Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Suggestion: Follow Liancourt Rocks precedent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Smith's, as I pointed out earlier:

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

Don't shout please.

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

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

Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice

Request for Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have withdrawn the request for Mediation. Someone else can re-open it, if they so wish, but I will not participate. – AJL^talk 10:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

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

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

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

However I request to Change/Add refs as follows:

From

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

To:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the title for this paragraph are racial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have withdrawn the request for Mediation. Someone else can re-open it, if they so wish, but I will not participate. – AJL^talk 10:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have requested that the mediation continue; you can read my full comments at the end of Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel very sorry for AJL's leaving. I am very grateful for AJL's sincere and hard efforts in helping resolving the disputes here. Some treatment AJL encountered is unfair. I have less and less confidence in the environment of the dispute and mediation on this topic (the name/title). --Lvhis (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Until the names and territorial dispute of these island are formally settled by international courts and politics, it is pointless to debate the "true" title of this article. The simplest solution is to rename the article according to the oldest name given to these islands that can be found in any historical records. As long as the first name given to these islands are supported by verifiable historical facts, I do not think there will be anymore disputes about the name, until international court comes to a formal decision at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueblues95 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft text

The following draft text is an arguably constructive first step in our process of addressing the array of causal factors affecting (a) the subject of Senkaku Islands; and (b) our article about this subject.

As we know, a tag at the top of Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute explains: "This talk page is only for discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands; any discussion of the islands—outside of material directly relating to the dispute—should be discussed at Talk:Senkaku Islands." In this narrowed context, "ownership" is revealed as a red herring issue. --Tenmei (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputes about the causes

There are disputes about the causes of controversy involving the Senkaku Islands. For example, some use the term "territorial dispute"; however, the Japanese government has consistently rejected this framing since the early 1970s. An analysis of incidents and issues require distinguishing between disputes which are primarily over territory and those which merely have a territorial component.

The real importance of the islands lies in the ... implications for the wider context of the two countries’ approaches to maritime and island disputes, as well as in the way in which those issues can be used by domestic political groups to further their own objectives. — Zhongqi Pan

Other nations are closely monitoring developments , e.g.,

• Senkakus described as a proxy. According to China Daily, the Senkaku Islands are a disruptive mine planted by the United States into Sino-Japanese relations.
• Senkakus characterized as a pretext. According to the New York Times, some analysts frame all discussion about the islands' status within a broader pattern of Chinese territorial assertions.
• Senkakus identified as a tactic. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Senkakus may represent a tactical distraction from China's internal power struggle over who will replace the current leadership of the Communist Party in 2012.

The historical record is a backdrop for each new incident in the unfolding chronology of these islands.

Notes

Tag discussion thread

The tag should be removed from the top of the article. Compare edit at Senkaku Islands dispute:

• diff 02:17, 18 July 2011 Tenmei (talk|contribs) (58,318 bytes) ("simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" -- this is NOT an opinion-driven project)

The last sentence of the second paragraph at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute is the source of the quoted phrase in the edit summary. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A relevant context is here at User talk:Feezo#Senkaku Islands. --Tenmei (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Negative!! Please do not remove the POV-tag and initiate an editing-war because the dispute has not been resolved. We have had a drastic dispute during the mediation and the ground of your side has been proved wrong. It is far more than just "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag", and you need correctly interpret this sentence and current situation. Also see point 1 and 4 in Wikipedia:POV Cleanup#Guidelines for cleanup. --Lvhis (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I decline to comment on the tag (I'm thinking about it, and I'm still hoping AGK or Feezo will be posting something to explain what should happen with the Mediation). However, Lvhis, I humbly request that you stop saying (as you have here and on other pages) that "the ground of [the side supporting the current name] has been proved wrong." I don't believe anything nearly so clear was proved anywhere. Some small points of progress were made, but then the mediation got derailed just like our past discussions have been derailed. Since we're obviously going to have to keep working on this somehow (whether it's on our own here, through Arbitration, or something else, we're clearly not done), it doesn't help us move forward if you act like everything was somehow resolved in your (those opposing the current name) favor. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, you know that the tag was added for the duration of mediation only by Feezo. So I have to agree with Tenmei. And if the page stays protected, there will be no edit-warring. Moreover, there will be no edit warring if you don't seek to put the tag back later. John Smith's (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the dispute that caused the full protection is still in place; if not, the title definitely causes concern. I have restored the tag. In addition, I strongly recommend further dispute resolution regarding this situation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lvhis, 20 July 2011

Please let the POV-title tag stay until the dispute over it has been resolved.

The mediation on the dispute has been closed but the drastic dispute was not resolved. Please see here, here, and here. The current title/name is a Japanese one, but not an English one; and this one is not the most used one in English. It is a POV title/name per the discussion during the mediation, though the side who support the current title refused to compromise even they failed to clearly prove this one is a NPOV one. As for the two important and very reasonable reasons: 1) the dispute is still ongoing, 2)it is now more clear that the current title is a POV one than the time before mediation, I request to resume the POV-title tag. Adding POV-tag does not need a consensus, instead it only depend on whether there is ongoing dispute or not according to WP policy and guidelines. Thank you. Lvhis (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Request granted. I normally do not deal with things related to Taiwan/Republic of China as sysop because of possible COI, but this should be clear cut that the dispution is still in place (and acknowledged by the mediator). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for granting this request by 100% in line with wp policies and guidelines! --Lvhis (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Grossly inappropriate intervention. John Smith's (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all inappropriate. The usage of the tag has been correctly applied. STSC (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have defended my position on ANI. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If this title does get moved to the Pinnacle Islands, there is another chain of islands by this name in Alaska, so there must be a way to figure out how this will be disambiged (if at all). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll just point out that currently, Pinnacle Islands is only a redirect to this article... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but the main question I have now is how many people use this term for the islands? I always seen both JP and CN names used in articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point being argued (and I could see why this point can be argued) is that: "Diaoyu(tai)" would indicate a PRC/ROC view, "Senkaku" would indicate taking Japanese side. Thus, either title can be considered POV - thus, people have brought up the Liancourt Rock example from time to time. I've voiced that I don't like the fact that the English name is not well used (compared to BOTH Chinese and Japanese name)... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember having to deal with the Takeshima issue on here and on OTRS years ago because the Koreans wanted it moved to Dokdo (but was originally at the Laincourt name). I personally have no horse in this race, even you know I pretty much am a Japanophile and do a lot of stuff for the Japanese on here. I support a move to Pinnacle Islands and will do it myself, if there are no objections. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. A number of editors, myself included, are still not convinced that Senkaku Islands does not meet the policies and guidelines surrounding the naming of articles. You're welcome to join us in the discussion, but please don't move the article until a clear consensus emerges. Even if we decide that neither Senkaku nor Diaoyu has a clear preference in English, then we still need to chose between a dual name (Senkaku/Diaoyu), a really mixed name (Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) and Pinnacle Islands. All offer clear problems, so we'll need a consensus as to which is the least objectionable (again, only after it's determined that neither S or D individually is the most commonly accepted English name). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What Qwyrxian said summarizes the situation correctly. The issue is that the sides are going around in circles, and RfM have failed to provide anything. RfAr would not help, as it's more or less a content dispute (on the article name). I think a RfC would make sense, but... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I am looking at. I only believe that a non-Japanese or non-Chinese name will have to work for this article. What I am looking at is if we do a combined name, people will be fighting over which name goes first (no matter if we go with Japan/China or ABC order, it will be a POV issue that brings us back to square one). Nationalism is a very big program on Wikipedia, just ask the Balkans. If we do use Pinnacle Islands, we have to make a note saying this is not commonly used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that some people are going to be unhappy, no matter what the article title is. So, unless some groundbreaking evidence is brought in to say that the article name has to be changed because "Senkaku Islands" is massively under-recognised, it should stay as it is. If some people can't live with that... well, maybe they need to stop editing Wikipedia. After all, despite the screaming of Turkish nationalists the Armenian Genocide article has not been renamed. John Smith's (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@Penwhale: The last RfC we did was in November (See Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 6#What should the title of this article be?. A few uninvolved editors chimed in, each supporting SI. However we have acquired new info since then (some of the search results have changed to more even or even at times favoring D, though at the same time we found strong reason to distrust any search results; we found that all available almanacs use SI; and we discovered a concern about how to handle Diaoyu/Diaoyutai; and probably other things I'm forgetting). I don't mind another RfC, but I strongly suspect that whatever the result is, the "losing" side will insist that the results are invalid, don't reflect policy, or are in some other way flawed. In any event, the last time I drafted and opened the RfC, I was criticized because I didn't give "the other side" enough input in the RfC draft itself (I chose an RfC with little actual details, instead with a number of different pointers to previous discussions, while Bobthefish2 preferred that both sides actually list out all of their arguments/data), so I don't think I should be the one to start the RfC. It's almost like we need a "neutral" party first to draft the RfC prior to seeking out neutral parties to comment in it... Qwyrxian (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, Qwyrxian, the very same search results were used to legitimize the adoption of "Senkaku Islands" as article name. With them being quite thoroughly overturned by myself during the mediation, there is no longer any reason to favour the current name over the previous or other forms of the name. Unfortunately, you don't seem to register the concept.

