Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/June

Widely accepted name

Question

A question about the "widely accepted name". Would a name with a clear plurality be "widely accepted", or would it need to be a clear "majority"? Let's imagine there's a place with disputed ownership. Further, let's assume that the local names don't use the Roman alphabet, and thus have multiple different transliterations. Further, let's assume...okay, enough assumptions. This is Senkaku Islands, the title of which is currently undergoing mediation (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands). Note that I am not asking for input about what the common name of those islands are (i.e., I'm not canvassing). Rather, I'm trying to understand how "widely accepted name" and "multiple local names" is usually interpreted. So, anyway, the names in question are the name of Japanese origin, always transliterated as "Senkaku", and the name of Chinese origin, transliterated variously as "Diaoyu", "Diaoyutai", "Tiaoyu", and "Tiaoyutai". In order to declare one of these the "widely accepted English name", would we need to find that one and only one of these names had a majority? Or would finding that one of them has a plurality be sufficient? In other words, should we be comparing the five names independently, or be comparing "Senkaku" to the four Chinese transliterations collectively? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I would definitely say collectively; there's two names here, Senkaku and Diaoyu, and it just happens that there's four common ways of romanizing the latter. So it's two discussions: If we were to pick the Chinese name, then we'd have to pick which romanization, but it's not like it has to fight among itself. --Golbez (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Golbez. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank Golbez for the wonderful explanation. Qwyrxian, I'd rather make an AGF saying that you are better to improve your thinking way away from "penny-wise, pound-foolish", than guess that you are in purpose to badger with such "penny" stuff again and again. --Lvhis (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, this was a serious question which I did not have an answer to, that I sought advice from from this talk page, which manages the associated guideline. Furthermore, please note that every search I have conducted until now actually does use all of the Chinese names correctly. It was only in response to Phonenix7777's concern that I realized that I was taken for granted something I shouldn't have. Like it or not, this entire issue is a bunch of "penny concerns"--how exactly to conduct searches, how to interpret them, which searches are useful or valid, etc. This process involves working out minutiae. I honestly did not know what to do with these names, and sought help to resolve the issue. No one is badgering.

I do appreciate, btw, the input of Golbez and Arzumanyan (and anyone else who like to concur or give other reasoning). Thanks for the help. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez. However, it is not obvious, at that point, that Diaoyu, in all its variants put together, is "widely accepted" in our sense (or Senkaku either). Showing either would involve collecting the sort of evidence of overwhelming usage we require. This is in general more than majority usage, but could conceivably be true for a plurality usage provided it were standard in works of general reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The four Chinese names are romanization of two different native names 钓鱼 (Diaoyu or Tiaoyu) and 钓鱼台 (Diaoyutai or Tiaoyutai). The two native names resemble each other, but the two words are used distinctively. Diaoyutai State Guesthouse is never called as Diaoyu State Guesthouse. I don't deny the different romanization of a native name may be collectively dealt with. However the different romanization of different native names should not be collectively dealt with. It is as if comparing the English names of Chinese origin with the English names of Japanese origin. If we determine the title of a disputed rock Socotra Rock, we don't collectively deal with Ieodo (離於島) and Parangdo(波浪島) which are romanization of different native names as they are the English names of Korean origin. We should compare three different names "Senkaku", "Diaoyu or Tiaoyu" and "Diaoyutai or Tiaoyutai".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The disputed article says Diaoyu means "angling" (the term meaning "fishing with lines", presumably); what does tai mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wiktionary says platform. Anyway if we collectively deal with the deferent native names, it is beyond the variation of Romanization. It is easy to expand the guideline to include the variation of Romanization. However If we expand the guideline to include "different but similar native name", it leads to a dispute over what is similar or not. "Fishing" and "Fishing platform" sound similar but are clearly not similar meaning. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect to these islands, "Diaoyu" is simply a short form of "Diaoyutai" in Chinese and mean the same thing. "Diaoyutai State Guesthouse" is a name for some unrelated entity. Again, a practical example would be "United States" and "United States of America". --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think ""Diaoyu" is simply a short form of "Diaoyutai"". If that is the case, "Diaoyu State Guesthouse" will hit more. They are used distinctively. "United States" and "United States of America" are different names in terms of an article title although they mean the same thing. There have been so many disputes over a title of the article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are stretching this. We have been talking about the names of the islands in Chinese. In that context, the "tai" (meaning platform) is often omitted as a short form (it's like New York/New York State/New York City). Would you consider "New York" and "New York City" to be different names of the city? How about "Las Vegas" and "Vegas"? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many villages called "Diaoyu"[1] [2] [3][4][5] and "Diaoyutai"[6] [7] [8][9][10] in China. (cun means village) They are definitely different Geographical names referring to these places. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The context is about these islands that are known as "Diaoyutai" and commonly referred to as "Diaoyu" in short (with one less word/syllable). Whether or not this condensed form is also adopted in other locations is irrelevant. It's like trying to argue "coke" is not a short form for "coca cola" because "coke" can also be used to refer to other things. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Already these names are proved to be different geographical names. Chinese name referring to the islands is split between different geographical names Diaoyu an Diaoyutai. We should not collectively deal with these different geographical names. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Further debates between involved parties

