Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of this move request is that there is no consensus to move this article (and related pages) to a title other than "Senkaku Islands".

I'm closing this discussion in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator after an arbitration enforcement request was made relating to this discussion. I recall that this naming dispute was the focus of the arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands, which provided for discretionary sanctions, but didn't result in any remedies or findings that are relevant as to the content issue of how the article(s) about these islands should be named. The decision summarized, as a principle, Wikipedia policy about how disputes regarding article titles should be resolved.

Per WP:RMCI, "consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." On that basis, I find the following:

  • There is no consensus to use a combined title such as "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" (and also no consensus about which of the two versions would be preferable). A title of this form is, moreover, discouraged by WP:NPOV#Naming, part of a core policy which even a consensus in this discussion could not override.
  • While the suggested "compromise" title of "Pinnacle Islands" also enjoys some support in this discussion, there is likewise no consensus in favor of it. Additionally, what evidence of name usage has been submitted indicates that "Pinnacle" is used (if at all) far less in English language sources than either "Diaoyu" or "Senkaku". Moving the article to that title would be contrary to the policy WP:UCN, which mandates the use of the most common name in English, and could also not be overridden by a consensus in this discussion.
  • Choosing the remaining option, "Diaoyu Islands", has not been proposed (to any discernible extent) in this discussion.

Consequently, per WP:Consensus#No consensus, the article(s) will continue to use the current title, "Senkaku Islands", because that title has been stable since 2010, although it has remained contested.  Sandstein  10:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

– The name/title "Senkaku Islands" currently used for this article and its related articles has been disputed for quite a long time even after the previous RfC. A number of editors have raised the concern and recently have basically reached a consensus in light of great and increasing numbers of reliable sources published in English lanuage, as discussed in the talk page sections [18][19][20][21][22] , that a dual (hybrid) name such as "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu" should be applied for the name/title of this articles and its related articles. According to reliable sources, for the name of the islands, "Senkaku" is Romanized Japanese name and "Diaoyu" is Romanized Chinese name (or described like "called Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan"), and "Pinnacle Islands" is the name from English language but less used in the moden time.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Many reliable sources in English language directly use a dual (hybrid) form "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu" making the two local names equally together and brief, and to keep these sources on independent neutral stand for this ownership disputed islands [8][10][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Using current single "Senkaku" for the name of this article and its related article has deviated far away from the main stream of reliable sources published in English language and is much less neutral than any independent English publications, having resulted in damaging the merit and reliability of Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia:Five pillars particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and other relevant policies including WP:V, Article title policy, and WP:NCGN (in particular Multiple local names), now I request to move this article and its related articles under name "Diaoyu/Senkaku" as indicated above as soon as possible. Whether using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or using "Senkaku/Diaoyu" should not become a substantial issue to prevent this move, as both of them have been used in many reliable sources published in English language, and both are relatively neutral. I tried to search them on Google Books or Google News Archive but it is almost impossible to clearly or completely separate them, i.e. a search for one dual (hybrid) name will always contain the other dual (hybrid) one, and the result of Google Books search gave an almost equal results for the two forms searches. After all we have to choose one from these two to request move, and I choose "Diaoyu/Senkaku" based on simple reasons: 1) the alphabetical order of English language, and 2 ) the historical order of names generated: "Diaoyu" generated as early as 1403[1] while "Senkaku" was generated around 1900[1].
Reliable Sources shown in my request above:

  1. ^ a b c Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593.
  2. ^ Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands". CNN World. CNN (US).
  3. ^ Hara, Kimie (原貴美恵)(2007). Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system. New York, USA: Routledge, c/o Taylor & Francis. p. 51.ISBN 9780415412087.
  4. ^ Kiyoshi Inoue (井上清). Senkaku Letto /Diaoyu Islands The Historical Treatise. (English synopsis [1])
  5. ^ Daniel J. Dzurek, "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996 [2]
  6. ^ Jeffrey Hays.SENKAKU-DIAOYU ISLANDS DISPUTE BETWEEN JAPAN AND CHINA. [3] Facts and Details
  7. ^ Koji Taira. The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands [4] This is an article that originally appeared in "The Ryukyuanist", spring 2004.
  8. ^ a b Joyman Lee. Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict Published in History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011
  9. ^ Jean-Marc F. Blanchard. The U. S. Role in the Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands, 1945-1971.[5] Cambridge University Press.
  10. ^ a b Martin Lohmeyer (2008). The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Dispute University of Canterbury
  11. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica [6]
  12. ^ National Geographic Atlas [7]
  13. ^ UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 32 (Mayo / May 2013) [8]
  14. ^ Chinese and Japanese ships cluster around disputed islands. CNN.[9]
  15. ^ Why China's new air zone incensed Japan, U.S. CNN.[10]
  16. ^ China Extends Air Defense over Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in East China Sea Dispute with Japan. The Brookings Institution.[11]
  17. ^ The Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute as an Identity-Based Conflict: Toward Sino-Japan Reconciliation. GMU-SCAR.[12]
  18. ^ Chinese pilots patrol controversial air zone over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. The Telegraph.[13]
  19. ^ Q&A: China-Japan islands row. BBC. [14]
  20. ^ The Senkaku/Diaoyu Island Controversy. Naval War Colloge Review. Spring 2013, Vol 66, No. 2. [15][16]
  21. ^ U.S. bombers defy disputed Chinese air space. PBS Newshour.[17]
  22. ^ Katrin Katz. Name GamesThe Foreign Policy Group.
Lvhis (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Update: My request above was partially based on the discussions on this talk page before I started this request. The basic consensus from those discussions is that current single local non-English name "Senkaku" is not good for this Wikipedia article, and keeping using it will keep damaging the merit and reliability of Wikipedia. At that time several users including me proposed to use a dual (hybrid) local name. While after starting this request, new inputs suggested moving to "Pinnacle Islands". What they opposed is not opposing moving away from the biased "Senkaku", they suggested better moving to "Pinnacle Islands". The difference between moving to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" and moving to "Pinnacle Islands" is just involved in some fine detail (some just technical aspect) of regarding wp guidelines, but not involved in the principles and spirit of wp policies and guidelines. The most advantage of "Pinnacle Islands" is that this one is a real and pure English name. It is still being used though less used. Otherwise, there would not be any users to raise this suggestion. Therefore, to reflect this part of reasonable opinion, I updated my request by adding "or ..." as the above shown now. I think it may not be very difficult to get consensus between moving to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands (or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands)" and "Pinnacle Islands" if we sincerely obey the principles and spirit of wp policies and guidelines.--Lvhis (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S: Either "Senkaku" or "Diaoyu" is "slightly more common" than another is definitely not enough "generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" (WP:POVNAME), and not enough overrides WP:NPOV. As from search results with ngram, this "slightly more common" fluctuated between "Diaoyu" and "Senkaku". From scientific statistical stand, this "slight" difference just results from sampling error, which should be treated as "null". If anyone push this "slight" difference very hard to claim it as "most common", one will go cherry-picking to utilize the sampling error to push POV. This is not in line with WP policies and guidelines. Wikipedia cannot just relay on one or few source or publisher. The 22 sources listed in my request contained not only some popular scholar work (books) on this group of islands, but also contained Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic Atlas, CNN, BBC, The Telegraph, and more. The correct way to treat the two almost or basically equally used local non-English names for the naming here is: 1)use both of them a combination form (dual or hybrid or slashed) as following the majority of the independent reliable sources to keep NPOV, or 2)use none of them as the special and realistic technical limitation of Wikipedia that we can hardly overcome to facilitate using their combination form (see WP:COMMONNAME: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" as quoted by user PBS). The rational behind "2)" is very reasonable: the common usage of "Diaoyu" and that of "Senkaku" are almost equal and they are of completely contradictory POV, and then their common usages have to be cancelled each other, i.e. to be treated as "none". Under this condition, the real and pure English name "Pinnacle Islands" will of course have the privilege to override both of them (or any of local non-English names) and shall be used. As an analogy, you should not compare the usage of "Pinnacle Islands" with the usage of any one of the two POV local names, but should compare it with the result after cancellation between each other the two local names. Under this correct way in line with WP policies and guidelines, as long as "Pinnacle Islands" is still being used, it can stand. (copy from previous comment on 19:33, 22 December 2013 and pasted here after modification. --Lvhis (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC))

Survey

  • Oppose, move see WP:STROKE CITY there has been for may years agreement that placing a forward slash in a name is a bad idea unless it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Support move to Pinnacle Islands. See the arguments a for the move to Liancourt Rocks where there is a similar ownership dispute and where the name used in English language publications is often promoted as a form of propaganda. Moving to Pinnacle Islands can be justified by the policy statement in WP:COMMONNAME "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". -- PBS (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I did (or do) not really have a problem with moving to Pinnacle Islands. See my comments two year ago here[23], here[24], and here ("Senkaku Islands" is NOT a English name but a POV name/title). My only concern is if it fits what are required in WP:MPN. While if consensus tells no better choice than this "Pinnacle Islands", maybe we can ignore this WP:MPN?--Lvhis (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:MPN is part of a naming convention (guideline) it is not policy (WP:AT) and I think it can be discounted in this case by simply referring to its last paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
"Pinnacle Islands" is the real and pure English name from beginning through now. I understand what you referred the last paragraph of WP:MPN and agree that it can be discounted. I have updated my request.--Lvhis (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
AjaxSmack, it is reasonable when you use your result from Google Books Ngram to argue for that "Pinnacle Islands" is still being used (though less used) in the modern time and to support moving to "Pinnacle Islands". But it is wrong when you use this result to say "Senkaku" is marginally more common so the current title works fine. Because 1) a local name seemed just marginally more used than another local name cannot be confirmed as "more common" one, or cannot be good enough defined as a "more common" one; 2) you did not set correct names for your search, e.g. "Senkaku" does not only mean "Senkaku Islands", you shall add "Islands" after each name; 3) different results can be produced upon the way how to use the Google Books Ngram. Here you set smoothing level at 3 for your search with the Google Books Ngram. According to what introduced in here [25], less smoothing level would give more accurate representation (The most accurate representation would be a smoothing level of 0). If I just change the smoothing level to 1 in what you set in Google Books Ngram (but added "Islands" after each name), the result showed "Diaoyu Islands" is marginally more common in the latest searchable year (2008). As both "Diaoyu" and "Diaoyutai" are Chinese, if you add them together, the margin beyond "Senkaku" will be larger. 4) the latest searchable year is 2008, but now is end of 2013, the given data is not very updated. The bottom line here is: both "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" are local non-English names and the frequency of their uses in English books approximately equal, and singly use either of them is biased at same extent that shall not be accepted by en-Wikipedia. As being "a free encyclopedia" claiming NPOV as one of its Five Pillars, Wikipedia shall not be much less neutral than any other independent English publications including books, media, etc.--Lvhis (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Support move to Pinnacle Islands. There isn't really a common name in English. I've even read two newspaper accounts that don't use any name for the islands when discussing the dispute. That leaves us free to pick a name that is most neutral. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious how a newspaper would manage that. How did they refer to this place? Jonathunder (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Here are a couple: [26][27] There was one in a US paper too but I can't find it now. This is what prompted me to propose, only half in jest, that we call them the Disputed Islands. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Update: I would also Support keeping the name Senkaku Islands. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason why I think Pinnacle Islands is the best name can be seen in comparing the first sentences of the articles Liancourt Rocks with Senkaku Islands. This is because using a neutral name as the article title allows the first sentence of the introduction to be structured in a more neutral way. I think that the name ordering in the Senkaku Islands article appears to favour Japan's claim. Compare it for example with the lead in the Gdansk article, that is clearly a Polish city under international law but also mentions the German name in the lead for use when the history of the city is mentioned.
    • The Liancourt Rocks, also known as Dokdo or Tokto in Korean, and Takeshima in Japanese,
    • The Senkaku Islands also known as the Diaoyu Islands or Diaoyutai Islands or the Pinnacle Islands...
    • Gdańsk (Kashubian: Gduńsk; German: Danzig]) is a Polish city on the Baltic coast...
    --PBS (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the move to the slashed title, Vehemently Oppose the a move to "Pinnacle Islands". That name is never almost never see below--Q used. Like, really, never. No modern source uses it. It's not a neutral name if it's never used--it's placing extreme value over a small number of very old sources as opposed to modern names. Using Pinnacle Islands is a flat out and obvious violation of WP:AT. If we cannot use a slashed title, we must keep it at either Senkaku or Diaoyu, based on whichever one is used slightly more often, however we discern that. This article is in no way similar to Liancourt Rocks--these islands are discussed often in English language articles, especially in the last year.
Question: Is there some other way we can call these islands to demonstrate that there are two distinct terms used? "Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands"? Ugh, that's awful, even as I type it...but it's still better (in my opinion), than Pinnacle Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Prefer Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands: Although the ordering isn't really that much of an issue, and I'd be fine either way, realistically speaking it would be fairer to have the Japanese name first, as any realistic administrative control is presently within the hands of Japan. That said, I'm not going to get too hung up over the ordering. Strongly oppose Pinnacle Islands (a name nobody uses apart from a bunch of dead people buried underground), weak oppose exclusive use of either Chinese or Japanese name, as having "no solution" isn't a solution to our current problem (that the present title isn't fair to all sides). This case is not a Liancourt Rocks case, nor is it a London/derry case; it is a completely separate case, and users really should stop making reference to them as if they are the holy grail examples that we must follow for every single case.