As for the RfC, it's actually not very hard. Each side make their own part of the RfC and then post the entire thing when everyone's ready. The problem with your approach is that you are assuming third parties would go through all the trouble to dig up every relevant comment/thread and then try to stitch together a big picture. Given the convoluted nature of the discussions, it's an unrealistic expectation don't you think?

A good thing about the failed mediation, though, is that its contents basically encompassed and summarized everything related to the naming dispute (which I involved myself in, against my better judgment). For anyone who's interested in dealing with this mess, it'd be best to read over the threads in the mediation before deciding on some grand idea (which would most likely be raised at least 5 times in the past by others). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I thought that the mediation proved that the only measurement that Diaoyu "wins" on is the one measurement that we found to be unreliable (and I'm not even convinced of that fact). While we still have the fact that major encyclopedias and almanacs all use Senkaku Islands. Plus, no one ever looked at anything other than raw search numbers. If 10 articles, for instance, all use both names, but 9 of those use "Diaoyu" throughout, mentioning Senkaku only in one paranthetical aside, that would be strong evidence in favor of Diaoyu (and, of course, the opposite is true). Express your opinion, fine, but you and Lvhis need to stop this notion that mediation somehow proved you right and us wrong, because we never got anywhere near that far.

Also, regarding your idea for how an RfC should be initiated, please see the following from WP:RFC:

Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it with ~~~~ If possible, keep your statement or question simple and succinct, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response. For example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" The longer and more complicated your question or statement, the more diverse the responses will be, and the harder it becomes for the closing admin to interpret the consensus.

Qwyrxian (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Responses like this do a spectacular job at trying my patience. Since you implied that search results are unreliable, then I'd like you to explain why your data are reliable. I've written some pretty long paragraphs explaining why your library results are bad and, to my knowledge, you have not yet provided a convincing argument as to why these are more reliable than search engine results.

At the same time, Lvhis and I are well-justified in our claim that we've pretty much won the debate. Since the argument is not about "whether or not Diaoyu should prevail over Senkaku Islands" but rather whether or not "Senkaku Islands deserves to be the article name over others", it is really the responsibility of you, Tenmei, and his cohorts to present convincing arguments and evidence support Senkaku Islands is, in fact, clearly favoured in common English usage. So far, I've already over-turned Phoenix's search engine results (which were the basis of keeping the status quo in the past). And again, you still have not justified your claim that the data generated from your methodologies are appropriate for our problem.

On RfC, your quotation advocates for concision and clarity when possible. For the simple examples the guideline page showed, sure you can probably make a 1 paragraph statement without sacrificing important details. But for more complicated issues such as this, you'd be leaving out a lot of crucial information if you try to follow the same model. In addition, the RfC guideline page did not actually say anything about the length of an RfC statement. Since you have a Master's in writing, I assume you already know that a piece of writing can be clear, simply, but yet packed with lots of information. I hope this explanation will put your misgivings of my misgivings of your December 2010 RfC at rest. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't recall you ever explaining why the encyclopedias and almanacs don't matter. Actually, I vaguely recall you simply rejecting them as relevant, despite the fact that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) explicitly tells us to check encyclopedias. Did you have further objections than that? Feel free to either repeat them or to link to them, I'm sorry that I don't recall them (I promise I really don't). As for the search engine results...really, I think the only thing we can do is a hand count. Unfortunately, we can't do that with either GBooks or GScholar, since the details usually aren't available...also, note that I'm not saying that we should absolutely disregard the search results, only that we need to be skeptical of them (which, I think, was your point all along).

But where I think you're right, though, is that each side needs to present its data clearly and succinctly in support of one name or another. Would you (and everyone else) agree that this might be a better first step than going back to another (likely indecisive) RfC? That was a step I wanted to get to in mediation, but, sadly, it broke down before that. We could even set a time limit to gather the evidence (a month? I'm just throwing out a number off the top of my head). I'm just brainstorming here, but we could set it up where everyone tries to format the evidence very strictly, like with a section specifically for "data" and a section specifically for policy & guideline based arguments. Then after that, we can specifically critique the "other side's" points/data, and then take those data and arguments to an RfC. But maybe I'm just thinking about this too much... Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you said "you don't recall [me] ever explanining why the encyclopedias and almanacs don't matter", then we have a problem. In fact, there were conversations and threads where I explicitly addressed why encyclopedia searches are bad. It's too bad that you forgot about them [1][2]. I don't think any amount of RfC will get us somewhere if key ideas are consistently ignored/forgotten.

Just to remind you of another point you appear to have forgotten, it is really up to you and others sharing your view to provide good evidence that supports the exclusive usage of Senkaku Islands, over all others, as article name. In the realm of search engine results, I've already showed that the supporting data of your side are bad, so that's goners. Then for encyclopedia and library searches, I've also explained why they are also bad for other reasons. Unless you can provide new convincing arguments to support the use of the current name, the status quo we have here is not legitimized by anything but is in fact maintained simply by the force of Wikipedia politics alone. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I apprize and admire User:Zscout370's stand and proposal very much. He is honest that he is a Japanophile and do a lot of stuff for the Japanese on wp, which I absolutely believe. And he still proposes to move the page under "Pinnacle Islands". Although the name "PI" is not my most favorite one, and the Chinese name has been proven with a slight advantage over the Japanese name in English using per the debate during the mediation, I can compromise to accept the "PI" as Zscout370 proposed. The main force who opposes to compromise to use this NPOV name is not from those who oppose the Japanese name, but is from those who pro the Japanese name. Qwyrxian, it will be useless for your stand of pro "SI" even if you can find out a way to overturn the debate data during the mediation. For you to refuse the "PI", you need to overturn the precedent of Liancourt Rock and the corresponding justification in the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names. Again, please do not go "penny (any reasons blah, blah, blah ...) wise and pound (NPOV) foolish" again and again. --Lvhis (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks isn't a judgment that has to be followed, it was just one way some users chose to deal with the article title. The sooner you stop pretending we have to do the same thing here, the quicker we might talk about real issues. John Smith's (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Laincourt is also isn't the only pieces of rock that have countries fighting over it. There are a lot of territorial disputes just in Asia alone because of consequences from World War II. If would be helpful if there is a list of these lands so we can figure out what was done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a thought. "South China Sea" is incredibly biased because it suggests China owns the sea. But it's a disputed area. So should it be called something else? John Smith's (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And there is always the Sea of Japan. Regardless, I would like to have a list of these disputed territories (if it has bodies of water, so be it) so we can figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you thinking of doing - see how most articles are treated or something? If that's the case it would probably be better to just propose a change in policy. John Smith's (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes; gives me an idea on what could be done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedias/almanacs

New section on this point to separate it out from the bigger issue of how to proceed

Thanks for providing those links, Bobthefish2; the first I think I missed in dealing with other things you posted at the same time, the second I forgot. But I'm happy to follow up now. Ultimately, your entire argument is fundamentally flawed. You're both ignoring and misunderstanding WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). That guideline explicitly tells us to look not at wide, generic web research, but to high quality sources. The very first thing we're told to check is encyclopedias (my feeling is that an almanac is a form of encyclopedia, although others may disagree). You wrongly discounted Library of Congress findings for the same reason. As you've been told several times, you're welcome to try to change the guidelines (which you've said you don't want to do), but you can't just arbitrarily and unilaterally decide that several different useful guidelines don't apply here.