I don't really understand this post. I will see if Qwyrxian understands the point. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is quite simple. This is not a contest of Japanese names vs. Chinese names. If Japanese names referring to the islands are A and B and Chinese names referring to it are X and Y then A, B, X and Y are compared to determine which name is widely accepted English name. This is not to compare (A + B) and (X + Y). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We are going in circles here. "Diaoyu" is a short-form for "Diaoyutai" with reference to these islands. This is an accepted linguistic practice. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Phoenix7777's earlier argument, "Senkaku" should not be acceptable because Senkaku (priest) is also a Buddhist monk. STSC (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am consistently proposing to compare "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyu Islands" and "Diaoyutai Islands". There is no room to include Senkaku (priest). And your discussion is quite peripheral for this Talk page. Such a discussion should be made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I just couldn't resist to response to your very weak argument on that point earlier.

Getting back to the main issue: Basically, this is simply the case of two local geographical names: 釣魚台群島 and 尖閣諸島, is it not?

So, naturally all romanized names for "釣魚台" would be treated collectively for 釣魚台群島, and all romanized names for "尖閣" would be treated collectively for 尖閣諸島.

STSC (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read my post above? " This is not to compare (A + B) and (X + Y)". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's how you yourself see it with your own argument; it appears that all other editors don't agree with that. STSC (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember a big fuss being made about this issue until we've managed to overturn many of his search results (which then also led to him trying very hard to discredit the methodologies he once endorsed). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but apparently there is disagreement, and we need an independent Chinese speaker to verify. If Diaoyutai (钓鱼台) and Diaoyu (钓鱼) are distinct names for the same place, and spelled differently that way in PRC/ROC, then we cannot group them together. NCGN doesn't ask us to determine which language of origin has is more commonly represented among English names, then afterward determine the more common name among the that language. For example, if there were two English names, like "Pinnacle Islands" and "Mountain Islands", we wouldn't group those together when trying to determine a common name. If, however, 钓鱼 is simply a short form of 钓鱼台 (like in Btf2's Vegas/Las Vegas analogy), then we should be grouping them together. Unfortunately, I feel like, such a person does not exist--anyone with enough knowledge to answer the question, almost by definition, will have enough of an opinion about the overall issue to not qualify as independent. As such, I don't know what to do with this issue. Also, Btf2, the ad hominem fallacy is irrelevant. Part of what happens in mediation is that we find out we have issues we never knew before, and we have to deal with them (like, how I always knew Google searches were a problem, but not quite how bad they are). The issue is legitimate and deserves a good answer, if one can possibly exist. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I understand your concern. If you want third party Chinese editors to verify my claim, you should make a post in Project China or something (in fact, you should know much more about these channels than I do). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among participants of the mediation should go the mediation page. Anyway, I have a "very ... big wall of text" there and hope it be more or less helping to end this tangled "penny" thing. Again, agree with Golbez and thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually was waiting for Golbez and Ashot (and others) to give more input on this, since they are third parties. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, knowing very little on the subject but the fact that there is a naming dispute, we need to not just look at the names, but the parties involved. To me, "Diaoyu" and "Diaoyutai" look like the same word, especially when the characters are given. And considering that the argument isn't between the names but rather the Chinese and Japanese parties, I seen no reason to invent a three-way battle here between "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" and "Diaoyutai". The battle is between the Japanese and Chinese names; once you decide on which party's naming is more proper, then you decide if it's Diaoyu, Tiaoyu, Diaoyutai, etc. To split "Diaoyu" and "Diaoyutai" as different names seems to me simply a ploy to game Google results... and probably won't work, since, if this were a simple matter of counting Google results, we'd have an answer already as to which was the preferred name. I don't find the argument saying they're different words compelling; Yes, there are towns named Diaoyu and towns named Diaoyutai. There are cities in the United States named Mason and Mason City, but that doesn't mean there's a different word "Mason" being used. But at that point we're veering into material for the RFM, rather than this convention page. My personal thought: There's two names at play here, and only two. That one can be romanized or even represented differently in its own language is irrelevant to discovering what the prevailing or neutral usage is. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought to. I asked, because I was wondering if Phoenix's post would've changed the minds of third parties since you guys are much less likely to be have prior opinion on these things. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Golbez, your argument deviates too much from the naming convention. The purpose is to determine a widely accepted name among the names used to refer to the islands, not to compare Chinese names vs. Japanese names. Mason and Mason City are clearly different names. It is not used interchangeably like New York and New York City. Also Diaoyutai and Daoyui is not used interchangeably. The best example is that "Diaoyutai State Guesthouse" is never called "Diaoyu State Guesthouse". Among the many places called Diaoyutai and Diaoyu in China, the islands is an exception which happened to have the two different names derived from the two different countries, PRC and ROC.[11] This is actually a 3-way dispute over the sovereignty and the name of the islands among Japan ("Senkaku"), PRC ("Diaoyu") and ROC ("Diaoyutai") not a 2-way dispute between Japan ("Senkaku") and PRC/ROC ("Diaoyu"/"Diaoyutai").

