea: Realism, Policy and Security Dilemma," Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs (US), Winter 2010, pp. 66-77; note one sentence excerpt at p. 70, This is corroborated by the U.S. government's (American Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands') Basic Leasing Contract with Zenji for military use of the islands.</ref>

This small edit should be completed without delay. --Tenmei (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

the title for this paragraph are racial

1. why did editor allow this title to be written in japanese only? 2. if it's an disputed islands, why can't we use both chinese and japanese to name all the islands, especially the titles for the images. 3. so far the editor is on his bias towards japanese, so there should be a democratic election to choose editor, we can't let japanese along control this post board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Why 880611 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually the name most commonly used in English...and the issue has been discussed numerous times, with a consensus (although not 100% agreement) for the current name. But, anyway, the issue is actually going to be discussed in detail in formal mediation very soon, which will hopefully fix the issue. If you have any relevant arguments about what the most common English name is, you can leave them here, although you may want to look through the talk page archives first for previous discussions on the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Qwyrxian, I do NOT agree with you because that: (1) the Japanese name "Senkaku Islands" is actually NOT the name most commonly used in English compared with the Chinese name "Diaoyu Islands". Using google search, there came out 178,000 results for "Senkaku Islands" while came out 288,000 results for "Diaoyu Islands", though this search included redirecting each other's name. (2) this issue has been discussed numerous times BUT with NO consensus, and kept being raised again and again as long as this POV and one-sided name/title exists there. I ever suggested to put a NPOV-Title tag along with the current name/title together based on the guidelines and policies of WP if a real consensus cannot be reached in a short time. Now I still believe that the NPOV-Title tag is almost the most realistic way if you persist in using the current name/title. This is a very good evidence that this issue has been raised and come out again and again ... . As long as the dispute has not been resolved, the edit action removing the NPOV-Title tag is very impolite and is absolutely against WP policies including Wikipedia:POV Cleanup. --Lvhis (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

again, most people in this discussion board are bias towards japanese. they seem to have no ideas about east asian history, nor i believe they are asian. the disputed ownership that claimed by both china and japanese is mainly caused by american policy right after WWII. so i only suggest, this discussion board need democratic election to select editors, rather than some history-idiot with no asian background —Preceding unsigned comment added by Why 880611 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.Phead128 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

With whom are you agreeing, Phead? – AJL^talk 07:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

He may agree with both Why880611 and me, I guess.--Lvhis (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, from your edit, it would appear that you would like to express your thought about the article naming dispute. May I suggest you browse on over to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands and watch that page, or contribute to it, or shall I just add your name to the involved parties list? – AJL^talk 01:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

...Lvhis, just so you know I'm not going to respond, not because it isn't worth discussing, but just because we're going to go through formal mediation very soon (once a mediator is assigned), so it's better to work it out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I will reply, though, about Why 880611: Wikiepdia is officially, by policy, not a democracy. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus--that means we all talk about it and try to come up with the best solution. At times, democracy substitutes for consensus when we can't get 100% agreement. However, even if we were a democracy, we would not realize that democracy by choosing a limited group of editors. In any event, I don't see how your approach could possibly work: how could we verify who does or doesn't have enough knowledge of East Asian history, given that very few people on WP give their real world identities, nor is anyone required to. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank AJL for your message and sorry for delayed response. I am very busy in my realistic life and it has been quite bad (even busier) for a while for recent time. I have not looked at the mediation part in detail yet and just realized you added my name there already. Anyway, if I cannot give my response promptly during the formal mediation please forgive me. I quite worry about the dispute and mediation environment. In terms of the title/name issue here, there is a fact which is crystal clear or black-white like clear: there are arguments or disputes on its NPOV no matter it is NPOV one or not. The disputes have reached such extent that a formal mediation has to be called. But there is no NPOV-title tag on this article to attract more wikipedians or users to join the talks and mediation. This situation is quite ridiculous. Removing the NPOV-title less than several hours after it was applied and before the dispute solved is quite rude and violates wiki guidelines and policies. It means the remover totally denies the fact there is dispute here, and denies other users' right to argue on this issue. This is really quite dictatorship-like. Now there is a same situation on the page Senkaku Islands dispute. I hope during the mediation the NPOV-title tag should be kept there till a resolving result come out from the mediation. --Lvhis (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll raise the issue of having the tag on first thing in mediation; I don't personally have a problem with it remaining on while the issue is in mediation, so long as it is clear that after mediation, it comes off, no matter what the result is. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'll ask some admins if they think it would be appropriate for it to be added until MediationCom (or ArbCom, see next sentence) helps us to come to a decision regarding this (particular point of discussion). It also seems unlikely that this will actually end up going through mediation anytime soon – AGK claimed he was likely to recuse from mediating this, since he and Tenmei have butted heads in the past – and he seems to be the only Mediator actively involved in any of the Mediation cases (and also the fact that the current Mediation Cases have been ongoing for at least a year). – AJL^talk 04:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)