TO repeat: we are not supposed to be looking primarily at generic internet search results. This is no different, ultimately, in that if we were trying to measure whether or not to use "aren't" or "ain't", in WP, we wouldn't just measure the entire actual usage; rather we measure scholarly and tertiary sources. Now, I have no problem saying that the web search results seem ambiguous, and may in some cases slightly favor D (I'm not saying that for certain until I go back and look at the exact data again). But I do have a problem with picking only that one criteria, arguably the least accurate, for saying "We can't tell which is the most common". I can't stress enough: while the web search results are somewhere near ambiguous, the encyclopedia and almanac results were unanimous: either the source didn't mention the topic at all, or it mentioned only Senkaku Islands, or mentioned Senkaku Islands as the primary topic with a mention/redirect in the index of Diaoyu to Senkaku Islands. Now, if someone else produces other English encyclopedias or almanacs that don't follow this pattern, I'm happy to alter that, but, as of this point, no one has done so.

Oh, one other point you raised: encyclopedias and almanacs may be dated. I can't speak for the encycs, as I didn't personally search them, but I was the one who did the almanac search and every single one was from 2002 or later. Thus, while you're right that they may be dated, these ones weren't. Qwyrxian (talk)

I think one thing that you are correct upon is that search engine results can be skewed one way or another. Even if I change my Google settings to always search for Japanese websites first, when I type some characters like "旗" (ki, flag), I always tend to get Chinese based websites (or Chinese Gov websites) in the first 30 hits. SEO will always happen and sometimes it is state sponsored, but that is another issue for another time and place. The Library of Congress, for example, will list Senkaku as the main name for these islands in an 1986 record but will list PI as the main secondary name (and puts the Chinese names at the bottom). While this is the United States doing in the 1980's when Reagan had his eyes on defeating "the Evil Empire," the sources listed in this note is either from Rand McNally (major map maker) or the US State Department. Even today, the US Government believes that the islands are under Japanese control and chided China for trying to provoke Japan. Both names are used in some US Government sources, but the main term used by them is Senkaku. If we, as the MOS suggests, using the books and old encyclopedias, I found sources starting from the 1840's using PI as a term for these group of island chains. So we now know this is not a term just made up recently. Still need to sort out because these group of islands and another place called Pinnacle Islands located in Alaska. Hopefully, this helps get some kind of discussion moving forward. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Generic Search Results: The search results I generated were not generic, but were practically exclusively consisted of literature sources. For some, I even counted the results by hand. What's obvious to me is that you hadn't even paid attention to the data I presented (in addition to the posts I wrote, as you've now admitted). Since I am/was one of the major parties in this dispute, I find this sloppiness to be quite alarming. It also casts doubt as to what you plan to achieve with another series of RfC, given your obvious disinterest in listening to others.

Guidelines: As I've said, guidelines are suggestions and not rules. "Narrow interpretation of guidelines" is also a critique others have of you in your RfA. If you felt I was arbitrarily dismissing part of the guideline, then please support this allegation with supporting arguments. So far, I've seen none although I've quite extensively backed my arguments up. Unfortunately, as you've admitted, you didn't read my posts and there's nothing that can force you to.

Library of Congress: I decided to verify the results just for the hell of it.

• Diaoyu: 5 results
• Senkaku: 4 results
• Search parameters: 2005 or later, English; I didn't even bother with Diaoyutai.
• URL: http://catalog.loc.gov/

Encyclopedia and Almanacs: I raised a point about cherry-picking. Can you convince others that your small sampling of 5 Alamancs is reflective of the general opinion of Almanacs? I don't think you can and I don't believe there is any reason to consider the Alamancs to be of any higher authority or credibility than say Google Map, CNN, BBC, or any other literature source yielded by the literature searches.

Let me know if there are any <sarcasm>fundamental flaws</sarcasm> with my arguments. Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh well... It's time to pretend my arguments don't exist again. Have fun going in circles guys. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I got your message and went to the page linked. I have not been able yet to figure out how to do the search there in a correct way, but I trust you. Even the result from E/A supports that DI is more used than SI, I am not sure whether the dispute can be resolved. Of course, that will strength that the current Japanese SI cannot stand. --Lvhis (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian, the Multiple Local Names section of WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) clearly states that In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. I'd prefer to that to happen here, as clearly neither SI nor Diaoyu(tai) would be agreed upon. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And that is what I was getting at. We know now that the Japanese name will not be acceptable; in turn, if we choose the Chinese name, people will not be happy about that. If we put both names in the title, people will fight over which name goes first. Using PI is, in my view, the only option that is even foreseeable to solve this debate. It will not be the end of the debate, since there was times that years after the Laincourt issue was solved, I still fielding emails on OTRS saying Dokdo is the only acceptable name they will accept for the islands on English Wikipedia. But I think we will have less angry people if we choose PI over S or D (or a combined name). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that a compromise is appropriate when we can't meet the other requirements. But we may not do that until such time as we verify that SI is not the most common name. If the compromise were the primary issue, we wouldn't have all of those other parts to the guideline, and every single disputed place name would automatically get some "neutral name"; I would argue that we have to change Sea of Japan to "That Sea in between Korea and Japan and China and Russia", "South Kuril Islands" to, I don't know, "South Man Islands" (taking the rough translation), and, heck, I can't even guess what we'd call Ireland or the United States. And with regards to Zscout370's argument, merely the fact that the issue causes headaches in the real world is not enough to overcome the requirement that we must use the most common name in English. We do not make choices to make people less angry; under that argument, we'd take out all of the pictures of Muhammad, probably 90% of our pictures on sex acts, and every criticism section from every company and bio page. We make choices based on our guidelines and policies, and those guidelines in this case tell us to choose the most common name if one exists. Again, please understand, I'm not rejecting a compromise, but I'm saying that we don't choose the compromise option until we first establish that there is no common English name. And part of that work is going to have to be some justification as to why we would be the only tertiary source that doesn't use Senkaku Islands. Wikipedia does not lead, we follow. Now, we do have the ability to follow trends more quickly, but it hasn't even been proven that there is this massive trend away from SI towards DI. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with PI. It's not only a common name but also it's against "Use modern names". Besides, unlike Liancourt Rocks, PI is not approved by United States Board on Geographic Names. They approve Senkaku. Check it for yourself. [3] As far as I know, Australia, UK, and USA use Senkaku Shoto on their nautical charts. If the title is biased, the US government would be biased too. See the map. I think the Google search of almost all news stories and studies are meaningless as long as they deal with the dispute. As a matter of course, they use both names as a part of basic information on the islands. @Penwhale, it seems you didn't notice this. Please answer me. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Implicitly, neither PRC nor ROC would approve. However, I mentioned that CNN and Google are using both within article text/on the map, and this cannnot be done in a page title. And technically, using United States Board on Geographic Names as a point isn't correct since it doesn't represent a worldwide view. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is absolutely true. --Lvhis (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Because when one US Government agency went from Dokdo to Laincourt, President Bush struck back and forced the name back to Dokdo and make it Korean owned source. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is your point about CNN and Google? That just shows a preference of two websites. And the fact that China and Taiwan wouldn't approve - so what? John Smith's (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Penwhale does have a point with CNN and Google, but the point is not complete. It would be helpful to know what the majority of the worlds new organizations use. Its a daunting task, but something I'll try to work on in maybe the next week or two. What needs to be done (and anyone else is certainly welcome to help) is to scan through articles at a single news source, and see if there seems to be a house style guide. For example, if CNN always used a dual name, that would be evidence that SI is not a preferred term for that one specific company. If the formatting varied from article to article, though, it would not provide any clear evidence either way. If every major news site we found worldwide similarly used a dual name, that would be good evidence (helping balance out the encyclopedia/almanac evidence) that there has been a recent shift. But this requires looking at the individual articles. As I said above, if the article uses Senkaku throughout but mentions Diaoyu once, that's strong evidence that they are supporting the Senkaku name (and vice-versa). This task will help us get beyond simple, flawed Google searches and get an inkling of what's actually going on in our sources. If possible, we'll want to use worldwide sources (i.e., including UK, India, Al Jazeera, etc.), but we probably don't really care what Japanese or Chinese or Taiwanese sources uses, even in English, since, well, I think it's obvious why. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Bothefish2: I didn't see your comments because I generally don't look back up at the entirety of a thread to see if anything got added in the middle once I've already added a comment afterward. I try to, but I don't always. Taking them one by one:

• Generic search results: How do you limit search results for "literature"? If you mean you did GScholar instead of GWeb, though, I understood thta. I never meant to suggest that we weren't doing GScholar, my apologies that I wasn't as clear as possible by using terms like "generic search" (what I meant was, a search where something is typed into any version of Google and the only thing that is looked at is the total result, either on the first or last pages of the search). For handcounting, I think that we all need to consider doing some very serious handcounting, as I don't believe that any of us have done a really thorough one; I think our best approach is what I suggested above, basically following Penwhale's example: look at what each separate news agency/org is doing.
• Guidelines: We have to use something to constrain our decision--otherwise, yes, "your" side automatically wins because all you have to show is that there is disagreement which automatically means we pick neither SI or DI. And if we're going to use the guidelines, we can't pick and choose which parts to use. We can say, "Oh, this result is tainted for this reason," or we can say, "We all agree this is not useful in this situation," but you (generic you, not you=Bobthefish2) can't say "This one criteria on encyclopedias, we're not using that, because, um...well, because we don't think its a good criteria." I want to especially emphasize that since Penwhale tried to use a different part of the criteria itself to argue that the switch to PI was clearly correct. Yes, guidelines are guides, not soulless rules to follow lockstep. But just like you can't say, "No, WP:IAR, so I'm not following that guideline," you can't just throw out the one "just because". The burden for throwing out any given guideline is pretty much going to be on the burden of the person wanting to do that. Instead, that's why I think we should look at guidelines as a whole, look at the overall intent, and apply each part as much as possible.
• Guidelines, part 2: But, heck, I'll even meet you on your chosen level--I'll go ahead and tell you why I think this is a good guideline, preemptively, as it were. The guideline telling us to look at other tertiary sources is a very good one, especially in this instance. Wikipedia all too easily falls victim to recentism and news reporting. We have to balance this constant desire (well-meaning, well-intended) to try to stay right on the cutting edge with the need that an encyclopedic reflect a solemn, sober analysis about what is notable, likely to still be true twenty minutes from now, and responsible. For something as basic as the name of a place, we need to look at these tertiary sources, not to answer the question, but to give us guidance. In other words, I'm not saying it's the be-all, end-all criteria, but it's one worth retaining. You point out that they have small editorial staffs; well, the decisions about what to call these islands will similarly be made by a small group of people at each news agency. That's why, yes, it's useful to know what CNN does, but it will be more useful to know what CNN, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, NYT, AP, Reuters, et al do, collectively. If there is a clear trend, then, yes, it may be time to bow to it. You also express concern that encyclopedias are out of date; well, that's why the guidelines tell us to only look at recent ones. The almanacs I looked at were all from 2002 and later. I don't know about the encyclopedias.
• LoC: A valid, useful point. I did some preliminary searches, and got numbers similar or equal to yours. Of course, we need to be careful (one of the Diaoyu results, was from a book called Dokdo : historical appraisal and international justice, which, from the title alone, does not seem like a valid return for our concerns (given it's clear anti-JP bias); but, I do see that this result may point towards a balance. I'd like to learn a little more about what exactly I'm searching, but this is definitely a useful avenue of exploration. I'm interested to see how the numbers change over time, too.
• Encyclopedias and Almanacs: I didn't cherry pick them; I looked at every single international and Asian almanac in the reference section of a major US research university library. Those 5 were it; there were other atlases, but either 1) they were older than 2000 (which was my cut-off point for precisely the concerns you legitimately have above); 2) were not the "right kind" of almanac (i.e., they were a topographical or biological or something else, that thus didn't list the islands) or 3) weren't sufficiently detailed to list the islands at all (I mean, let's face it, despite the role they play in the geopolitics of these three entities, they're really not so (physically) big or such a big (psychologically/politicall) deal.

I hope this answers your concerns in more specific detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you chose to respond.

• Generic search results: I am disappointed that the detail I put into generating my search data is still not very fully appreciated. All it takes is to read my critique and reassessment of Phoenix's results in the recent mediation. While you aren't obliged to read any of my posts, it'd help to prevent occasions where you'd make inaccurate description of the most recently established set of name-usage data (and which would offer me reasons to say mean things about you).
• Guidelines 1.0: If you are unable to use encyclopedia results in a way that circumvents the legitimate concerns I raised, then that's fine. For example, there can be a hypothetical unbiased search engine of encyclopedias where you can pick up 100 Senkaku hits vs. 1 Diaoyu hit dating from 2006 on. Unfortunately, such an unrealistically strong piece of evidence that argues in favour of your favourite position is highly unlikely to exist in this reality.
• Guidelines 1.5: If a particular guideline is not suited for a scenario due to legitimate reasons, then there is a good reason not to use it. Unlike what is suggested by your favourite imagined quote about why we should not be using encyclopedia, I have in fact provided good reasons on why they should not be used (unless... see Guidelines 1.0).
• Guidelines 2.0: You have fallen into this great horrendous trap of using "news" as a reason to trust encyclopedia over other things. As I've warned you in the past, I do not very much like my posts and data to be ignored in a horrible manner that renders it to be practically the same as being non-existent. To spare you another lecture, I'd give you a friendly reminder that a significant portion of the search data we discussed in the past were exclusively consisted of books and other non-news materials. In the event you would like to fruitlessly argue that they, in fact, suffer greatly from recentism, then I would also remind you that the date filters I used were, in fact, very relaxed (i.e. 2005 and beyond).
• LoC: I am very glad you submit on this point. This is a very good step forward.
• Encyclopedias and Almanacs: Does this major university located in USA have a comprehensive repository of almanacs? Five is a very small sample. Even if five encompasses the space of all respectable recent almanacs, you still have not provided a reason to convince us that the facts from such a tremendously large sample of almanacs is, in fact, more important than the results generated from literature search in various media.
• One thing you've said that's worth repeating: Yes, ''our'' side automatically wins because all we have to show is that there is disagreement which automatically means we pick neither SI or DI.

--Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, ''our'' side automatically wins because all we have to show is that there is disagreement which automatically means we pick neither SI or DI. That's not how Wikipedia works. You need consensus to change an article title if the move is disputed. Saying "we" win, you lose isn't going to generate consensus. John Smith's (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, my British friend. Some people never learn to lose and will stubbornly filibuster anything they don't like. For instance, even if 50 Nobel laureates proclaimed that the Taiwanese are, in fact, Chinese, I will most certainly expect there is a special someone from an ex-first rate power to ferociously deny that connection. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic talk, drama that has (hopefully) ended