See the following Google hit within the government's site. This clearly shows "Diaoyu Islands" and "Diaoyutai Islands" are not used interchangeably but are the name called by the different countries.

• "Diaoyu Islands" site:gov.cn 1970
• "Diaoyutai Islands" site:gov.cn 3
• "Diaoyutai Islands" site:gov.tw 1030
• "Diaoyu Islands" site:gov.tw 29

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I've explained pretty clearly why your concern is irrelevant. But anyhow let's see what others say... --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure whether we can count names like "Diaoyu" and "Diaoyutai" as being the same. They are distinct ways of referring to the islands in question, even if there are similarities between them. John Smith's (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As Golbez put it nicely: "To split "Diaoyu" and "Diaoyutai" as different names seems to me simply a ploy to game Google results." It's a rather pointless exercise trying to get more hit counts because that is not the spirit of "widely accepted name" guideline. STSC (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is quickly going circular and stale. It's like trying to argue "EA" is a remarkably different name as "Electronic Arts" because there are other things "EA" can stand for or represent. I am not even sure why Phoenix and John Smith would persist in fighting this losing battle. Since we have only two third party associates so far, shall we re-post this issue in Project China to get more third party opinions? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue wholly regarding China so no need to post it there. I'd rather see more inputs on here Geographic Names. STSC (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might also help to have people who know Chinese to give some comments... especially when there are foreigners who insist those two Chinese names are somehow distinctly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing whether the two names are distinctly different but they are treated distinctly different. As I explained above, this is a 3-way dispute over the sovereignty and the name of the islands among Japan ("Senkaku"), PRC ("Diaoyu") and ROC ("Diaoyutai") not a 2-way dispute between Japan ("Senkaku") and PRC/ROC ("Diaoyu"/"Diaoyutai"). PRC calls the islands exclusively "Diaoyu" and ROC calls them exclusively "Diaoyutai". Then there is no reason to treat the two names collectively regardless of whether one is a short-form of another. This is proved by the fact that there are many places called "Diaoyu" and "Diaoyutai" in China, two names are never used interchangeably regardless of whether one is a short-form of another. Your argument is as if because "Mason" is a short-form of "Mason City", Mason, Illinois and Mason City, Illinois should be treated as the same city. although they are different cities in Illinois. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As Phoenix7777 challenged Golbez's point that are supported by other users who are outside of the mediation, I have to follow STSC and Bob to refute Phoenix7777's point with my comment here.