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

  • While consensus can change it has not been shown to have changed (in regards to putting a slash into a name that is not constructed that way in reliable sources), in this debate so far. Experience has shown that ordering is considered as important to many editors as an article title so why do you favour "Senkaku/Diaoyu" over "Diaoyu/Senkaku" and can you show that either version with a slash is a COMMONNAME? ngrams have been provided by AjaxSmack, and I have just provided four examples above of people who use the name so "a name nobody uses apart from a bunch of dead people buried underground" has been shown to be inaccurate. "There is no technical reason" not strictly true, a forwards slash in a url represents a dir marker, but in the case of Wikipedia these have been turned off for articles, but it has not been turned off for talk pages. Ie the page AC/DC is a page but talk:AC/DC are two pages. -- PBS (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
With reference to those sources
    1. [32].Note that that is the LoC listing, which uses Senkaku Islands. The reference to Pinnacle is from 1979: not a current reference.
    2. [33]. A much better source that does in fact seem to use Pinnacle Islands.
    3. [34]. That source doesn't use Pinnacle Islands. It mentions it. But note the actual title of the article uses "Senkaku". So, yes, it mentions it, but doesn't use it.
    4. [35]. First, that's basically a blog. Second, please read the article and it's style--it's a farcical approach, done deliberately to be humorous. Third, read this: "This author will refer to them by their English name, Pinnacle Islands, simply because this name is so gloriously inappropriate for what the damn thing is - a jagged bunch of rocks sticking out in the middle of nowhere. " He's chosen Pinnacle Islands specifically because he thinks it's funny, because it's entirely wrong. So I don't think we can count that as a legitimate use of the name.
So, that's exactly two sources relevant to this discussion that use the name "Pinnacle Islands". Compared to, literally, thousands, that use either "Senkaku/Diaoyu" or "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or something like "called Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan". I definitely do not count Pinnacle Islands as a legitimate choice here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You have ignored the ngram posting (which show its usage/mention is growing), and while I know you do not consider "Pinnacle Islands as a legitimate choice" (because you say so), that does not get away from the fact that you statement "That name is never used." has been shown to be false and instead of doing the gentlemanly thing and striking through the comment you choose to dissemble. I hope on consideration that you choose to do the correct thing and strike through never and replace it with seldom/rarely so that the the comment reads "That name is never [seldom] used." This would show that you are not trying to deliberately mislead people who do not know much about the issue. -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, "never" is an exaggeration--I've changed it to "almost never". I should be more precise. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
When was the last time you've heard someone non-sarcastically exclusively use the term "Pinnacle Islands"? In the majority of cases, any mention of "Pinnacle Islands" goes along the lines of "...the islands are also known as X, Y and Z". If the majority of third-party reliable sources do not use this term, then why should Wikipedia? --benlisquareT•C•E 00:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Fairly speaking, the use of "Pinnacle Islands" may not be that rare and old. Here is a publication by SSRN under title "Dispute Over Pinnacle Islands (Senkaku/Diaoyu) - A Legal Analysis" dated on 2011, the author was from School of Law - University of Edinburgh. Another example published in journal "The Pacific Review" with title "Quiet power: Japan's China policy in regard to the Pinnacle Islands" was dated on 2005 while published online in 2006. "Pinnacle Islands" is the real and pure English name for this group of islands. I am open not only for a dual local name but also for this pure English name, and am still weighing for which one may less ignore more policies and guidelines. It should be clear that either a dual local name or this pure English name is better than either of single local name for Wikipedia.--Lvhis (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I won't comment on this now as this is not the situation at the moment. Further judgement can only be made after analysing the information provided by the side proposing the move.-- lssrn45 | negotiate 08:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Lssrn45, you are POV pushing here. Same as "Diaoyu", "Senkaku" is a local non-English name. You have to follow important Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What PBS asked you is very correct: do you support moving to "Diaoyu Islands″ based on this result of the Google Ngram Viewer? Read my comment above. Don't use "most" that you are playing "cherry-picking". Before this RM/CM started, previous discussions have basically reached a consensus in light of reliable sources and important wp policies and guidelines that single local name "Senkaku" should not be for the name/title any more. If you push a POV very hard, your opinion will become invalid.--Lvhis (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You do not understand the question user PBS asked you and you don't know how to answer it. What you did with Google ngram selecting smooth level 0 is proving again such margin difference can be played to produce different outcome. See here what we get when I set smooth level 0 [52]? Be familiar with Sample size determination and Statistical significance. The true fact is none of either local non-English name here is overwhelmingly more used than another. If you use the margin you are favoring to support moving to "Senkaku/Diaoyu" versus "Diaoyu/Senkaku", that will stand. But now you use this not-clear-cut margin to support using single local name, that cannot stand as you are pushing POV by violating WP:NOR,WP:NPOV, and WP:AT.--Lvhis (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone can cherry-pick a bunch of links to further their argument. You should look at things from a larger, statistical perspective; having such a tiny sample size proves little to nothing. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • They're not necessarily "cherry-picking", but instead the purpose is to show that the usage of sole "Senkaku" in the title or as main description is common around the world. -- lssrn45 | negotiate 08:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: 170.799962%
Diaoyu Islands: 000.000001%
Senkaku Islands: 000.000001%
This is only upto year 2008. It is believed that for recent years the usage of dual name has even been increased. So if you follow your logic "common", you shall not oppose the dual (hybrid) name even not to mention NPOV yet. And obviously, the 22 reliable sources listed in my request are good sampling from real overwhelmingly more commonly used name form. Either of using single local name is just like nothing when compared with using this dual name. The sources you picked up are definitely from bad sampling resulting from your biased cherry-picking. Your comment with POV pushing based on this kind of cherry-picking shall be invalid.--Lvhis (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose See WP:STROKE_CITY and MOS:LEADALT which states "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." If you are going to use a stroke to add Diaoyu to the name why not use another stroke to add Diaoyutai as well? If I'm not mistaken, unlike Daioyutai there isn't a historical mention of just "Diaoyu" prior to 1969.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"Diaoyu" is the modern name which is more common than "Daioyutai". STSC (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe "Diaoyutai" is more common than "Diaoyu" on Taiwan. I might add that if "modern" sources are to be emphasized then Japan's claim would be further emphasized over China's since China's claim is entirely based on sources pre-dating the 20th century.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
"Diaoyutai" is a variant of "Diaoyu"; Diaoyutai is essentially a "Diaoyu" (釣魚) plus a "Tai" (台). It's kind of like how you can have Aluminium and Aluminum, or Briton and British. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Starting off with a "T" instead of a "D" is indeed not a germane variant, but "Diaoyu" versus "Diaoyutai" matters to Taiwanese. If it didn't matter The China Post would not find it necessary to follow "Diaoyu" with "(known as the Tiaoyutais in Taiwan)". The bottom line is that Taiwan is a third claimant and Taiwan does not use "Diaoyu."--Brian Dell (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The reason of using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" is because both are widely used common names (but not Diaoyutai). STSC (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" is just one title, just like Imia/Kardak. STSC (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The point is that "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu" is not neutral as it excludes Diaoyutai. If one's going to change the title for POV reasons, that argument has to be followed consistently. I'll add that this whole issue involves more than just neutrality and commonality of usage. Beijing is currently buying up African media companies. if those outlets start using "Diaoyu" because Beijing controls them and that increases the usage of "Diaoyu" enough to make it marginally the most common, does Wikipedia then automatically retitle the article? One has to consider whether the system is being gamed here. By the same token, Taiwan should not be dismissed just because it, and its media market, is relatively small.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
If you are taking the NPOV policy really seriously and worry that "Diaoyutai" could be excluded and want to do NPOV perfect, you should like to support "Pinnacle Islands" as other users have supported. This real and pure English name will not be affected no matter how usage frequency of any local non-English name is changed by means that you are worrying. BTW, "Diaoyu" is also used in Taiwan, see these [53][54]. If one love to ignore the most important Wikipedia:Five pillars particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR but selectively cherry-pick wording from some guidelines to push POV, one is gaming wp system.--Lvhis (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
First of all, the proposal was a move to a slashed name. If one slash is acceptable, two should be also. If the proposal is to move to "Pinnacle Islands," then start a separate proposal for that instead of confusing the matter by running multiple options at the same time. If you are going to run multiple options, you shouldn't complain if people express more than a single "oppose." As for "Pinnacle Islands," the WP:COMMONNAME policy quite clearly precludes this. But "Senkaku" isn't neutral, you say. Well WP:POVTITLE clearly indicates that "the prevalence of the name... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." The Wikipedia:Article titles policy as a whole gives guidance as to how to prioritize common usage versus neutrality issues, and this rules out "Pinnacle Islands". A slashed name would be more consistent with policy than "Pinnacle Islands", but not consistent enough in my view, not least because without Diaoyutai you would still have a neutrality problem despite the unwieldy slashed name. Finally there is the reality of more than a century of Japanese administration, rightly or wrongly. Yongxing Island Airport takes a Chinese name despite the fact China has only definitively administered that island following a military engagement in 1974. If de facto administration means nothing, Wikipedia might be compelled to recognize the Republic of China as the continuing legal government of China in general. Do you want that? No? Then who controls the territory, and has done so for many decades, matters.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
First of all, why do you forget/ignore important WP:NOR? A dual name (one slash) is from reliable sources instead of randomly picked by wp users, and is not only relatively neutral but also much more commonly used than any of single local non-English name. Two slashed one is rarely used and maybe even less used than "Pinnacle Islands". The procedure RM/CM is different from simple RM, and is open for other options including options supporting moving to other names. Read the instruction of WP:RM/CM. No body here complains if anyone express more than a single "oppose". You need to keep your logic consistent. If you really seriously follow WP:NPOV, you should not oppose moving to "Pinnacle Islands" the real English name now still being used. Your interpretation on WP:COMMONNAME is wrong and this policy does not preclude this pure English name (see comment from user PBS [55]). If you like to stick on "more commonly used" name, you should not oppose moving to dual name that is used overwhelmingly more common than any of single local name by correct searching. The current single local name "Senkaku" is neither neutral nor "more common". The difference between using "Senkaku" and using "Diaoyu" is very marginal and tiny, within the "sampling error", and with no Statistical significance. That cherry-picking such tiny and unreliable difference defines "Senkaku" as "more commonly used" is a definitely and purely Origianl Research! Treating "Senkaku" as a "commonly used name" is misled either by yourself or by others. Your final point is nothing new and has been refuted repeatedly (see example Liancourt Rocks case). Again, keep your logic consistent and better not go gaming WP system to push a not really commonly used POV name.--Lvhis (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose both slashed title & Pinnacle Islands, keep at Senkaku. The Liancourt Rocks are well-known by that title; Pinnacle Islands is obsolete and no longer used seriously. Per lssrn45's sources and ngrams and others, by default much English-language media still uses Senkaku by default. In articles on the dispute itself, the hyphenated term appears more often, but not enough for it to be the default title used here. As an additional headache, as the article notes, this should arguably be Senkaku / Diaoyu / Diaoyutai if Wikipedia wants to truly attempt to not "endorse" any side, and a triple name is clearly verging on the ridiculous. While I suppose the current title does weakly give implicit support to the Japanese claim, considering that both Japanese & Chinese claim supporters can agree that Japan has de facto control at the moment, reflecting that in the title isn't wholly terrible. SnowFire (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Per WP:AT, who "realistically owns the islands" is not a factor we use to decide what the article title is, the WP:COMMONNAME of the topic in the English language is. If the United States controlled Alaska, but Russia called it "Penis Land", and the overwhelming usage in English-language third-party reliable sources was "Penis Land", we too would call Alaska "Penis Land". It is the same reason why Dokdo is a redirect, and not an article title. The reason I mentioned de facto ownership was to justify my personal choice of ordering, however it was a weak argument to begin with. As things currently are, both "Diaoyu" and "Senkaku" are almost at parity when it comes to usage in English-language reports. This is the problem here - if the difference was by a long stretch, then it would be fine, but both names are very close when you look at usage statistically. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If you look at what I wrote again, you'll note that I wrote 5 sentences on "English usage" and 1 sentence that referenced de facto control strictly in the context of acknowledging that "Senkaku" does lend implicit weight toward one side, but that at least it's toward the side that has de facto control. There are plenty of cases where I agree that the entity which owns something doesn't get to use its own official name, however if the usages are hypothetically equal, that argues for keeping the article here on simple grounds of title stability and the high undesirability of a slashed title. Additionally, I have no idea why you stuck "who realistically controls the islands" in quotes as I never said that. SnowFire (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • They were scare quotes, and not an actual quotation. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Said "if the usages are hypothetically equal, that argues for keeping the article here on simple grounds of title stability ...." shall be precluded by WP:NCGN#Multiple local names where an example Liancourt Rocks is given, and the fact the current single local Japanese name "Senkaku" has been disputed for quite a long time. Note why Korean name "Dokdo" is not used for Liancourt Rocks and who completely control this group of islands.--Lvhis (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, SnowFire, you have been misled by wrong info including user lssrn45's cherry-picking selection and so on. Please see Google ngram result shown in "Discussion" subsection below, the dual name is overwhelmingly much more commonly used than any of single local non-English name. The single local name "Senkaku" currently used in WP article(s) is neither neutral nor "more common". The difference between using "Senkaku" and using "Diaoyu" is very marginal and tiny, within the "sampling error", and with no Statistical significance. That cherry-picking such tiny and unreliable difference defines "Senkaku" as "more commonly used" is a definitely and purely Origianl Research. Your impression "by default much English-language media still uses Senkaku by default" may result from that you are misled, and actually is baseless. So per WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NE, and per WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, compared with either "Pinnacle Islands" or a dual/hybrid name (from correct sampling of reliable sources but not from randomly picked up by wp users), this single local name "Senkaku" is a worst option that using it has damaged the merit and reliability of Wikipedia for enough long time. Hope you can realize your "Oppose" was wrong after such clarification.--Lvhis (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Lvhis: Looking at the figures you posted below... your ngram figures are indisputably wrong and you were already told so by Kendall-K1! You claim that the Diaoyu/Senkaku construction happens 170 million times more often than "Senkaku." That is 100% impossible and should have tipped you off that you did your ngram query wrong.
  • Let's do it again, but right: Ratio of Diaoyu/Senkaku Ratio of "Diaoyu Islands"/"Senkaku Islands". Neither of these show a strong preference one way or the other in recent years - it bounces between 60% - 140%. Ergo neither usage has a strong majority. Ergo we should just keep the article wherever it is right now for the sake of article stability if nothing else. (The issue of not using slashed alternate names is a bit of Wikipedia policy entirely independent from this - Wikipedia only moves to a slashed name when that's the official name a la Aoraki / Mount Cook. SnowFire (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • SnowFire, did you see my words in reply to Kendall-K1? If "Diaoyu/Senkaku" is returning the ratio of Diaoyu to Senkaku, or "Diaoyu" divided by "Senkaku", as what you believed, it shall not be more than single "Diaoyu", right? ... Even you just do ordinary search with "Google", you will much easier get dual name results than a pure single name results. Anyway, this is just one aspect. More important point is to obey the principles and spirit of wp policies and guidelines particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, otherwise one will fall in gaming-system. Based on the the principles and spirit of wp policies and guidelines, you can ignore the low commonality of usage and choose to use the real and pure English name "Pinnacle Islands" No search machine can be perfect. Google ngram is just a better one. Taking your ratio search, your results "... neither usage has a strong majority" just rightly deny what you previously said "by default much English-language media still uses Senkaku by default." This single local name "Senkaku" is a worst option that using it has damaged the merit and reliability of Wikipedia for enough long time. Damaging for a long time already can not justify that choosing keeping damage is correct. You oppose to "Pinnacle Islands" is also not in line with WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NE, and WP:NCGN#Multiple local names.--Lvhis (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Lvhis Well yes. I do believe that Senkaku is slightly more common from my own personal reading of the sources - The Economist, for example, usually uses both names at first and then will call them "Senkaku" afterward. That said, I'm willing to grant there might be a "tie"... but as I've already said, slashed article titles are almost always inappropriate, so the only valid move targets are "Diaoyu" and "Pinnacle". To move to Diaoyu alone would require a decisive shift in usage that is not a "tie", and Pinnacle is far too little used to be appropriate. As for your other arguments, you are repeating yourself; I do not find them convincing. SnowFire (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • SnowFire, when "slightly more common" used as you replied above, it is closer to the true fact but definitely not enough "generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue" (WP:POVNAME), and not enough overrides WP:NPOV. As from your search results with ngram, this "slightly more common" fluctuated between "Diaoyu" and "Senkaku", i.e. sometime "Diaoyu" is "slightly more common". From scientific statistical stand, this "slight" difference just results from sampling error, which should be treated as "null". If you (anyone) push this "slight" difference very hard to claim it as "most common", you will go cherry-picking to utilize the sampling error to push POV. This is not in line with WP policies and guidelines. You gave a source example The Economist, Wikipedia cannot just relay on one or few source or publisher. The 22 sources listed in my request contained not only some popular scholar work (books) on this group of islands, but also contained Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic Atlas, CNN, BBC, The Telegraph, and more. The correct way to treat the two almost or basically equally used local non-English names for the naming here is: 1)use both of them a combination form (dual or hybrid or slashed) as following the majority of the independent reliable sources to keep NPOV, or 2)use none of them as the special and realistic technical limitation of Wikipedia that we can hardly overcome to facilitate using their combination form (see WP:COMMONNAME: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" as quoted by user PBS). The rational behind "2)" is very reasonable: the common usage of "Diaoyu" and that of "Senkaku" are almost equal and they are of completely contradictory POV, and then their common usages have to be cancelled each other, i.e. to be treated as "none". Under this condition, the real and pure English name "Pinnacle Islands" will of course have the privilege to override both of them (or any of local non-English names) and shall be used. As an analogy, you should not compare the usage of "Pinnacle Islands" with the usage of any one of the two POV local names, but should compare it with the result after cancellation of each other the two local names. Under this correct think way in line with WP policies and guidelines, as long as "Pinnacle Islands" is still being used, it can stand. I personally believe even you do some statistical math work, the use of "Pinnacle Islands" may be higher or at least not lower than the cancellation result of "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu", while you do not need take my such analogy very serious as I just want to help to easily understand the rational of what WP:COMMONNAME says and why "Pinnacle Islands" should be chosen. Your decision is just up to you.--Lvhis (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Is Diaoyu Islands not also an official name? Since there are two official names (albeit from two separate authorities), it doesn't differ that far from the Mount Cook example. "Ergo we should just keep the article wherever it is right now for the sake of article stability if nothing else." - I disagree; ensuring "stability" is by no means a valid reason to unfairly disrupt the balance towards one side. If the people of the early 20th century wanted "stability", they wouldn't have granted women's suffrage either, because "stability" is threatened by any form of change. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User:benlisquare: The difference is that there is one entity that clearly "owns" the NZ mountain, and it is the New Zealand government, and it is an English-speaking country. There is *one* official name for that mountain: "Aoraki / Mount Cook." In this case, there are three different entities which claim the islands, and none of them are English-speaking anyway, so there are 3 separate semi-official titles and none are in English anyway (e.g. see Ivory Coast for a case where Wikipedia ignores the "official" name). As for article title stability, this is a well-established principle at Wikipedia and why Requested Moves have a standard greater than 50% support, to prevent senseless moves back & forth when people can't agree on something when there are multiple potential titles. SnowFire (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • SnowFire, where did you get the concept "... Requested Moves have a standard greater than 50% support, ..."? According to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, Requested Move is determined by "properly weighing consensus with applicable policies and guidelines". It says "Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere." (Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus). So as says WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, ... The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Hope this can be clarified. In terms of "stability", review the dispute history and current talk contents on this talk page regarding this name, the so called "stable" is purely due to the page is under "move-protection", so the current status is a false or pseudo "stability". I believe if the name is moved to a NPOV one, the dispute on naming issue will be much less that we do not need a prohibition on naming issue talk like a one applied after last RfC (many talk attempts on naming issue were forcibly removed per such prohibition). While of course the page will be still under "move-protection" given the new move indeed granted.--Lvhis (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
"Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate."
Also WP:NCGN#Multiple local names doesn't apply to this case because the Google Book hits over 16,000 is not the case:
"English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine."
Also Oppose "Pinnacle islands" because it is the least widely accepted name per Google Book search. We should use the most widely accepted name per WP:NCGN#General guidelines.
  • "Senkaku islands": 16,200
  • "Diaoyu islands": 6,540
  • "Pinnacle islands" 846
――Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Phoenix7777, you are wrong. First, you gave wrong search results misleading others: A) the link you gave for "Senkaku islands" contained a lot sources using "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islnads", "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands", and "Diaoyu Islands"! Same as this, your search for "Diaoyu islands" also contained ones using dual name. You put marker "" on your search names but this is useless. So your search results (16,200 and 6,540) were totally unreliable or just meant nothing. So do not use this to mislead people. Your search for "Pinnacle islands" can only verify that this real and pure English name is still being used. B) relatively Google Books Ngram is a better search tool but when two local names are used quite equally, you can get different results by playing it in different ways as I explained in my reply to user AjaxSmack[56]. If you would emphasis one of them was "marginally more used" than another from certain Google Books Ngram search to support your preference for a dual name Senkaku/Diaoyu versus Diaoyu/Senkaku, that would be fine. But here you use an unreliable search results to argue for your claim only using single local (Japanese) name "Senkaku", this is purely POV pushing. Using this incorrect way to create a so called "Widely accepted name" in publications with English language is your original research that not only violates WP:NOR but also violates WP:NPOV. And the second, you listed 2 special guidelines WP:NPOV#Naming and WP:NCGN#Multiple local names to support your "Oppose". I do not need to argue that the way you interprete them is not correct, I just say, if you love to ignore the most important Wikipedia:Five pillars particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, why cannot you ignore all other specific guidelines including the two you listed? Why cannot others very reasonably ignore specific guidelines you listed? Your POV pushing points cannot stand.--Lvhis (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Phoenix7777 you write "Also WP:NCGN#Multiple local names doesn't apply to this case..." I presume that did you see the sentence in that section that states "In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the reasonably common name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted, mainly because it is neither Korean nor Japanese.". Now that I have pointed this out to you does it change you opinion? -- PBS (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
In the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits are below a hundred at that time (May 2007). See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10#Google Book search.
  • Dokdo: 63
  • Takeshima: 16
  • Liancourt Rocks: 62
So the following restriction described in the first paragraph of WP:NCGN#Multiple local names apply to that case.
"English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine."