Bob, for a short while after we all come back to discussing these matters I think you've changed. Then you start with the snide comments. Are you trying to get a rise out of me, or is being unpleasant just part of your nature? John Smith's (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I do not see the connection. I was simply agreeing with your idea that "being right" is meaningless when there are parties who'd veto the outcome regardless of argument. The example I raised is purely hypothetical. Since you are a highly reputable editor, I would not expect you to challenge the opinions of 50 Nobel laureates and thus I was not, in fact, referring to you in the example. I hope this clarification suffices. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) You weren't referring to me? In that case, remembering that you've thought it necessary to go on about how Britain lost its empire in the past, who is the "special someone from an ex-first rate power"? Why not just put the spade away, rather than keep digging? John Smith's (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Britain is the 6th largest economy in the world with one of two top tier A+++ World class cities in the world (the other being NYC). It is also nuclear-armed, possesses the 2nd largest navy in the world, and houses the most prestigious research laboratories among the top academic circles. While it is no longer the baddest kid on the block, it is still most certainly a first-rate power for the time being. I am not sure if others agree. Now, there are lots of ex-first rate powers in the world. But this topic is off-tangent --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) You raised it. So tell me, who is the "special someone from an ex-first rate power"? And how was it relevant to the discussion? John Smith's (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC) It was simply an example of stubbornness expressed despite presentation of overwhelming logic and evidence. It is relevant because it ties back into your concept of "right" or "wrong" doesn't matter due to the need for "consensus". Since you are very zealous about the "special someone", I was, in fact, referring to Mister Hitler who was legendary in his disregard of facts and reality. Despite his reputation as the German dictator, he was, in fact, an Austrian. And for those who aren't familiar with world history, Austria was a first-rate power prior to the World War I. Unlike Britain, which merely lost its empire and became an American sidekick, Austria lost about 4/5 of its heartlands and became a weak land-locked neutral state. Does this clarification suffice? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) It sounds more like a quickly thought up excuse than a clarification. I mean, given your previous mocking re Britain's status, when did the change of opinion come? When did you realise that it's a first-rate power? John Smith's (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Mr dear friend, I am completely innocent in all this. If you still harbour suspicion towards my completely innocent intent to agree with your concept, then you should bring it to my talk page, since this is now a personal issue and not relevant to the topic anymore. Should you have the will to bring the matter to my talk page, I will be happy to correct any misconception. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Since you seem all so grumpy, a couple of comics may help to lighten the mood [4][5][6]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, did you just post RACIST cartoons to this talk page? Are you trying to get dragged back to WQA? The second is particularly racist in the use of Engrish to depict the characters; the rest are, at best, stereotypical. Am I way off base? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC) >No_fun_allowed.jpg -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC) And so your overreaction doesn't evolve any further, Polandball is an internet meme that originated from the /int/ board on Krautchan, and was also popular on 4chan's /int/ board before it turned to shit became /new 2.0/. Many of the cartoons are light-hearted drawings by various people of all kinds of backgrounds, and I think you are taking this too damn seriously. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, Qwyrxian has an irritating tendency of blowing things out of proportions, especially when User:Bobthefish2 is involved. It must be fanciful to throw threats around and impress nobodies like me. Let's see what I said about him in the recent RfA that led to his apotheosis into wiki-godhood: "can be quite naive when it comes to dealing with inter-personal disputes" - Yes, that certainly applies here. In the event Qwyrxian is not receptive to the concept of satire, I would further clarify a few things: Every country ball in Polandball meme speaks improper forms of English I am Chinese and share the same race as people living in Taiwan. In the event Qwyrxian is not satisfied and would like to see some blood, he is welcomed to open up a favourite DR of his choosing and write something up about me. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Couldn't finish what I had to say earlier since I had a university lecture going on beforehand, but since I raged so damn hard earlier, I feel as if I absolutely must finish what I started, now that the lecture is over. Incoming rant, please wear your helmets and shinpads. Qwyrxian, I am absolutely appauled by your behaviour. You have made a horrible bad faith strike against Bobthefish2 who has attempted, in good faith (and innocence, may I add), to lighten the mood. It appears that you will try to find even the slightest oppurtunity and moment to attack those not on your side, due to some kind of a silly rivalry. He had no intention to piss anyone off by posting those links, and he did not assume that there would be unfunny people here that are Nazi about seriousness on the internet. Not everyone on the internet is 40+ years old and has no sense of humour. How in the world is satirical use of Engrish racist? It's not racist, it's true, people do actually talk like that, despite what things might be like in your head, dearest sir. My mother speaks like that dammit. I'd also like to quote Chris Rock (not word-for-word): "When people say Black people have big lips, it's not racist, because it is actually true. Just like how they say White people can't dance - White people actually are terrible at dancing. It's the truth." Believe it or not, those silly Chinamen actually talk like that, and that includes my mother, my father, and everyone else. In some cases people can't understand the fuck my mother is saying, because she speaks English in a non-native manner. Arguing "oh noes" is PC gone overboard, and in an Orwellian manner at that. Next you're going to argue that we should use words such as doubleplusungood, because it's discriminatory and demeaning to use the English word "bad". Goddamit yes I mad, I'm mad as hell right now over your ignorance, persistance and horrible attitude. when I first read your original post I raged so hard the entire university lecture theatre was looking at me. If they could harness the power of my rage they could probably power New York City for 10 damn hours. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Oh no, that's a lot of built up anger. We should hold Qwyrxian solely responsible for escalating the mood of this thread in an unsatisfactory manner, followed by holding an ANI chaired by Jimmy Wales about his unsatisfactory lack of appreciation for satires and Polandball memes. Any expenses incurred by burst arteries and high blood pressure conditions as a result of his unsatisfactory lack of humour will be paid by the evil cabal of Wikipedia administrators. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I can't say as I find any of these pictures funny. The last one seems to show the UK celebrating its birthday by itself whilst crying. Lovely. :( John Smith's (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) No, the UK-ball was not celebrating alone. It was celebrating with a bunch of Kazakhstan balls in the background. The enormity of this Kazakh-organized celebration brought the UK-ball to tears. One can see the Kazakhstan balls looked genuinely jolly and did not have any mocking expressions. I thought the first two comics to be funny as well, especially the 3rd square of the 2nd comic with China ball's expression. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I'm going to take this to benlinsquare's talk page, because it's going to be completely irrelevant to Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Zscout370 What BGN changed was the status of the islets from "Korean territory" to "undesignated sovereignty". Not the name of the islets. See [7], [8], [9] and [10]. The name is still Liancourt Rocks. See [11]. You may notice that the islets has been long known as Liancourt Rocks to the West. But not PI.
@Penwhale "...neither PRC nor ROC would approve"? Not approve of what? The name Senkaku? Japan recognizes Diaoyu Islands as the Chinese name and Diaoyutai Islands as the Taiwanese name of the islands called Senkaku Shoto in Japan and that's all. IMO, both names are not biased at all. "...it doesn't represent a worldwide view"? Of course it doesn't. But why should the worldwide view is needed? This is en WP and USA is one of the English speaking countries, in fact a big one, and what the country calls the island is important. And what about the nautical charts used by English speaking countries? I say it again that the dual name description is only a basic information when dealing with the dispute with any source. Oda Mari (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• If they approve the name, it's almost as if they admit that the islands belong to Japan. Think about Political status of Taiwan, and you'll see why I'm not willing to touch that issue with an X-feet pole. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Small note: I wrote in my RfA that when I find myself getting angry or stressed about a subject, sometimes I just have to walk away for a while. I have to do that with this set of articles for a few days. It's not just the collapsed drama, it's...it's...everything. It would be super if no one actually moved the article in that time, but, well, do what you will. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I try not to get stressed over this. That's why I patrol RFPP from time to time, as well as doing a few translation tasks I have in that thing called real life. I think most of us wouldn't move this currently (and it's quite amazing how our discussion went from "whether a tag is misplaced" to "where should this article be, eventually" without too much bickering!), and since we're actually talking calmly, I fathom this is helping us to build a consensus. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: It's puzzling to witness you getting all so very stressed out over this, especially when we haven't had everyone on board yet (i.e our friends Tenmei and Phoenix hadn't really joined the discussion yet). I sure hope I wasn't a major contributor of your stress, as I've always only intended to maintain a very jolly atmosphere.

As a part of a parting satire, I'd say Wes Johnson's voice definitely played in my head as I read your parting comment. Specifically, the tone of the comment reminds me of the occasion in Elders Scrolls 4: Oblivion when the PC dressed up as the GrayFox and the Town Guard said "You're the Gray Fox! You're wanted for....for.... for ALL KINDS OF STUFF!!!!".

@Penwhale: Just wait until all the regulars start participating. So far, we are missing at least 3. You really think this is that easy? :-p

--Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I realized, I was getting stressed because I let Btf2 take advantage of me. My mistake, I shan't let it happen again. I may be "naive" and too willing to give in to pressure, as Bob says, but I'm not going to do my best not to get baited again. Back to your points:

• Deal with your disagreement with the naming guidelines elsewhere. This line regarding encyclopedias is unambiguous: "If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." Its no longer my problem that you don't like that guideline.
• Your point about the number of almanacs is laughable. "Five is a very small sample." Well, then go open a publishing company and publish more. There simply aren't that many companies writing world almanacs detailed enough to cover these uninhabited micro-islands. If all of the encyclopedias and all of the almanacs use one term, well, sounds to me like the tertiary publishing world (the world we try to mimic in tone and style) has spoken. As always, if you find encyclopedias or almanacs that don't use only SI or use SI as the main entry, then we'll talk
• 2005 and beyond isn't even close to relaxed. I can't think of any other situation I've been in where we've arbitrarily limited our analysis to such a tiny time frame. I felt that I was being extremely generous by starting search results at 2000; a more reasonable choice would easily go back 20 or more years. 2005 is arbitrary and capricious and designed to demonstrate some new tenuous non-standard.