#1. Said that PRC(Mainland China) and ROC(Taiwain) are two countries is a view point not widely accepted in the world, or by the international society, i.e. is a POV. Phoenix7777 cited a source written by two authors serving for US "Congressional Research Service", while the view point regarding PRC and ROC and the name Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands was still the authors personal view, but not the very formal official view and stand of USA. The very formal official view of USA regarding Mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) shall be referred to US Department of State official website where it is clearly stated that "The U.S. does not support Taiwan independence." no matter it is called "Taiwan" or "ROC". And there are same overlap territory claims mostly only except Mongolia, but including the Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands, from both Mainland China and Taiwan, no matter it is called "What" of China, by their respective Constitutions. Even Japan, the very involved party in the disputed Islands, just officially recognized one country as its rival party as stated in its "The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands" .
#2. As I said in my point(3) of my comment like a very big wall of text there, there is almost no distinction regarding the Diaoyu Islands between Mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC). You can check their official statements here and here . Regarding the name usage, a Taiwan scholar Han-yi Shaw (邵漢儀) described clearly in his book "The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands dispute: ..." published by U Maryland. On page 10, you can see (underlined by me )"... a chain of tiny islets commonly known today to the Chinese as the Diayutai (or simply Diaoyu) Islands 釣魚台列嶼, and Senkaku Islands 尖閣列島 to the Japanese." Shaw was ever praised by current Taiwan (ROC) top leader/President Ma Ying-jeou. Another Scholar from Hong Kong Hai-lin Zheng (鄭海麟 or 郑海麟) ever published his one book "從歷史與國際法看釣魚台主權歸屬" (Diaoyutai used here) while his another book "钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究(增订本) " (Diaoyu Islands used here). These are exactly echoed what Bob repeatedly gave an analogy of the name "USA" and "US", as "US" is just a short form of "USA". Also like we use "Bob" for user "Bobthefish2", and use "Phoenix" for user "Phoenix7777" here sometimes in en-wiki. The involved users so far have no objection. A possible reason in Mainland China the "Diaoyu Islands" is used more often than "Diaoyutai Islands" is mainly due to in Beijing there is "Diaoyutai Guest House Hotel", and they prefer to avoid mixing up these two. Using "Diaoyutai Islands" in Mainland China and using "Diaoyu Islands" in Taiwan would receive similar treatment which would be totally different from using "Senkaku Islands" as using "Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands" in Janpan. Hence, regarding the name dispute on these Islands, the widely accepted view or NPOV is this is a 2-way dispute, Chinese name or Japanese name. The emphasis that this is 3-way but not 2-way dispute is a POV which is not widely accepted. You start from a POV point, and you will end up with a POV result.

As my final sentence here, following you (Phoenix7777) guys logic, for the name/title of the involved articles/pages in en-wiki, "Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyutai Islands" should be used either of which matters nothing as long as being Chinese name, and no dual name, no English name "Pinnacle Islands", and no "Senkaku Islands". --Lvhis (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix, we really should not start making facts up shall we? This can get slightly... awkward when we have some non-experts telling Chinese people about inaccurate things about the Chinese language or culture. For example, assertions such as "PRC calls the islands exclusively "Diaoyu" and ROC calls them exclusively "Diaoyutai"." are the kind of stories that should not be told since they aren't really true [12][13].

Then there are assertions that it is a "3-way dispute over the sovereignty and the name of the islands among Japan ("Senkaku"), PRC ("Diaoyu") and ROC ("Diaoyutai")" when it really isn't exactly the truth. As various reliable sources have already pointed out, the PRC considered Diaoyu to be part of Taiwan. It appears to be a 3-way battle because PRC thinks Taiwan (along with Diaoyu and other islands) belongs to it as well, but the PRC-ROC little tug-of-war is really a rather unrelated matter [14].

I don't think it is very productive to continue to dwell on this matter. While reasonable disagreements are always welcomed, their arrival are not yet observed. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, WP:TLDR. I don't argue with you whether ROC is an independent county or not. This is not an appropriate place to discuss such a PRC POV. As for the names, you are doing an original research by listing the examples of exceptions. Your long original research was instantly refuted by the following reliable sources. They say PRC calls them "Diaoyu" and Taiwan calls them "Diaoyutai" although I admit there are exceptions for this.