If this restriction does not apply, the most widely accepted name should be used per WP:NCGN#General guidelines.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"Google does not return more than 1,000 actual results" is correct. However "hit counts above this are estimates which cannot readily be examined, and are imperfect evidence of actual usage" is an unsourced WP:OR. If you happen to find a reliable source, please provide it. That restriction is probably based on the idea that it is useless to show more than 1000 results, rather the Google recommends to add additional search term. It is by design and not related to the reliability of hit counts. Even "Microsoft"[57] returns only 1000 actual results among 42,300,000 results. Anyway if you challenge the reliability of Google Book search, this is not the right place to discuss that issue.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Please don't waste my time. It shows how you just pick and choose from the Wikipedia documentation to suit your own purpose. STSC (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I moved the following comment from the unilaterally collapsed section to here. If anyone remove/collapsed this comment, they risk an indefinite ban from this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why Phoenix7777 thinks he has the right to be a complete drama queen and threaten other people of bans, and how he has the nerve to move out his own clutter and not everyone else's. The section was hatted because it was clutter - we don't need someone to repeat a bunch of policies here. For those of us who have been here for quite some time we know what the policies are, you don't need to point out quotes for us. It takes up a huge chunk of space within this page, and to be honest, it's an eyesore when I'm trying to navigate the page to see what the hell is going on. If you want to make an argument, mentioning the policy is sufficient enough. Rewriting whole chunks of policy within this page is unnecessary clutter, which is the reason why I collapsed everybody's policy quotes, and not just yours; I'm not "unfairly targeting you" or "intentionally hiding things that aren't convenient for me", Phoenix7777, or whatever persecution complex excuse you can come up with. Stop this annoying rubbish, and realise that there's more to this planet than you. You're getting on my nerves. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Relevant Policies and Guidelines
  • POV title
WP:Article title says the prevalence of the non-neutral name overrides POV concern.
"When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue."
WP:NPOV#Naming says the widely used name may be used even though some may regard it as biased.
"In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."
  • Slashed name (Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands)
WP:NPOV#Naming says slashed name should not be used.
"Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate."
  • Pinnacle Islands (the least common name)
WP:Article title says the most commonly used name should be used.
"However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."
WP:NCGN#General guidelines says a widely accepted English name should be used.
"The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always."
  • Pinnacle Islands (Analogy to Liancourt Rocks)
WP:NCGN#Multiple local names says in some limited conditions, a compromise may be reached between editors.
"English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine."
"In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the reasonably common name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted, mainly because it is neither Korean nor Japanese." (Emphasis added)
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Phoenix7777, the words you picked up from regarding policies and guidelines should be put under this subsection. So I moved them to here. What you have done is more like gaming wp system. From what you picked and your logic, you should support moving to single "Diaoyu Islands" or you have no reason to oppose moving to "Diaoyu Islands".--Lvhis (talk) 9:20 am, Today (UTC+9) (Added after bad revert by Phoenix7777): Phoenix7777, the words you picked up from regarding policies and guidelines should be put under subsection Argument for retention of "Senkaku Islands". These were still a part of your own argument. I moved there but you fallaciously reverted it back here. You want to start an edit war in the talk page? What you have done is gaming wp system. From what you picked and your logic, you should support moving to single "Diaoyu Islands" or you have no reason to oppose moving to "Diaoyu Islands".--Lvhis (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose both slashed name and Pinnacle Islands.
    Keep as it is. Senkaku is a BGN name like Sea of Japan and Liancourt Rocks. Senkaku is the outnumbered title in the WP article in other languages. See this. I don't understand only this article should be moved. And, as lssrn45 pointed out, media use Senkaku as superior name. [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62].
    Pinnacle Islands is the least used name and not a modern name. If WP:UE has first priority, Iwo Jima, another BGN name, should be moved to Sulphur Islands. Oda Mari (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Again with the cherry-picked links? Please have a look at Sample size determination and Statistical significance. Furthermore, what other Wikipedia language projects decide to do is irrelevant to what goes on within the English Wikipedia, as each Wikipedia project has a separate community, separate policies, and separate consensus establishment. Wikipedia should not be used as a measure of anything. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe, but I think Lvhis did the same thing in his RM. This RM reminds me of these. I just don't like it /any name but Senkaku and Pinnacle Islands. IMHO, that is what s/he's been always thinking about for years and s/he's just pushing her/his CPOV. I may be biased, but at the same time Lvhis is also biased. Everyone is biased. Oda Mari (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Please STOP all personal attacks. Questioning other editor's views is fine, it's what we do. Questioning their motives is not allowed unless you think they have a conflict of interest. Personal attacks will only result in further sanctions. It also influences those of us who might otherwise be sympathetic to start ignoring you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Please stick to discussing the issue, Kendall, instead of jumping in here to point a finger at a particular editor. Yeah, you could say I'm now jumping in here too but I am doing so in order to say there are no innocents here: the party you think has just been victimized by Oda Mari here happens to be the very same party who accused you of being "false" and "cheating readers." Lvhis has also directed a charge of "not honest" and "cheat[ing] people" at another editor in this thread. Oda Mari did indeed allege Lvhis harbours a pro-China bias, but when Lvhis turns right around and accuses Oda Mari of a pro-Japan bias (below), I'd call it a wash. Oda Mari at least admits to his bias. And for what it is worth, many pro-Beijing commentators on the internet in fact do have a conflict of interest.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Brian Dell, you do not understand the previous discussion you mentioned [63]. Kendall-K1 is not the party who false using a source and cheating readers. Instead, Kendall-K1 found this problem and put it on this talk page. The one I accused is the one who quite obviously falsely or fraudulently used this source, but not Kendall-K1. Your last sentence above has violated WP:PA when you put here to imply for any participants or users here. Are you going to say "many pro-Tokyo commentators on the internet in fact do have a conflict of interest"? You did a PA worse than Oda Mari did. I believe you know this topic is under discretionary sanctions.--Lvhis (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oda Mari, do not put your words in my mouth. If I was biased or CPOV, I would push using "Diaoyu" as you have been pushing "Senkaku". Your JPOV prevent you from obeying the most important wp policies and guidelines and their principles and spirit. You need to check the discussions on this talk page before this RM/CM started. If I was CPOV, I would oppose "Senkaku/Diaoyu", but I do not. A solid fact here is: both "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" are local non-English names. If you love to ignore WP:NPOV, any wp policies and guidelines can be totally ignored.--Lvhis (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
And also Oda Mari,you should not put two opposes like this one[64], that will confuse people those may be from two different users. You can do like what Phoenix7777 did for his two opposes.--Lvhis (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I combined the two to make this clear. Hope you don't mind. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I changed two opposes to one. Lvhis, if the current title is biased, "Diaoyu" would be also biased. You are well aware of it, and that is the reason you do not push "Diaoyu", but you cannot accept the single use of "Senkaku", and you've been trying to change the title. Any name will do, but the sole article title "Senkaku". Oda Mari (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oda Mari, you think I did cherry-picking in my RM/CM? I did in purpose not include sources published in English by Chinese scholars, but did include several sources by Japanese scholars. Do you dislike this kind "cherry-picking" and want me to add sources by Chinese scholars?--Lvhis (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Again Oda Mari, both "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" are local non-English names. Sounds you admit using single "Senkaku" same as using single "Diaoyu" is biased or POV. So why should not this POV name be changed to a NPOV one? You do not need to only focus on me. Before this RM/CM started, a number of users (including Qwyrxian) agreed to change this name and to go such proper procedure ([65][66][67][68][69]). And also a number of users participating in this RM/CM suggested either moving to "Pinnacle Islands" or moving to a dual name with their reasons and arguments in good quality. So please focus on user's views but not on user(s).--Lvhis (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the current title is POV. It seems to me that you do not understand the meaning and the usage of "if". It's you who says it's POV and the title should be changed. If the current title is NPOV, there is no reason to change it. It must be POV to you. What you do is "Any name but single use of Senkaku". Your cherry picking is that you ignore single use of Senkaku like maps/nautical chart by US military and other en speaking countries. Oda Mari (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • BGN refers to United States Board on Geographic Names, by the way. The US government is a treaty ally of Japan and has threatened to use force to ensure Japanese control over the Pinnacles. They are using a romanized Japanese name, not the native English name (that would be Pinnacles). But there's no indication that English and American sources consult BGN for geographic terms, and a lot of evidence that reliable sources do something different (like using Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku). Shrigley (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with that? The neutrality is different by languages/countries. This is en:WP. Nautical chart used by Australia and UK is the single name Senkaku. Oda Mari (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move to either, since the current title obviously does not conform with our policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN, etc. If you want to avoid slashes, use "Pinnacle". If you want to avoid using a lesser-used name, use "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu".
    Some of the opposition is based on incorrect assumptions. For example, "Liancourt Rocks" is in fact not more common in English than "Pinnacle Islands" are. Second, Diaoyutai is an interchangable variant (that isn't usually mentioned by English sources) of Diaoyu, not a separate term. Shrigley (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move to either (preferably Diaoyu/Senkaku), temporarily and for the sake of argument, but basically--as far as my understanding of policy goes--this should be merged with the "dispute" related article. The common name used internationally before 1900 was "Diaoyu", and there is a testimony for this even on Japanese maps from the Edo period (18th century) by Hayashi Shihei and numerous other Japanese and international sources (listed on p. 91 of Sugnua, e.g.: Crutchly's China (1861); Atlas of the World by Rand McNally (1894); Steilers Hand-Atlas:Justus Perthes (1906); etc)sources as well. There is also the fact that the name "Senkaku" was derived from a translation of the English term "pinnacle", via the Japanese term "sento" that had first been used in that manner. There is much more information related the 300-year history of the international use of "Diaoyu", which Suganuma documents elsewhere (e.g., pp. 48-55 regarding the Shi Liuqiu)--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, and yes, this is a multiple pages RM/CM. If this RM gets granted, this article and two related articles ("Senkaku Islands dispute" and "2010 Senkaku boat collision incident") will be moved to granted names at same time. --Lvhis (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I see, I think. I'm not sure how this works, but in that case, if the article were to be organized along the lines of a historical narrative--which seems the only reasonable approach--then it is obvious that the title must start with Diaoyu in consideration of its currency of several hundred years before the appearance of "Senkaku".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@Lvhis Note that there is a new development related to the mineral resources under the continental shelf [www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/20/national/ldp-wants-japan-china-gas-field-issue-taken-to-international-courts/ LDP wants Japan-China gas field issue taken to international courts]. It's almost certain not to happen though, as Japan doesn't have sovereignty, so it can't claim the continental shelf, which is a natural geological extension of the continental land mass. Anyway, it might necessitate that they recognize the "dispute", so even the proposal might be notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 December 2013
  • Oppose proposed move... Support moving to Pinnacle Islands. While a significant majority of English Language sources do use a slash (thus justifying an exception to WP:STROKE CITY), the sources are mixed over whether to present it as Senkaku/Daioyu or Daioyu/Senkaku. While the sources favor the first, there does not appear to be a significant majority. And while Pinnacle Islands is somewhat archaic, it was a clear WP:COMMONNAME in the past... I think it makes it an acceptable alternative to use as a non-POV tie-breaker. That said, we should revisit the issue in a few years (when hopefully the political issue is settled) to see if source usage has stabilized. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that there is merit in avoiding a POV title, but I'm not sure that Pinnacle Islands would accomplish that. Granted, it would displace the dispute from the title, but it also makes Wikipedia look a little wishy-washy insofar as the islands have a history of at least several hundred years before ships of the British Empire appeared in those waters. It has been pointed out that the name has not been used (as you've also mentioned, "archaic"), and for Wikipedia to use it would give it more credence on the Internet than it actually has (or deserves).
Those are not issues that are easily gotten around. I'll point out in this context that not only does the current text of this article fail to describe the origins of the name "Senkaku", it misrepresent what Suga says (on p. 90). The crux of the matter is described in two passages on pp.91-2, respectively

