Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

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 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 and and 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: [1]. 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'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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 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 --Westwind273 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
More evidence for use of both names. The US Naval War College uses both: And the National Geographic Atlas uses both names 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 and --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. (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 (talkcontribs)
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. --benlisquareTCE 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 [2]). 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)

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. --benlisquareTCE 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 [3] 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)

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 (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As this story pops up in the news over and over the western slanted bias is crystal clear. Diaoyu / Senkaku OR Senkaku / Diaoyu

Wikipedia has fallen victim to US controls and propaganda standards and willingly complies with to order to pick a side and keep the bias slanted Against the Chinese.

Trust and credibility are invalidated by the choice to take sides. (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my tone if it is overly passionate. In this day and age of NSA listeners their is undoubtedly an equal number of NSA writers as well as CIA, FBI, and many more government affiliated and / or sponsored writer / blogger / editor. Nobody is infallible or above scrutiny. Major companies want certain articles written about them certain ways and governments want certain articles written certain ways. .......

One idea of a suggestion might be to limit editing of the article from the disputing nations in question. In the case of the disputed Senkaku article here wiki would be limited the edit powers from IPs from the ranges of China, and Japan and USA. This would not stop the determined sponsored political editors (a wiki page should be made on that kind of editor) They would use proxies. However it would stop the masses from those nations swaying and spinning the article into ...into.. whatever is going on with this article.

Maybe if the Australians and Russians and Koreans and Taiwanese and others all had a chance to edit independent of the disputing nations disputes a better article of indisputable logical neutrality could be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talkcontribs) 04:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)