• "China is involved in a territorial dispute with Japan and Taiwan over the sovereignty of islands known in China as the Diaoyu, in Taiwan as the Diaoyutai, and in Japan as the Senkakus."[15]
• "the Senkaku islands, a group of five islets and three barren rocks that lie between Taiwan and the Japanese island of Okinawa known as the Pinnacle Islands in English, Diaoyu Islands to the Chinese and Diaoyutai to the Taiwanese."[16]
• "China calls them the Diaoyu Islands, Taiwan calls them the Diaoyutai, and Japan calls them the Senkaku Islands."[17]
• "The PRC uses Diaoyudao (Diaoyu means “fishing”; dao means “island”), and Taiwan uses Diaoyutai."[18]
• "In mainland China, the islets are usually referred to as the Diaoyu Islands. As this article is about the movement organized by Chinese students from Taiwan, it uses “Diaoyutai Islands, which is the name better known in Taiwan."[19]

This is definitely a 3-way dispute although there is not so much disagreement between PRC and ROC for now. PRC and ROC both claims the islands are part of Taiwan. But PRC refers to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China which PRC claims is its territory. The two different names used by the two different countries should not be consolidated simply because they are similar Chinese names. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Phoenix7777. The first sentence of the zh:钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿 says 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿，台湾称为钓鱼台列屿，日本语称为“尖閣諸島[1]”... On the talk page, editors talk about the names. zh:讨论:钓鱼台列屿#在大陆的名称. The second sentence of the article zh:钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿主权问题 says 亦有观点将其视为在中华民国、日本国和中华人民共和国三方间因立场不同引起的政府及民间争议。 and the article deals with PRC and ROC separately. I think the majority of the editors at zh WP are native Chinese speakers, but if the Lvhis' and Bobthefish2's posts are sound arguments, these articles probably written by native Chinese speakers at zh WP would be totally incorrect. I'd like to know Lvhis' and Bobthefish2's comments on the zh article. As for the U.S. position, the U.S. may not support Taiwan's independence", but at the same time the U.S. has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan. See Taiwan Relations Act and [20]. To say that ROC is a part of China is a Chinese point of view and not accepted internationally. Oda Mari (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have already offered reliable sources that contradict to claims that Phoenix felt were also backed by reliable sources, so I don't feel it necessary to address his response further. If that's not considered good enough, one can also examine how people in Hong Kong and Macau often refer to these islands as Diaoyutai (notably, both locations are part of the PRC).

Now, as for Oda Mari's request of opinion, I'd reply to the first part because the sovereignty of Taiwan is a pretty irrelevant subject. Since I can't actually read simplified Chinese very well, I'd address the traditional Chinese version (港澳繁體 or Hong Kong + Macau version) instead:

• First sentence (Trad. Chinese): "釣魚台列嶼主權問題，是就釣魚島列嶼之主權歸屬，中國（包括台灣海峽兩岸）與日本兩方因立場不同引起的的主權爭議"
• First sentence (English): "Diaoyutai and associate islands sovereignty issue is about Diaoyu Island and associate Islands' sovereignty claims, China（including Taiwan）and Japan have two different positions which causes sovereignty dispute".
• Second sentence (Trad. Chinese): "亦有觀點將其視為在中華民國、日本國和中華人民共和國三方間因立場不同引起的政府及民間爭議。"
• Second sentence (English): There are also perspectives that view this as ROC, Japan, and PRCs' three-sided disagreement of positions in both official and public domains.

The article's text basically suggested this "3-sided dispute" as an alternative perspective rather than the main perspective (i.e. "2-side dispute" with PRC and ROC on the same side). With that said, I'd like to remind Oda Mari to not cherry-pick information, since it appears she's already taking things out of context (innocently or not). To further demonstrate this, another sentence below (in 台海兩岸觀點 or "Cross-strait or PRC/ROC perspectives") also further supports the notion that ROC and PRC do not really have conflicting claims:

• Trad. Chinese: 目前中國大陸（中華人民共和國）觀點與台灣（中華民國）觀點約略一致。
• English: At the moment, Mainland China (PRC)'s perspective and Taiwan (ROC)'s perspective are about the same.