p.91...Issued in 1886...the Japanese began to identify the disputed islands by using sources from the British navy...the small islets located to the east of the Diaoyu chain were identified as the "Pinnacle Group," signifying that the huge rock in the Diaoyu islands chain can be seen as a "pinnacle" mountain when viewed from the sea--the provenance of the term Senkaku.

p.92 ...The Japanese navy adopted most Chinese names and incorporated the English names as well. The Japanese translated the name "Pinnacle Islets" into Japanese as "Sento Shoto" (rather than "Senkaku Retto")... "Senkaku" means "Sento"...

Those pages are available on the preview, so I have types out only the essential portions.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose move to Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. This is an artificial construct which is not the common name in English, and does not meet several of the principles of WP:AT, WP:POVNAMING, WP:NCGN et al; some of these principles & guidelines are explicitly against the use of such constructs.
The impetus for this WP:RM appears two-fold: That 1) the current article title is biased or supports a non-NPOV; 2) the current article title does not reflect the English common name.
W.r.t perceived bias of the current name:
WP:POVNAMING suggests the following "Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. ... Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate."
The current title is in line with this; alternative names are given significant mention in the article, and redirects are in place.
WP:NCGN on Multiple local names suggests "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.
Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have.
We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. ... one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive. ...
There are occasional exceptions ... when the double name is the overwhelmingly most common name in English. This should not be done to settle a dispute between national or linguistic points of view; it should only be done when the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place."
In summary, these principles & guidelines indicate that w.r.t the article title, questions of bias, or support of a national or linguistic POV are secondary to the requirements to reflect the English common name.
The current article title is in line with these guidelines. The proposed double name is, at least in part, explicitly to settle a dispute between national points of view; and therefore contrary to these guidelines.
W.r.t naming in general:
WP:AT suggests "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended."
The current article title & content is in line with this; redirects are in place.
W.r.t the question of the current English common name:
In line with the principles & guidelines above, for the WP:RM to be upheld, the exact phrase "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" must be the actual English common name for the islands; it is not sufficient for there to be several alternative names, or for there to be differing national points of view; in these case we would choose one or the names and list the alternatives in the article.
Much of the evidence provided does not appear support the line of thought that the English common name has changed to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands". A significant number of the articles provided simply use one or the other of "Senkaku" or "Diaoyu", with the other referenced at some point during the article; this is especially an issue for the provided evidence which is based on Google searches.
Additionally, much of the evidence provided actually relates to the territorial dispute itself. As covered below, the name of the dispute itself would appear to be a separate thing. There is no evidence provided that the name of the dispute has changed the English common name of the islands themselves in some type of back formation.
Questions of "Senkaku" being the anglicization of the local Japanese name or also being the Japanese name are moot. There is no more issue with this than with the title of other English Wikipedia articles where the English common name is an anglicization; e.g. "Berlin" or "Wiradjuri".
It appears that there are several alternate names in use; with "Diaoyu" or "Diaoyutai" being used in the Chinas (PRC & ROC) and the Chinese diaspora, and "Senkaku Islands" being used elsewhere, including in several of the "reliable sources" listed in the guidelines; "Pinnacle Islands" appears seldom used.
Based on this, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to support the WP:RM. - Ryk72 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose move to Pinnacle Islands. There is no evidence that this is the common name in English and it appears a poor compromise. - Ryk72 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
— Ryk72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
User Ryk72 (this is a SPA account?), let me just repeat: The correct way to treat the two almost or basically equally used local non-English names for the naming here shall be: 1)use both of them a combination form (dual or hybrid or slashed) as following the majority of the independent reliable sources to keep NPOV, or 2)use none of them as the special and realistic technical limitation of Wikipedia that we can hardly overcome to facilitate using their combination form as policy WP:COMMONNAME states: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others" as cited by several participants here but you never motioned. The rational behind "2)" is very reasonable: the common usage of "Diaoyu" and that of "Senkaku" are almost equal and they are of completely contradictory POV, and then their common usages have to be cancelled by each other, i.e. to be treated as "none". Under this condition, the real and pure English name "Pinnacle Islands" will of course have the privilege to override both of them (or any of local non-English names) and shall be used. As an analogy, you should not compare the usage of "Pinnacle Islands" with the usage of any one of the two POV local names, but should compare it with the result after cancellation by each other the two local names. Under this correct way in line with WP policies and guidelines, as long as "Pinnacle Islands" is still being used, it can stand.--Lvhis (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
User Lvhis, I respectfully suggest that there are a number of issues with the use of the extract from WP:COMMONNAME, quoted as above. I will not to repeat the full text of WP:COMMONNAME, but the text preceding the quote indicates that the primary purpose of the policy is to establish a preference for the article title to be a single name, most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources).
The use of the ellipsis within the quote is also troublesome; the full text of the quoted piece is "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." An impartial reading would be that this redirects questions of "Neutrality in Article Titles" to WP:POVTITLE (& WP:POVNAME or WP:POVDESC); and that the final sentence relates to questions of vulgarity or pedanticism(?), which may be addressed by choosing an alernate title from the existing set of common names - not the creation of a synthetic hybrid name.
In short, I do not concur that WP:COMMONNAME supports use of either a hybrid title ("Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands"), or of an alternative which is not the most commonly used ("Pinnacle Islands"); that is, it does not support the WP:RM.
However, I do think you have highlighted at least some of the points of disconnect between the thoughts in the initial WP:RM and in my !vote; which I will summarize, in the hope that it might assist us in moving towards consensus.
My understanding is that you assert the following:
  • a. that "Senkaku Islands" is a locally used non-English name.
  • b. that "Diaoyu Islands" (and variations thereof) is also a locally used non-English name.
  • c. that by some measuring or accounting they are "equally used".
  • d. that, therefore, the article title "Senkaku Islands" is biased, supporting a national POV, or does not accurately reflect the English common name.
  • e. that the "correct way" to proceed is to use these in a combination or hybrid form or;
  • f. that the "correct way" to proceed is to use none of them, potentially by having "common usages ... be cancelled by each other".
  • g. that "Pinnacle Islands" is the "real and pure" English name, for some unstated meaning of "real" and '"pure".
Please note that I am not attempting to create a straw man, or to verbal you; this is my understanding of your reasoning behind the WP:RM. If I am incorrect on any of these, please let me know; and let the community know which you feel are incorrect.
However, I maintain that these assertions are not borne out by the evidence available, to wit:
  • i. that "尖閣諸島 Senkaku-shotō" and "钓鱼岛 Diaoyu", and variations thereof, are the locally used non-English names.
  • ii. that "Senkaku Islands" is an English name, regardless that it is derived from the Japanese Senkaku-shotō, and that it is used internationally. (For similar examples of English names derived from locally used non-English names, see: Moscow, Prague, Croatia, Ireland, Poland and many others)
  • iii. that "Diaoyu Islands" is an English transliteration of the Chinese name, and that it is used almost exclusively by the Chinas (PRC & ROC), the Chinese diaspora, or in the construct "known as Senkaku Islands in Japan and Diaoyu Islands in China" or similar (KASIJDIC).
  • iv. that the KASIJDIC and similar constructs do not provide evidence for the use of "Diaoyu Islands" as an English common name; any more than "known as pain in France and brot in Germany" provides evidence that these are English terms for bread.
  • v. that "Pinnacle Islands" is rarely used, and therefore cannot be said to be the English common name, or the "real and pure" English name for any accepted meanings of "real" or "pure".
  • vi. that the Wikipedia Principles, Policies & Guidelines already provide mechanisms for dealing with situations like this;
  • vii. that those mechanisms do not support use of a combination or hybrid name as the article title or the use of something which is not the English common name, as evidenced by reliable sources; that is, they do not align with the assertion as at e.;
  • viii. that those mechanisms do not support or provide for the "common usages have to be cancelled by each other" as proposed above at f.
  • ix. that, in this instance, those mechanisms support the use of "Senkaku Islands" as the article title, with inclusions in the lead text of the article detailing: "Diaoyu Islands" as an alternative, which is used as described at iii.; and the Chinese & Japanese names from i. as locally used non-English names; and inclusions in the later text describing the issues with the "Senkaku Islands" name from a Chinas (PRC & ROC) & Chinese diaspora perspective.
I humbly submit that to refute the conclusion at ix. you would want to refute or disprove one or more of these points: ii., iii., or v. - by providing evidence from reliable external sources; vi., vii., viii. - by providing evidence from Wikipedia Principles, Policies &/or Guidelines; or alternately that ix. does not logically follow from the previous points. I would be happy if you were to do so; it may move us closer to consensus.
Alternately, we could move towards consensus by no longer having one or more of a. through g. asserted.
Apologies if the above seem overly legalistic. I am simply looking to provide a clear, logical breakdown of where I see the current WP:RM falling down; so that you might either: improve the reasoning, obtain more evidence, or adjust your position towards a more consensus view. - Ryk72 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
User STSC, would it also be fair to also say that you are just trying to play up the significance of "Diaoyu Islands" to suit your argument? I do not concur that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that "Diaoyu Islands" is a widely used common name in English sources outside those used in the narrow cases in my update above; therefore I cannot concur that "Diaoyu Islands" is in line with WP:AT - Ryk72 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There are also issues with the conflation of the 3 articles in a single WP:RM; these may be better split.