I'm going to, when I finally feel like it, start the in depth news and scholarly search. I also want to know what the UK, India, and other countries use on their official naval charts. I believe Oda Mari has raised this issue before, I'd like to see the references (they may already be here, but I'll have to look through the many different archives). So far, the best work that "your side" has done is to show that the online search results we got at first were probably wrong, but that, no matter what, those results will almost always be unreliable. Yes, you and I have both done more detailed searches, but we have numerous times been cut off in mid-stride, derailed by conversations like the one above. I'm done arguing about the guidelines and legitimacy of encyclopedias; if you still think that's a valid point, marshal your arguments for the (eventual) RfC. I no longer care that you want to pick and choose which parts of the guidelines you think are valuable. At this point, I think all we should be concerned about is making sure we have all of the useful evidence, and then we present it to the community, and go from there. Just to allay fears--I'm not rushing this, as I myself have quite a number of things to look at in more detail. Just saying, us arguing amongst ourselves about how the guidelines apply is getting us nowhere, so lets actually do something valuable. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you've made a wonderful recovery after your show of tremendous outrage, but it appears I still figuratively see some residual foaming around the mouth. Are you certain you have fully recovered your sense of objectivity? Anyhow, let me examine your points one by one:

• Guidelines: In case you aren't aware, there are multiple guidelines and essays about following guidelines. For example:

1. Wikipedia:Guideline#Role says Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.
2. Wikipedia:Guideline#Adherence says Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. Conversely, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken. Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus.
3. Wikipedia:The_difference_between_policies,_guidelines_and_essays says There are a remarkable number of exceptions and limitations embedded within Wikipedia's policies, and all policies need to be applied with common sense.

... and then here are some comments from our friendly Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) guideline page:

1. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines says These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus; but they are the consensus of actual experience in move discussions.
2. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name says A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name

Now that I've reminded you in a very friendly manner that these guidelines were never meant to be blindly enforced to the letter, I'd like to take this as an opportunity for you to reflect (or not) on some of the comments written in the recent RfA that led to your apotheosis to wiki-godhood:

1. [12] said ... I found that Qwrxian was more interested in policing Wikipedia than editing it. In his zeal to voluntary enforce WP guidelines, I found that the user came off as [insert adjective], [insert adjective], and authoritarian.
2. [13] said ... Qwyrxian needs to [insert verb] before becoming Admin. I feel he has a fatal flaw: predisposition to value policy over article quality. Policies are good things. But when valued to extreme in-and-of-themselves, it becomes a bit manic and destructive. For example, I've seen Qwyrxian go out of his way to basically invent fact and theory to maintain a policy view - essentially force-fitting a situation into the policy for the sake of the policy. I feel if he feels the need to go that extent, something must be wrong. Policy should be kept in mind always, with vigilance for opportunities to make them better. But I don't think Qwyrxian carries that mindset. I think he values policy to such degree, the article becomes in inconvenient nuisance to the policy.

With all of this said, you have been very awfully misguided (note the pun, LOL) in your rant about my critique of your wonderfully favourite guidelines... especially when I've provided some rather extensive reasoning on why some of them are not very applicable. If you must, do take your concerns to WP:GUIDELINE and make your case to the editors there regarding the need to make adherence to guidelines 100% mandatory (good luck with that).

• Sample size of almanacs: Since you are not a man of science but rather a man of wonderful rhetoric (based on your MA in rhetoric), I suppose it is unfair to expect you to appreciate why having a small sample size of opinions is bad especially one's intent is to use this sample to make a general statement about a very large body of opinions. If your training in basic statistics is, indeed, awfully insufficient, then I'd recommend you to gracefully step aside and let people who actually know what they are talking about to do the actual talking. After all, asking someone to go open a publishing company and publish more as a fireback of criticisms about your small sample size of almanacs is truly not a wonderful excuse. Now, suppose your wonderful sample of 5 almanacs is truly the entire space of all almanacs, then it's also actually doesn't mean a lot. Since these wonderful almanacs are often published by companies and are actually no more authoritative than other literature/reliable sources we've located, there is little reason to overturn the inconclusiveness of literature searches and give undue weight to your 5 very wonderful almanacs.
• Time stringency: 2005-2011 is a pretty long time period for politics, literature, and the mass media. I understand you don't like it because the newer sources are progressively trending towards a relatively even distribution of both names, but this is an on-going issue with public favoritism changing as we speak. But of course, you are welcomed to do your searches in whatever time period you like... such as 1895-1970... and argue that we should actually care about what some outdated sources favoured.
• The value of the work on our side: Contrary to what you said, the value of the work on my side (as you defined), is quite a lot actually. Basically, we've refuted every argument/evidence your side has ever put up and turned many of them in our favour (i.e. LoC, Google Scholar, and others). Intuitively, that would've meant the reversion of the current article name to the previous. But alas, Wikipedia politics is at play. :)

By the way, admin, I have a few recommendations for you when you type your response (if any). First, you should take a very deep breathe and release it. Second, you should keep track of your typing process. If you are typing at twice the speed and making tremendously loud banging sounds, please stop and come back in a week. Finally, you should try to remind yourself that you are supposed to be a very level-headed editor who doesn't write the kind of trash that I am currently responding to. Thanks. :-p --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Pinnacle neutral?

I just realized something tonight that hadn't occurred to me before--Penwhale, Lvhis, and others, have been proposing Pinnacle Islands as if it were some sort of neutral name, haven't you? To me, I always understood that it is no more neutral than any other name we could choose; it still represents a specific world view, a specific perception about who the island may or may not belong to, etc. Pinnacle Islands, for example, represents a worldview that legitimates the Chinese claim to the island as being somewhat equal to Japan's. It also represents a worldview that says that "native" names have the same "meanings" when translated into the language of the oppressor; in fact, it comes close to push the idea that words that sound more like "English" are "better" than native names. I just figured I'd point this out; while there's still some sort of outside chance we might, for our own reasons, choose Pinnacle Islands, no one should believe its a "neutral name". Every name we choose will be non-neutral, by the very nature of the way the act of naming something works. I don't know if this matters to anyone, but since the sudden recognition of such a disparity between the way I had been thinking and the way that I think others were think seemed worthy of note. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I might have mentioned this before, but I don't see a good solution in any means. Reason being that if we were to reject both SI and Diaoyu, PI is not exactly well known enough for it to be used, in theory. And I'm having a hard time believing that a dual name in title would work, simply on the grounds that "Which title gets placed first?" could be a point to be argued (I'm thinking back to FIFA World Cup 2002 in Japan and S.Korea where those 2 countries were trying to be "ahead" of each other in the banners) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Actually, recently it was Zscout370 (also an admin) who mentioned a proposal about Pinnacle. I said it was not my favorite one but I can comprise to accept. Pinnacle Islands is the real and pure English name that the Japanese name SI was originated or translated from (see my comments with RSs during the mediation). That is one of the reasons that this one is not my favorite one, but if everyone stubbornly insisted on his/her most favorite, we would see what the wp could be. --Lvhis (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just checking Lvhis, you mean that Pinnacle was translated from Senkaku, right (i.e., Senkaku came first, Pinnacle came later), right? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, opposite: Pinnacle was translated to Senkaku, or Senkaku was translated from Pinnacle, i.e. Pinnacle came first (1843), and Senkaku came later (1900). --Lvhis (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, sorry; I've just read the relevant chapter in Suganuma's book. Although, I might say that, at least according to Suganuma, the names were jointly translated from both the Chinese and the English, it does appear (assuming that book is accurate) that the Pinnacle name predates the Senkaku name, and that Suganuma believes that SI is a translation of Pinnacle/Diaoyu. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

SI isn't translated from Chinese, that's for sure. Diaoyu(tai), properly translated, means Fishing (platform). I say that as a zh-N editor. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For Japanese, Senkaku does translate to "sharp pavilion." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