Finally, whether or not it is a 2 or 3-sided dispute is not really important. The primary interest here is to determine whether or not Diaoyu is a short form of Diaoyutai in reference to these islands and it appears no persuasive arguments have been raised against the notion. But if Oda Mari insists and harbours doubts about my Chinese language ability, we can always bring this discussion to Project China or even zh.Wikipedia. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a 2-sided dispute: If it is referred to the International Court of Justice, the court will decide whether the islands are part of Taiwan or part of Okinawa. The PRC and ROC are representing the Chinese case based on their common Chinese history. STSC (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point STSC. In that case it is a 2-way dispute between ROC and Japan. Because PRC cannot be a party in interest based on the fact that PRC has no sovereignty over Taiwan. If PRC wishes to become a party in interest, PRC must win a case at ICJ over the sovereignty of Taiwan beforehand. In that case it is a 2-way dispute between PRC and Japan. Anyway it is unproductive insisting 2-way/3-way based on a personal opinion. The followings are reliable sources that prove this dispute is a 3-way;

• "There is a three-way claim involving China, Taiwan and Japan over the Senkaku Islands (known in Chinese as either Tiaoyu Tao or Tiao-yu-tai) and hence a conflict of claims over the adjacent shelf (see Map 3.3)."[21]
• "Japan, China and Taiwan are involved in a three-way territorial dispute over the Senkaku group, which is said to be rich in under-sea oil resources."[22]
• "Such jingoistic spats as those between Japan and South Korea over Toktu island in the mid-1990s and the ongoing three-way quarrel involving Japan, Taiwan, and China over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands are only the most visible incidents."[23]
• "Presumably, these are for Taiwan, the on-going three-way dispute over the Senkaku Group and Spratly Archipelago."[24]

Then this is a dispute among Japan (Senkaku), PRC (Diaoyu) and ROC (Diaoyutai), not between Japan (Senkaku) and PRC/ROC (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 my dear friend, you just quoted from a selective of authors who happened to mention the dispute as "three-way". Getting some hit counts of "three-way" does not prove that your argument is valid. It simply showed that someone may have shared your view in this discussion. STSC (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

STSC, if you disagree the reliable sources I provided, you should provide at least "a selective of authors who happened to mention the dispute as "two-way"" between Japan and PRC/ROC. If you had a basic legal knowledge, you would not have said "Two-way" dispute between Japan and PRC/ROC.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And then what, are we gonna count which gets more hit-counts then? I would rather discuss by reasoning, not by hit counts. By all means, please tell us your legal basis if any. STSC (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention "hit-counts" before, I just request you to provide a reliable source to prove this is a two-way dispute between Japan and PRC/ROC. I already presented the legal point how your discussion about ICJ is a nonsense. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an enough time to chat with you. Please reply after getting a substantial evidence to refute my discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The ICJ - The disputed islands are the subject of the claims, not Taiwan. The ICJ would be judging whether the islands are part of Taiwan (amongst other evidence) just to determine Chinese or Japanese ownership; whoever governing Taiwan now is irrelevant. (Actually it's likely the case of PRC vs Japan in court due to existing diplomatic relationship.)

Re: The 3-way dispute argument - The PRC and ROC are not contesting each other for the islands but they only oppose the Japanese claim, so it's not a 3-way or 3-sided dispute.

Re: Don't have enough time to chat - Go on, be my chat-mate!

STSC (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, zh-classical:釣魚臺列嶼 and zh:yue:釣魚台 are stubs without reference and talk. Their reliability and neutrality are dubious to cite. STSC, "If it is referred to the International Court of Justice, the court will decide whether the islands are part of Taiwan or part of Okinawa. "? PRC says the islands are "是中国的固有领土", not they are part of Taiwan. [25] It is only your personal speculation without RS. Please provide RS, if there's such a thing. Please remember WP:SPECULATION. It is wrong to say this is a two way dispute. If it is so, why did PRC and ROC claim the sovereignty on different dates? Is it just because both say the islands are not Japanese territory? PRC and ROC has a territory dispute over Pratas Islands and it shows they are different states. It is appropriate to think they are different states with different claims over Senkaku too, even though the claims on the islands are similar. Besides, the Japanese government deals with PRC and ROC separately. zh:聯合號海釣船事件 was with ROC and 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident with PRC. How could it be a two-way dispute? Oda Mari (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ms Oda Mari, your post seems quite confusing but I'll just summarize my reasoning: It's a 2-sided dispute because PRC/ROC are pro-Chinese claim on one side, and Japan is pro-Japanese claim on the other side. My RS is from common sense.