There appears to be substantially more evidence supporting the English common name for the dispute itself including both "Senkaku" & "Diaoyu" in some form. That is, that the dispute is a separate thing, with an independent name. Indeed, much of the evidence for the whole of this WP:RM only relates to naming of the dispute itself.
Therefore, may support move of the dispute article only: Senkaku Islands dispute → Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute; with the article itself updated to include details of the various alternative namings for this dispute. - Ryk72 (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment - Setting aside the common name issue, I think the "Pinnacle Islands" offers the best option to all concerns. It fits NPOV perfectly with all other local names redirecting to the Pinnacle Islands articles. STSC (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately WP:NPOV#Naming says the widely used name may be used even though some may regard it as biased.
"In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."
Also WP:NCGN#General guidelines says
"The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always."
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not the "Diaoyu Islands" then for the title? It is also the widely used common name. We may have to ignore all rules to maintain Wikipedia's neutral stance. STSC (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Simple. "Diaoyu Islands" is not the most widely used common name.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh? really? Your argument on the most widely used common name has already been soundly defeated in the Mediation. You should know that. STSC (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Phoenix7777, you repeated your wrong points again here, so I have repeated my comment [70] on your previous input here. You gave wrong search results misleading others as the link you gave for "Senkaku islands" contained a lot sources using "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islnads", "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands", and even "Diaoyu Islands"! Same as this, your search for "Diaoyu islands" also contained ones using dual name. So your search results were totally unreliable or just meant nothing. Do not use this to mislead people. Your search for "Pinnacle islands" (846) can only verify that this real and pure English name is still being used. It is also true what STSC reminded "Your argument on the most widely used common name has already been soundly defeated in the Mediation."[71] Using this incorrect way to create a so called "Widely accepted name" in publications with English language is your original research that not only violates WP:NOR but also violates WP:NPOV.You listed 2 special guidelines WP:NPOV#Naming and WP:NCGN#Multiple local names to support your "Oppose". I do not need to argue that the way you interprete them is not correct, I just say, if you love to ignore the most important Wikipedia:Five pillars particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, why cannot you ignore all other specific guidelines including the two you listed? Why cannot others very reasonably ignore specific guidelines you listed? Your POV pushing points cannot stand.--Lvhis (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some arguments above sticking to use current "Senkaku" to oppose the requested move are based on so called "commonly used", and ignore the important policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Here I would like to show what a real "common" name with Statistical significance should be in using Google Ngram Viewer with smooth level at 0 but the result will be stable at any setting levels (0 to 50):
Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: 170.799962%
Diaoyu Islands: 000.000001%
Senkaku Islands: 000.000001%
From the above result we can tell how badly have the merit and reliability of Wikipedia been damaged by keeping using this single local non-English name "Senkaku". Therefore, sticking on single "Senkaku" does not only violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, but also violate the "commonly used" rule. It is totally groundless and just purely POV pushing. This kind of arguments is in such bad quality that when drawing consensus from this RM/CM these arguments shall be invalid or shall not be qualified to counted in. Those comments sincerely obeying important wp policies and guidelines are of good quality that weighing realistic technical limitation of Wikipedia and real English name argue for "Pinnacle Islands" versus a dual (hybrid) name, or that weighing more commonly used in the modern time argue for using a dual/hybrid name then either support "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" versus "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" or visa versa. The reasonable discussion should be within this scope and consensus should be drawn from these good quality comments.--Lvhis (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The "/" is treated as an operator in a composite n-gram search. Your search is returning the ratio of Diaoyu to Senkaku. You have to quote it with "[]" to get the query you want. I tried this but got no results; not sure what I'm doing wrong. Documentation is here: [72] Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I know what you said. The "info" link you gave may have been out-of-date. If you try "Diaoyu/Senkaku" vs "Diaoyu", you will get "Diaoyu/Senkaku" being overwhelmingly beyond "Diaoyu". If "Diaoyu/Senkaku" is returning the ratio of Diaoyu to Senkaku, or "Diaoyu" divided by "Senkaku", as what you believed, it shall not be more than single "Diaoyu", right? So logically the results I got shown above are correct. Even you just do ordinary search with "Google", you will much easier get dual name results than a pure single name results. Anyway, this is just one aspect. More important point is to obey the principles and spirit of wp policies and guidelines particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, otherwise one will fall in gaming-system. Based on the the principles and spirit of wp policies and guidelines, you can ignore the low commonality of usage and choose to use the real and pure English name "Pinnacle Islands", not to mention the difference of usage between the two local non-English names is so marginal and tiny.--Lvhis (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment:Taking your ratio search, your results "Neither of these show a strong preference one way or the other in recent years" and "... neither usage has a strong majority" have just rightly denied what you previously said "by default much English-language media still uses Senkaku by default." Using "Senkaku" is neither neutral nor in line with "more common". This single local name "Senkaku" is a worst option that using it has damaged the merit and reliability of Wikipedia for enough long time. Damaging for a long time already can not justify that to choose keeping damage is correct.--Lvhis (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Surely this means that there are more sources that use both names, than sources that only use one? --benlisquareT•C•E 01:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe so. Even you don't use ngram search or you don't trust ngram's results I got, just do regular Google search using single name, you will easier get more sources that use both names than sources that only use one. I reasonably believe the 22 reliable sources in my request were from good or correct sampling.--Lvhis (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Format: For the purpose to easily find the comments with good quality and to facilitate new comments with good quality to follow them, I am grouping and formatting them using subtitles as follows: (--Lvhis (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC))
  • When I did the "Format" for purpose to easily find the comments with good quality I did not list "Argument for retention of 'Senkaku Islands' ", that because the contents of those arguments can hardly be considered as "good quality". They basically based on cherry-picking, dishonesty/cheating, wrong search results from wrong search methods, misleading information, gaming WP system, and some contained or implied personal attack. Now just make this note for this subsection.--Lvhis (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia:Consensus, Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. Regarding the RM/CM here, by my understanding, whether moving or not moving should not be determined by "polling" or "voting". Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." So quality or legitimate concerns of the arguments are very important. But regarding some trivial difference of options, e.g. if , assumed if, consensus goes for moving to a dual (hybrid) name, but moving to which one (Diaoyu/Senkaku vs Senkaku/Diaoyu), the "Instant-runoff voting" you are using may be applicable. This is just my personal opinion for treating such trivial difference. --Lvhis (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

RM is not a vote so it is inappropriate to list these. However Lvhis will never accept to delete this list. Then we should list both side, Support and Oppose. Also I removed "Senkaku" because this RM is not to discuss the name. Although how many users may support these names, they are clearly against the Policies and guideline. Unless the Policies and guideline are revised, the names should not be adopted.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, please do not restore your edit to change the formatting here. It is confusing as a horse's balls, appears as an attempt to warp data to suit yourself (that each suggested solution should be separately tallied in a first-past-the-post manner against the overall body of converse "votes", regardless of the actual proportions of each argument to determine the majority), and contradicts with the statement you have said ("RM is not a vote"). A RM is a community discussion and not a vote, which means that we shouldn't be viewing things in terms of support/oppose votes, but suggested solutions (no change, D/S, S/D, P) and the reasoning behind them (hence the diff links). --benlisquareT•C•E 00:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Quote: "Unless the Policies and guideline are revised, the names should not be adopted" - this is the old guard nonsense I was talking about earlier on. Consensus can change, and policy means nothing more if consensus is clear towards a change from the status quo; WP:IAR would support any such change at any rate. This might be a bit hard for you to comprehend: it might be Japanese culture to always follow the rules (line up in a queue when shopping, pay your taxes, follow the law; just look at the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami), but it isn't the case in the rest of the world, where rules are more flexibly interpreted based on the situation. Rules are merely guidelines that are there to help in the majority of situations, but aren't there to be strictly followed like clockwork. WP:IAR is one such case - where the situation deems necessary, the rules are worth nothing more than horse turd. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Phoenix7777, your format was non-constructive or disruptive. Do not behave like dictator! Do not try to confuse readers. The Argument for retention of "Senkaku Islands" was added and format by User:PBS, and other participates added their links and explanations under corresponding subtitles! I stated clearly the format is "For the purpose to easily find the comments ...". If you want to change the whole format, you have to discuss it before you are allowed to do it. You should concentrate on the quality of your argument instead of playing such meaningless thing. --Lvhis (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, why are you crying wolf at User:EdJohnston's talk page? One-sided, poor sport wording aside, you do realise that by involving a sysop, you're stopping them from taking sysop action? I also find your earlier post there quite interesting, now that I've bothered to read it. "The requested name is a violation of the policy and overwhelmingly opposed by editors"? Are you serious? "So I would appreciate if you could close the RM and impose the restriction on the initiation of further move requests for an appropriate period like the previous RfC"? Oh boy, I clearly cannot see what you're trying to do here! </sarcasm> What are you attempting here, good sir? Could you have worded your request any more worse? --benlisquareT•C•E 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary tally of arguments