When Suganuma said the Japanese name "Senkaku Islands" were jointly translated from both English and Chinese, he meant for the all names from each individual island within this group of islands, if I understood correctly. The name for these group of islands or the Islands "Senkaku Island" (尖閣諸島) was only from English "Pinnacle Islands". As Zscout370 pointed, "Senkaku" means "sharp pavilion", "尖" (pronounced as "sen" here) → "sharp", and "閣" (pronounced as "kaku") → "pavilion", which was exactly translated (not transliterated) from "Pinnacle". But within these Islands, some individual island or rock was or is still used its name translated or adopted from Chinese. For example, the largest and main island of these Islands in Japanese is still named as 魚釣島 (pronounced in Japanese as "uotsuri-jima") which was from Chinese name 釣魚台 (Diaoyu platfrom) or 釣魚島 (Diaoyu Island). 釣 ("Diao" in Chinese) → fishing (verb), and 魚 ("yu" in chinese) → fish (noun). The word order of the Characters or Kanji is reversed in Japanese because the Japanese grammar for declarative sentence word order is (S+)O+V, which differs from Chinese and English one (S+)V+O. The translation of "Pinnacle Islands" into "Senkaku Island" was done by a Japanese teacher (some source said an explorer) Tsune Kuroiwa (黑岩恆) in 1900, while the "Senkaku Island" was not yet officially used until 1950s by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similar description can be found in Martin Lohmeyer's work and Han-yi Shaw' work. --Lvhis (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic

Break Hello. Not that many people will care, but I'm going to find it hard to find the time to use Wikipedia for the next several days. If you leave me a message on my talk page and I don't reply, it means I'm not around! Have a great weekend. John Smith's (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC) You will be greatly missed, my friend. ;-) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) John Smith's should have posted his personal message on his user talk page, not on here. STSC (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Checking news sources

As I said, I'm going to try to look at individual news sources and see whether any pattern emerges within a single publisher, to try and figure out if there's some sort of "house style".

The Guardian

This seemed like a good place to start to me, since the UK doesn't have as close of a connection to the dispute as the US or the involved countries do. The Guardian: 17 results when searching for “"Senkaku" source:Guardian”, one of which is an opinion and thus not counted. “"Diaoyu" source:Guardian” search gets 8 hits, of which 1 is opinion, and 6 are duplicated from the Senkaku search. ““Diaoyutai” source:Guardian” search gets 6 hits. 4 refer strictly to the “Diaoyutai State Guesthouse”. One doesn’t mention the islands at all (don’t know why it shows up as a hit); so one remains. Tiaoyu and Tiaoyutai get no results in the Guardian. Thus, there are 19 results overall.

Here’s they are listed in chronological order, including the date, link, location of the article, and the quote showing which name(s) is/are used, and how (collapsed to save page length):

Extended content

11 April 1999, [14], (no location): “support Tokyo's claims to the Senkaku islands.” (no mention of any of the Chinese names in article) 30 December 2003, [15], (Tokyo dispatch) “Japan's claims on the Senkaku islands - which are the subject of a territorial dispute between Japan, China and Taiwan” (no mention of Chinese names) 9 September 2010, [16], (Tokyo) “his boat struck two coastguard ships near Senkaku, a chain of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. [+new paragraph] The territory, known as Diaoyu in China,” 13 January 2004, [17] (Tokyo): “the Senkaku islands, which are also claimed by China and Taiwan.” (no mention of Chinese names) 27 March 2004, [18], (Tokyo): “seven Chinese nationalists who had made an audacious dawn landing on the remote Senkaku islands in the East China Sea” (no mention of Chinese names) 5 August 2004, [19], (Beijing and Tokyo): “Some have held up banners calling on Japan to apologise for its wartime atrocities and claiming Chinese ownership of the disputed Senkaku island chain.” (no use of Chinese names) 8 August 2004: [20], (Beijing): “Another banner read, 'Return the Diaoyutai Islands' - a reference to a sovereignty dispute over a chain of islands - known as Senkakushima in Japan –“ (since Diaoyutai is a direct quote, it’s hard to know how to read this) 30 December 2004, [21], (Tokyo and Beijing) “known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.” 10 September 2010, [22] (no location) “The islets are known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Taiwan also claims sovereignty.” 11 April 2005, [23], (Beijing): “locked in a territorial dispute over the Senkaku/Daiyou islands in the East China Sea,” 13 April 2005, [24], (Tokyo): “They are in dispute over the Senkaku/ Daiyou islands in the East China Sea” 19 September 2010, [25] (Reuters, no location): “The latest feud over the isles, called the Diaoyu islands in China and the Senkaku islands in Japan,” 22 September 2010, [26], (Beijing & Osaka): “near disputed islets – known as the Diaoyu islands in China and Senkaku islands in Japan.” 23 September 2010, [27], (Beijing) “the East China Sea islets – known as the Diaoyu islands to the Chinese and Senkaku islands” 24 September 2010, [28], (Beijing, Osaka, and agencies): “his ship collided with two Japanese coastguard vessels near the Senkakus, a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea that are claimed by both countries.” (no mention of Chinese names) 25 September 2010, [29] (Beijing):“China said its claim to the islands -- which it calls the Diaoyu and Japan calls the Senkaku -- was "indisputable".” 27 September 2010, [30], (Tokyo and Beijing): “near the Senkakus, a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea which are claimed by both countries. The islands, known as the Diaoyu in China,” 7 March 2011, [31], (Okinawa): “a Chinese trawler rammed a Japanese coastguard ship near the Senkaku islands,” (no mention of any of the Chinese names in article) 10 August 2011, [32], (Beijing): “The collision took place in waters near disputed islands -- called the Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan -- that both sides claim.”

In summary:

• 7 used only Senkaku Islands; 5 of the 7 occur before 2005, with the other 2 in September 2010.
• 11 use some mixture of Diaoyu and Senkaku. Of those:
  • Only 2 use the actual "slashed" name (both from April 2005); both of those use the S/D order
  • 4 mention both names separately, putting Senkaku first
  • 5 mention both names separately, putting Diaoyu first
• 1 uses Diaoyutai in a quotation, then Senkakushima afterward

Thus, I would say that The Guardian never uses just Diaoyu, uses a mixed name a majority of the time (58%), and uses Senkaku alone the rest (36%) of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's some wonderful results. A few things:

1. Diaoyu was misspelled in a few articles.
2. Try "senkaku -diaoyu -diaoyutai source:"CNN" and see if this is a hit [33]. If so, search for "Diaoyu" inside. Let me know if you notice something interesting going on. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

On the first point, do you find any more Guardian articles that use only one of the misspellings and not SI? I saw another article (I think on CNN, maybe NYT) that said something like "Called the Sengaku Islands in Japan". It certainly doesn't make our life easier when journalists add to the misspellings. Maybe we could just say something like "Called SenDiakakuyotai in the region" and be done with it.

On the second point, that's why I didn't want to do any minuses; I knew that the total number would be few enough that I could spot duplicates by hand. I have no idea if it's something CNN is doing that causes the misfind, or if (more likely) it has something to do with Google's algorithms. I'd rather just try as many broad searches as possible and eliminate the problems by hand. That's why I didn't search for "Diaoyutai Islands", knowing I'd get several "State House" results, because with under 50 results total, they're easy to eliminate. Don't know when I'll get the energy up to do another of these hand searches, but I'll try at some point. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to bother with these hand searches, since the onus is really on your side :). To be comprehensive, you should do BBC, CNN, and a few other major news outlet as well. One thing you should keep in mind is that it'd take some extremely significant results to even dent the message from the JSTOR, WorldCat, GS, etc, results and you will not be shown mercy (by me) if you are found cherry-picking :).

Oh by the way, are you going to start a motion in WP:GUIDELINES to make guideline adherence 100% mandatory? I think it is something you should do first if you want to eliminate common sense from being a mandatory ingredient of using guidelines. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BBC and CNN seem good; probably Al Jazeera; some sort of weekly/monthly mag if I can see them, like Time, Newsweek, etc.; I don't recall if the news agencies (AP, Reuters) themselves have searchable databases. Any other suggestions that are relatively accessible would be gladly entertained, as of course, would be someone else doing some of the searching, too. I feel like Penwhale actually did some above, so I'll re-look at that. I promise, no cherry picking, although no promises on when I'll get this done, or if I'll just give up if it's not producing any interesting results (my goal here is looking for news orgs that are consistent; those that aren't are less useful because it's more about individual writer whim, which may in turn be linked to where the reporter is based).