I rest my case for now. STSC (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh great. I was gone for a dozen hours or two and already there is another pile to read. Where should I start? Let's see, let's start with Oda Mari:

• So, Oda Mari said: Bobthefish2, zh-classical:釣魚臺列嶼 and zh:yue:釣魚台 are stubs without reference and talk
• And I would say: Oda Mari, I have no idea of what you are talking about. However, this is the link I was referring to ([26]), which is the same page as the one you cited with the simplified Chinese translated to traditional Chinese. Also, I do not think you've addressed anything in my previous post. While you aren't obliged to reply to any of them, I thought that'd make a friendly reminder.

and then let's see... There's Phoenix's replies and I observed he has now completely ignored at least two of my latest posts in the thread (in favour of rambling on with his flawed and irrelevant ideas) and so I am not even going to bother to reply to those (since they were already addressed). Our philosophical friend Tenmei's brand new Wikipedia article (Motivated_reasoning does quite well in illustrating my impression of these very stubborn and yet misguided arguments. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way STSC, you cannot cite common sense as your RS. Presumably, it is not very hard for you to find an RS somewhere that supports your position... like the one I provided one earlier. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't want to be rude, but would you all please stop and go elsewhere. This is a forum for improving the naming conventions for geographic names. As you are aware, there are other forums where you can debate the Senkaku/Diaoyu naming issue. Please continue your discussions there. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I am actually planning to move the discussion to a different page. But while you are at it, would you mind offering your perspective on the relevant issue? Before this thread managed to be derailed to some very irrelevant direction, it was really about whether or not "Diaoyu" and "Diaoyutai" should be treated the same for this given geographical location. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here, I pasted parts of the thread to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China. If anyone feels like re-adding off-topic issues like sovereignty claims and so on, do feel free. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Did the same for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Taiwan and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong Kong. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, I have been just 2 days off as being busy and here has been a big pile of posts. Besides agreeing with and supporting Bob and STSC, I need to reply Phoenix7777. Phoenix7777, you and all the authors whose articles you referred are not qualified to declare whether the dispute on the naming and further the sovereignty over these islands are 3-ways instead of 2-ways. None of you and the sources you referred provided any clear and direct evidence showing there has been a OFFICIAL dispute about naming and sovereignty on these islands BETWEEN the Mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC). I gave you an analogy, although sounds little bit extreme for easier construing: If I, Bob, and STSC, and maybe somebodies more, said "Wow, Phoenix7777 has changed his mind and he thinks that now naming those islands as 'Diaoyu Islands' is okay", could any one/ones else refer our words as RS to prove that you indeed changed your mind? Of course not! At this point, all of the sources you referred for your argument that this is 3-way dispute on naming are not reliable sources. What Bob and I gave are the real reliable sources: they were from the party (or parties as you prefer) naming "Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands" itself (or themselves). "Diaoyu Islands" is just a simple form of "Diaoyutai Islands" and they are Chinese name! This source you referred was written by a Singapore Scholar Tai-Wei Lim who mentioned "Taiwanese" and "Chinese". Just remind you that Taiwanese (or Hokkien) language is one of branches of Chinese language. It is you who initiated the issue "PRC and ROC are two counties" and used this groundless POV as your ground for arguing the naming is 3-way dispute, which has made this discussion or dispute a bit of distraction. Please give any direct and official RS showing there was naming dispute between the two sides across the Taiwan Strait, or just seriously check the official statements on Diayutai Islands from both sides across the Strait and that book written by a very Taiwan Scholar.--Lvhis (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lancaster- re-opening the debate

I have put a comment on Talk:Lancaster, suggesting the 2005 naming decision was no longer correct, and it should be changed to bring Lancaster, into line with York, or Derby or other county towns. Could some editors have a look and express an opinion.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)