Argument for retention of "Senkaku Islands"
Argument for replacing "Senkaku Islands" by moving to other name
Argument for moving to "Pinnacle Islands"
  • from user PBS [73]
  • from user AjaxSmack [74]
  • from user Jonathunder [75]
  • from user Shrigley [76]
  • from user STSC [77]
  • from user Lvhis： also open for this [78][79].
  • from user Blueboar [80]
Argument for moving to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"
Collection of oppose points
Points against moving to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"
  • PBS
  • AjaxSmack
  • Jonathunder
  • Kendall-K1
  • lssrn45
  • Brian Dell
  • SnowFire
  • Phoenix7777
  • Oda Mari
  • Blueboar
Points against moving to "Pinnacle Islands"
  • Qwyrxian
  • Brian Dell
  • SnowFire
  • Phoenix7777
  • Oda Mari
  • Ubikwit [83]
Points against retention of "Senkaku Islands"
  • from user PBS [84]
  • from user Jonathunder [85]
  • from user Shrigley [86]
  • from user STSC [87]
  • from user Lvhis [88][89].
  • from user Blueboar [90]
  • from user Qwyrxian [91]
  • from user Benlisquare [92]
  • from user Ubikwit [93]
Note about term "Vote"

According to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, it states Requested Move is determined by "properly weighing consensus with applicable policies and guidelines", and also states "Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere." (Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus). In policy Wikipedia:Consensus it clearly states: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. Therefore, using term "vote" and its concept for this RM/CM is definitely WRONG. Please be also referred to WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, ... The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."--Lvhis (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your friend Benlisquare changed the title[94] and you blame me. Good team work!―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Fuck off with your accusations of partisanship. You've been intentionally disruptive here, and I've had enough of your shit. You're obviously playing with my patience here with your tomfoolery. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
User Phoenix7777 used a cheating subtitle "Argument against replacing "Senkaku Islands" by moving to other name" and he listed a number of users under this subtitle but those users arguments were not as this subtitle tells. He intentionally wants to mislead readers and closure admin. He has done quite a lot disruptive things here. I need to do something when I have time.--Lvhis (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Notice: A request for enforcement in WP:AE has been filed.
To participants of this RM/CM: please be noted that regarding user Phoenix7777's misbehavior during this ongoing RM/CM on this topic that is under discretionary sanctions, I have filed a request for enforcement on WP:AE board.--Lvhis (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Policy quotes

Neutral point of view

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it... The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus."
STSC (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
--benlisquareT•C•E 00:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Article titles

"When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common (Diaoyu Islands; Senkaku Islands), and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others (Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands or Pinnacle Islands)."
STSC (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing the above because it is clutter that distracts from the main RM. It's also for improved convenience for readers, who really shouldn't have to waft through a sea of words. You are free to continue to expand the content inside the collapsed sections, and continue to discuss within them; they are collapsed because they form a huge chunk of text that is deviating from the RM and becoming messy. The closing admin may open these sections up and take the arguments into account; the collapsing is not supposed to be a censure or an archival, but a cleanup of content. Think of it as a "side discussion". Focus on the main RM, people. Stop getting too hung up over these distractions. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Benlisquare, you did a right and correct thing by collapsing the two subsections above at that time. Now user Phoenix7777 moved his stuff (with comments from me and user STSC) out of that subsection and put it in his own argument part. This is very similar to what I did when he improperly posted it as an independent section, but he ridiculously reverted my correct format. His such misplaced stuff is the earliest and most clutter. As he moved away his such one, could you remove the two collapses in order to let new comers and closure admin easily find the summarized subsections from content-table by simple clicking? If user Phoenix7777 dares to touch them again, the immediate right place for him to go is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement board (he was supposed to have been there already but I was just busy on concentrating on this RM/CM). Thank you. --Lvhis (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why do people here think hatting is a bad thing? Have a look at Talk:China/GA3 as an example: hatting does not mean "I hate what you've written; everybody should ignore it". If you want to "un-hat" it, then by all means do so; I don't see how doing such a thing would be useful though. Phoenix7777 being obnoxious and stubborn doesn't mean that you need to respond. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Benlisquare, you misunderstood me or I might not state clear enough. The main purpose is to let new comers and closure admin easily find the summarized subsections from content-table by simple clicking. I just had to mention some history why you reasonably and rightfully added the hatting. I meant just for the reason of convenience, nothing "thinking hatting is a bad thing" at all. Thank you.--Lvhis (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Question - Looking at the breakdown of usage, I agree that WP:COMMONNAME indicates allowing a slashed name in this case (using a slash is significantly the most common presentation used by English Language sources). However, if we go that route, I fully expect that the next debate will be over whether it should be Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. It will be less disruptive if we can settle that debate before it gets started. So... could we see a breakdown as to which slashed name is more commonly used? Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Answer: User:Blueboar, thank you for your participation. I listed the link of your input in that summary subsection. The question you raised is not a difficult one, I think. It is just a trivial issue given the dual name will be really granted to move to. See all of users who agreed to use a dual name are open for both. We can be patient and wait for bit more time. Thank you again. --Lvhis (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Your "answer" doesn't actually answer my question... I am asking which variant is more common:Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands... I need to know this before I can !vote (and while you or I might think it is a "trivial" issue... trust me, the ethno-national POV pushers will not. Unless we can justify our choice in neutral policy, there will be accusations that we are being biased.
Also, has anyone looked into whether there is a potential WP:ENVAR issue? ... is, for example, Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands more common in the UK and Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands more common in the US (or vise versa)? If so, then Pinnacle Islands may well end up being the best option... as being a "less common over-all, but equally common to both countries" choice (per the Fixed wing aircraft example). Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood you. User Westwind273 ever said "Senkaku/Diaoyu seems to be much more common in English than Diaoyu/Senkaku." But honestly I am not sure and I am okay with using "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Hope this can at least in certain extent answered your question. I agree with you that if the ""trivial" issue in my and certain number of editors minds is actually a "big" one for some others, Pinnacle Islands may become a better option. If the two local names cannot be easily combined together, they have to be cancelled each other in line with WP policies and guidelines. BTW, you do not need to "vote" in this RM/CM that just needs comments or arguments to reach consensus. Thank you for your comments. --Lvhis (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem of this RM is that there are three options to move and that makes things messy. Some support PI, support DI/SI, and some support SI/DI. At the same time some say either slashed name will do or PI might be possible. The rational of supporting one of the options should be different, but that's what the requester's aim at getting more "support" to move. That is why I said this is the RM to "Any name but the single use of Senkaku" based on CPOV pushing. Blueboar, please ask yourself who in the world think the current title is biased? Please see these too. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence#I just don't like it /any name but Senkaku and Pinnacle Islands. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oda Mari, you need to understand the difference between RM/CM and simple RM. You should not ignore in purpose what I have repeated many, many times: either single "Senkaku" or single "Diaoyu" is POV naming. You stick on your extreme POV or JPOV stand "I just don't like any name but Senkaku", but do not apply your such extreme POV rationale on me. If you think using dual local name or English name "Pinnacle Islands" is CPOV, it is too sad/bad for you.--Lvhis (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a politicized issue that has only become more prominent in the media in recent years due to the reaction to Japanese attempts to surreptitiously assert sovereignty while denying that there is a dispute in the first place. Whether pro-US/Japan or pro-China,Taiwan/anti-Japan mass media issue the most statements seems besides the point of encyclopedically representing the state of affairs.
Accordingly, I don't know that google search hits (more readily subject to change) are as relevant as what higher quality academic sources tell us. Suganuma's book, which was based on his PhD thesis at Cornell, is the most thorough study in any language--as far as I know. I haven't finished the book, but he uses solely Diaoyu through what I've gone through thus far, and on the basis of the several hundreds of years of history and corresponding documentation verifying the common use of the name, it seems hard to justify using any order other than Diaoyu/Senkaku while the status of sovereignty remains in dispute.
In short, if the article in which the three current articles are to be incorporated is to include the word "dispute" in the title, then the dispute is about the sovereignty of the "Diaoyu islands" over which Japan currently exercises administrative control and started calling "Senkaku" in 1900. There is a history of the Diaoyu islands going back 500 years or more, and the very appearance of the name "senkaku", which is essentially a bastardized derivation of the Japanese translation of the English term "pinnacle", is a testimony to the dispute in light of the fact that Japanese maps had used the name Diaoyu prior to the Meiji period (late 19th century).
Since Japan exercises administrative control, in my opinion, Senkakus belongs in a slashed form title in the position following the slash.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Google Ngram

There are some discussions about Google Ngram above. The most important problem of Ngram viewer is to compare "match count" instead of "volume count" (number of books). "Match count" is a total number of match with a word in question in all books. Therefore even if the word is found only one book and there are 1000 mention of the word in the book, "match count" become "1000". In contrast, if the word is found in 100 books and there is 10 mention of the word in each books, "match count" become "1000". This clearly is misleading. We should compare "volume count".

The raw data used for the Ngram are available to download from the Google site.[95] (Be careful, the compressed files are about 1GB and the extracted files exceed 10GB each.) The followings are row data of "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyu Islands", and "Pinnacle Islands".

Senkaku Islands Diaoyu Islands Pinnacle Islands
Year match_count volume_count match_count volume_count match_count volume_count
2008 282 96 228 77 5 2
2007 276 80 437 78 10 4
2006 241 79 119 40 1 1
2005 307 80 167 53 362 3
2004 240 72 128 45 0 0
2003 196 61 65 39 0 0
2002 188 64 229 51 0 0
2001 404 83 121 30 0 0
2000 638 81 1504 58 14 4
1999 237 84 85 38 0 0
1998 223 85 106 43 0 0
1997 208 68 59 19 0 0
1996 131 59 27 12 0 0
1995 77 43 24 8 0 0
1994 52 35 22 12 4 4
1993 64 35 5 4 0 0
1992 29 22 5 2 0 0
1991 51 21 2 1 2 2
1990 49 22 1 1 0 0
1989 54 18 21 5 0 0
1988 43 16 0 0 0 0
1987 131 22 0 0 0 0
1986 38 29 4 4 0 0
1985 45 21 4 2 0 0
1984 116 24 8 7 0 0
1983 113 26 1 1 0 0
1982 141 42 9 3 0 0
1981 88 40 0 0 0 0
1980 104 29 0 0 0 0
1979 76 27 0 0 1 1
1978 69 29 0 0 0 0
1977 154 30 0 0 0 0
1976 59 22 0 0 1 1
1975 132 37 0 0 0 0
1974 68 27 0 0 0 0
1973 31 22 0 0 2 2
1972 90 39 0 0 0 0
1971 116 18 0 0 0 0
1970 8 2 0 0 0 0

If the "volume count" is accumulated from a certain year, the results become as follows:

Senkaku Islands Diaoyu Islands Pinnacle Islands
Year volume_count volume_count volume_count
2000 ~ 696 471 14
1990 ~ 1,170 611 20
1980 ~ 1,437 633 20
1970 ~ 1,690 633 24

This shows the most common name is "Senkaku Islands" and the least common name is "Pinnacle Islands" with only <2% of "Senkaku Islands". This proves "Pinnacle Islands" is hardly "Reasonably common name" as Liancourt Rocks was at the time of RM in 2007 (Dokdo: 63, Takeshima: 16, Liancourt Rocks: 62)[96].―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

  • The policy-based problems with proposing a method giving more weight in terms of mass-media quantity over academic sources have been pointed out. WP:RS and WP:NPOV are not about quantitative statistics derived from Google tools. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's just a waste of time with these out-of-date data; this is year 2013. While "Diaoyu Islands" is also the widely used common name, "Senkaku Islands" would not be classified as the "single most common name" when its usage is not in the significant majority (WP:AT). STSC (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User Phoenix7777, you need to explain why you always intentionally ignore a naming policy that quoted by several participates? WP:COMMONNAME under policy WP:AT states: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."?? It is true that "Senkaku Islands" would not be classified as the "single most common name" when its usage is not in the significant majority. Even assume it was "the most common" (but has POV problem and just a local non-English name), "and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." No room for your biased argument that is totally out or line of WP policies and guidelines!--Lvhis (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Brief (re)iteration of reasons for support of move to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands"

It is well-documented in academic sources that from the first recorded history circa 15th century through to the end of the 19th century/early 20th century the name "Diaoyu" was the common international name used to refer to the group of islets by China, the Ryukyu Kingdom (prior to annexation by Japan in 1879), Japan, and Western geographical reference books.
The name "Senkaku" is a derivative of the Sinicized Japanese compound (Sento Shoto) that was adopted by Japan as a translation of the English name Pinnale Islands, and first appeared in print in Japan in 1900.

The recourse to ngrams, which for all intents and purposes are based primarily on mass media sources, as a basis for the use of "Senkaku" smacks of WP:RECENT.


The fact that the islands are disputed is not recognized by the government of Japan; thus, retaining the name used by the Japanese government for the islands would violate WP:NPOV and represent the advocacy of a political position by Wikipedia.

Because the sovereignty of islands is disputed, while Japan has administrative control,and there is an example of another Wikipedia article that has adopted a slashed title with respect to disputed islands, in light of the reliably published statements found in academic sources (which have a much longer half-life than mass media sources), the adoption of the slashed name "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" is the best compromise name that complies with relevant naming and neutrality policies.

The use of "Pinnacle Islands" would give undue WP:WEIGHT to that name and amount to an anachronism, while the use of the name used by Taiwan would introduce yet another dispute into the present article, making it unwieldy. Taiwan's position can be described as a minority position within the body of the article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Closure

A closing admin should be familiar with the discretionary sanctions under which this article is placed. So I asked an uninvolved admin User:EdJohnston to close this RM.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston responded to my request. He may not close this RM by himself. So any admin can close this RM without waiting for any action by him.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor, by asking an administrator to close the discussion you have automatically involve that administrator in the RM. Personally if an involved editor asked me to close a discussion such as this I would not touch it with a barge pole. It is better that this is closed by an administrator who has not been solicited by any of those who have contributed to this discussion. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What PBS pointed is very correct and important. User Phoenix7777 keeps gaming WP system. He wants to illegitimately stop this ongoing RM/CM in which his argument was in bad quality.--Lvhis (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should all just calm the fuck down and chill the fuck out. The very reason why this page is under discretionary sanctions is because we've had problems in the past, and we're starting to veer towards confrontational discussion here again. Everyone should take a breather before typing, for your sake and mine. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Meta-note: it's totally possible for the closing administrator to first establish that there is a consensus that the current title is inappropriate (as the consensus seems to be now), and then choose out of the best of the two options presented. We don't need to have a single name beat the other two options (of change to another name, and no change). Shrigley (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with you and re-formated those subtitles. But user Phoenix7777 seems fearing to let people easily summarize the consensus and made a disruptive change. He shall have been very, very clear that this topic is under discretionary sanctions. --Lvhis (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think that it is more than a little premature to claim that there is a consensus. There are a number of opinions above opposing the current WP:RM to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands"; none of which have been reversed by their author(s).
I would respectfully suggest that there is neither a consensus that the current article title should be changed, nor that there is one clear alternative. - Ryk72 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
— Ryk72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The wall-of-text policy quotes and whatnot that you posted above would seem to demonstrate that you are familiar with the way Wikipedia works, even though you appear to be a new account. On the other hand, the most relevant policies to this discussion, those pointed out by user:STSC, including the sentence fromWP:COMMONNAME, are not addressed in your posts, nor is the point that there is already a similar instance of a slashed name used for disputed islands Imia/Kardak in another Wikipedia article.
Aside from that, it seems fairly clear that there is a consensus that the current name of the article violates WP:NPOV, and therefore must be changed. A number of arguments have been made with respect to Pinnacle Islands, and there would seem to be sound policy reasons for not using that title. That leaves several options of slashed titles (Diaoyu/Senkaku; Senkaku/Diaoyu; Diaoyu/Senkaku/Diaoyutai; etc). Maybe there is a need for a separate discussion on those, but I agree that the discussion here has produced a consensus that the current title violates WP:NPOV.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
User Ryk72(a newly created single-purpose account or puppet account?), it seems you do not know what consensus means. You need to learn it and understand it first.--Lvhis (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Note re possible closure:

Although this article has been the subject of arbitration, in my opinion the present discussion is a normal move discussion (which has reached seven days) and it is eligible to be closed by any admin. It can be relisted by an admin if there is some reason to do that. It may take a few days before anyone shows up, so please be patient. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
My overall concern regarding this current RM is about not enough people participating, essentially leading to the same deadlock as the previous discussion. We're having the same bunch of people from the last discussion here, and little else. Benlisquare, Lvhis, Phoenix7777, Qwyrxian, Oda Mari; these are all very familiar names for those who have had past experience with these discussions. Essentially, the same arguments from years and years previous are being repeated ad nauseam. We definitely need more people participating, and a wider level of contributor contact; currently what we have amounts to nothing more than a local consensus of a bunch of veteran editors who have been involved for many years (many as early as 2010, if not earlier).

Take a look at this RM. The first few posts come from the Grand Wikipedia old guard, and then we have the same people from old discussions giving their same old points from each side. This is hardly a change from the last RM, the one before that, and the one before that. Zero progress has been made, because the only people involved are the people that caused this mess in the first place.

I don't want to see another no consensus stalemate that leaves us in the same state as before, as we need a solution to this long existing problem, and brushing it under the carpet is hardly a solution at all. In my view, a change ought to be made: the status quo is hardly "stable", otherwise we wouldn't have RMs being created every few months, and edit requests on the article talk page by IP users every week (as was the case during 2011) regarding the article title. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Addendum. A note on what I mean by the "old guard": This is merely how I interpret the situation, and isn't meant to push the blame onto particular parties or to make any accusations, so everyone should take my words as you will. People shouldn't take it the wrong way either, since "old guard" isn't a term used disparagingly, and is merely a descriptor. When I first came to this RM, I was under the impression that an old guard definitely existed; in other words, well-seasoned editors who commonly participate in such discussions, but have quite conservative views towards Wikipedia policy. Of the first few comments, excluding Kendall-K1, how many of these users are pre-2005 users with X0,000+ edits, and have sysop user privileges? That's essentially the definition of an old guard, and essentially what I mean when I use that term. This "subset" of contributors, though quite noble users (and I respect and admire these people for their advanced experience and for staying with the project for so long), tend to skew RMs and RfCs in general (not just this one) with conservative views in relation to prior-accepted norms and rules. This makes a counter-reactionary "change" less likely to occur. Add this on top of the support/oppose people bickering within the discussion, and we've essentially got a discussion that will go nowhere from the very start, with the nail already on the coffin. In other words, as long as the usual people are the only ones that participate, any such discussion is doomed; these discussions are more likely to go somewhere if external people are actively encouraged to take part. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The listing at WP:RM publicizes all the current move proposals so, in principle, anyone could show up to give their opinion. When people choose not to join the discussion there is not much we can do about that. If the result turns out to be No Consensus that's a valid result and it's a very common one in all move discussions. If you can make a case that the title discussions are unproductive, you could have an argument to ban new move proposals for another year. I don't yet see the need for that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
In principle, yes, but in reality only the old boys bother looking at the RM listings at regular intervals. There really isn't any other place to announce the RM, however, which means that it's essentially up to luck as to who takes part; notifying WP:WikiProject China and WP:WikiProject Japan would only attract partisan !voters, for example. I don't have any solutions for this problem either, it's a reality that we have to come to terms with. I assume most of the people here participated because the RM appeared on their user watchlist, since they have the page watched (this certainly was the case for me). --benlisquareT•C•E 04:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User benlisquare, I think you did a right thing when you collapse those parts [97]. Regarding this RM/CM, I have some different view. This RM/CM is not an one just simply repeated old ones (Although I did not participated any old RM, and neither the last RfC which I just watched), instead, it is very different from old ones. We have some new participants including user PBS, user AjaxSmack, user Jonathunder, and user Shrigle. User PBS is a very experienced WP editor (and an admin but of course he has been involved in this RM so he cannot perform any sysop for this RM/CM), and has made very good quality comments. User Qwyrxian this time provided pronounced different opinions compared with his old ones. Overall the discussions in this RM/CM have been quite calm, normal, and productive just except one user Phoenix7777 who needs to behave himself. So far it is not very difficult to tell the quality of arguments from the discussion, like what user Shrigley pointed "the consensus seems to be now". I believe if the consensus is correctly drawn and a right decision is made, the dispute on naming issue will be much less that we do not need a prohibition or restriction on naming issue talk like a one applied after last RfC (many talk attempts on naming issue were forcibly removed per such prohibition/restriction). That kind of prohibition/restriction cannot really keep so called "stability" and sounds not to fit this "free encyclopedia". If such prohibition/restriction is still needed to apply on this talk page after close this RM/CM, that means the closure is not properly made.--Lvhis (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC) (most recently revised on: --Lvhis (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC))
  • Some editors voted for more than one option to move. An editor who supported move should have voted one option among Pinnacle, DI/SI, and SI/DI. I don't think it's fair. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't think it's fair? Shows how much you respect the democratic process. My vote was not a multiple vote, but a preferential vote. It's how we vote our parliament in Australia; if you don't like it, come and tell our Prime Minister about it. I'm sure he'll be glad to hear about your opinion regarding how things are done. In other words, you can't force me to only select one name; it's not in the rules, and it's a perfectly acceptable way of stating my intentions. In fact, you are free to select more than one option and place them in order of desirability like I have as well, there is nothing stopping you. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Please be familiar with Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions: Requested Move is determined by "properly weighing consensus with applicable policies and guidelines". It says "Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere." (Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus). In policy Wikipedia:Consensus it clearly states at beginning: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. Therefore, Oda Mari's using term "vote" and its concept for this RM/CM is definitely WRONG! Please be also referred to WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, ... The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."--Lvhis (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Oda Mari, at its best the RM process is a consensus building exercise, this means that during the process of the discussion people are encouraged to change their initial views. This also means that when there are more than two options editors are encouraged to express a preferences in the hope that consensus will emerge around one of the options. Although it happens infrequently it is not unusual for alternatives to suggested during the discussion, which emerges the compromise article title (accepted by most but loved by none). -- PBS (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands/Archive_12&oldid=1137179787"