No, I'm not going to make such a proposal at guidelines; even policies don't require 100% adherence (that's why IAR is a core policy). However, the onus is always on the people who want to ignore the guideline to explain why it should be ignored. That's why people can't just say "I don't need a source for that, I know it's true, IAR." This is especially the case where such specific ignoring and substituting another set of local guidelines happens to benefit one side in a dispute to the detriment of the other side. And it's even more problematic if you invoke common sense. Otherwise, I could say that since Japan is actually in territorial control of the islands (Japanese ships can go there, Chinese ships are chased out, and while China talks big, they still haven't sent any military escorts), that it is "common sense" that we should use Senkaku Islands (since its both the Japanese name and at a bare minimum a substantial portion of the "English" names). Of course, such an argument would be rejected by the whole community; but one person's "common sense" is another person's "reasoned argument" is another person's "wiki-lawyering" is another person's "POV pushing". Once we come down to an RfC, it's going to be up to those who wish to reject any given aspect of the guideline, or favor one part over another, to argue that, in addition to presenting whatever data we have. Even I will likely have to do that, as I attempt to say "Hey, we've got guidelines, they kind of give us conflicting results, so here's why I think that the balance rests in favor of" whatever I finally propose. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I suppose you've finally accepted that adherence to policies and guidelines is not mandatory. This is a good step forward. The whole problem about what's common sense and what's a reasoned argument is legitimate and I thought we were at this stage until you were all "YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO IGNORE GUIDELINES". If possible, we should now get back to debating which policy applies and which doesn't using... er... common sense and reasoned arguments :). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My point before, and now, has always been that you can't arbitrarily or capriciously ignore guidelines. You can't ignore them simply because it's "common sense". The burden for showing that a given guideline doesn't apply is on the person who wants to ignore it, not the person who wants to enforce it. One might say that our default position is always to follow guidelines, since guidelines are nothing more than codifications of precedent and established consensus. And, as I said, there's no point in you and I hashing out whether or not this guideline (the one that recommends that our first course of action when deciding a common name is to look at encyclopedias published recently) applies, because we're clearly at an impasse. Instead, rather than talking in circles, let's do something productive (like I did yesterday with the Guardian search), and later, when the RfC runs, we can make our arguments and let uninvolved editors decide how the guidelines should be applied in this case. Debate is useful only when there is a possibility for change, and we've both made it fairly clear that, at least on that one small point (use of encyclopedias as arbiters of a common name), neither of us is going to change. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you were working very hard to try to make your stance stand, but I am afraid that this is worthless. In terms of NPOV, even our side has proven that the Chinese name is slightly more used in English than the Japanese name, we are not going to insist on using only Chinese name. The big point you should pay more attention is: please do not use double standards to treat same or similar issues. Specifically here, I hope you can thoroughly and successfully overturn the precedent "Liancourt Rocks" and a wiki guideline "WP:NCGN#Multiple local names" first, no matter how hard you will face the wiki community. --Lvhis (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Qwyrxian has once again labelled my reasons to ignore certain guidelines as arbitrary and capricious without presenting notable supporting arguments. Well, he kind of did actually. I remember him telling me to open up a publishing company to print more maps because I said his sample sizes of almanacs is too small. That's a very tremendously convincing argument that had my jaw dropped right to the floor.

And of course, he wasn't entirely right about his claim about how his stance has always been that one can't arbitrarily or capriciously ignore guidelines, because I do remember him saying:

• Deal with your disagreement with the naming guidelines elsewhere. This line regarding encyclopedias is unambiguous: "If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." Its no longer my problem that you don't like that guideline.

... which implies he felt any disagreement with the application of a guideline in a specific circumstance should not be dealt with in situ but rather be dealt with through mechanisms that involve a systemic review of the guideline in question. In other words, he really did appear to view adherence to guidelines as mandatory.

I agree with my friend Lvhis that Qwyrxian's efforts are largely futile. Despite his assertions that we aren't doing anything productive, the fact is we've already overturned the fundamental evidence that was used to justify the current status quo of the article name. The logical next step would be to undo the article move to "Senkaku Islands". But since Wikipedia lacks an effective content dispute resolution mechanism, we are stuck with at least 5 veto votes.

If Qwyrxian feels the only productive action that can be taken is to help him keep looking for evidence to show that Senkaku Islands is the name of predominant usage, then I am afraid I wouldn't be helping him on that because we've already devoted enough time to show the name-usage is actually roughly equal especially for over the past 6 years.

One thing he should consider, though, is whether or not he is developing a battleground mentality s.t. he can't emotionally afford a loss over this dispute. I am not sure if it's just me, but I feel he is losing his sense of objectivity quite rapidly, as evidenced by his circular discussion approach, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, and very very obscure use of logic. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could do what we are always supposed to do: follow the dispute resolution process. We already had an RfC say that the current article title is correct; you rejected that RfC on procedural grounds. Fine, I've moved on. Since then, we have done productive things--I didn't mean to imply that our work since Novemeber isn't productive; rather, I meant that you and I continuing to argue about how to apply the guidelines would be unproductive. So, as far as I can tell, since mediation failed, the only step we can take is to take our new data and new arguments to a new RfC. Since, if I remember correctly, the problem with the previous RfC is that we didn't all have time to gather our information/arguments, this time, I think we should take time to do so. The only alternative that I know of is Arbcom, based on the fact that part of the reason that progress hasn't been made is due to poor behavior by several different editors. The likely result of such a case (were it accepted) would be, sanctions on the article (1RR, uninvolved admins can block or topic ban users who aren't civil, are tendentious, or who edit war, etc.); it may also involve one or more editors being topic banned or even blocked by ArbCom. The mere failure of mediation is, in fact, sufficient to result in a trip to ArbCom. Does anyone else here think that arbitration is a better route than preparing for an RfC? Not that we technically need agreement--any individual may open an Arbcom case at any time (it's not like mediation where we all have to consent or the mediation stops). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't know. ArbCom does not appear to care about content dispute, so going there likely means you want to bring up a case of user conduct - and I have a have a pretty decent guess on what will be brought up as the main issue. Aside from ArbCom, every other venue is likely a waste of time because Wikipedia apparently works by consensus and we already know there will be 5 guaranteed votes for status quo regardless of evidence presented. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Which 5 users would that be? John Smith's (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! I was afraid you'd be caught up in those terrible riots in London. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Which 5 users were you talking about? John Smith's (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the harm in trying for ArbCom? Will it really hurt to ask them to think about it? – AJL^talk 09:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, when you talked about sanctions, or block, or ban, the more important or key point here is how to enforce it. The BRD cycle restriction set for that page sounds very good and worked quite well at beginning. But what happened later? If any one uses double standards as you use, no sanctions, ban, or block measures can work well. --Lvhis (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Flow-chart showing BRD process

Lhis -- Please review the graphic illustration at the right. In the current state of development of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, there is nothing from which to conjure up a cause for indignation or offense. For further clarification, see User talk:Magog the Ogre#Senkaku Islands.

Your edits appear to be limited to an exclusive BRD subject. You have made this explicit:

"... the main point ... is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011

In contrast, the only proximal edits which appear to have inspired this veiled complaint are at Senkaku Islands dispute; and those edits are scrupulous in avoidance. Are you complaining on this page about something to with edits on another page? If so, please compare Citation-supported introduction paragraphs#Restoring.

Are you unwilling or unable to point to a narrowly-focused concern or problem having to do with a specific sentence or inline citation support? --Tenmei (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tenmei, you were supposed to be blocked as what Elen of the Roads's clear opinion here. You'd be better to keep more quiet now. --Lvhis (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on article title

Is the current title of this article, Senkaku Islands, an acceptably NPOV title? (Vote yes or no below):

Yes

1. John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No

1. Quigley (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
3. STSC (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC) - The Japanese name cannot be a NPOV title while Japan is a participant in the territory dispute.

Now that that's done with...

Since the Arbitration case is now over, we are obviously free to move forward with our previous discussions. To be honest, I'm not ready to do that yet, but probably will be next week. But maybe the first step is to ask what the first step is? In other words, what do we want to do next? Discuss the issue more amongst ourselves? Gather yet more data? Move right ahead with an RfC, RM or some other community process? I'm pretty open to any suggestion, myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked that the page protection be lifted. There are a couple of cn tags in the history section that are not necessary. There has been some media attention to the ownership conflict lately because it has been a topic of discussion in the Taiwanese presidential elections. Once the article is unlocked, we can start adding that stuff to it. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's the issue of the NPOV tags (on both articles) and deciding whether we can remove them or how we can come to that position. John Smith's (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I say, just let the tags stay up through whatever "final" method we use to determine the titles. I think we've got a lot more eyes on the article now, so I think that if we now get a good consensus (ideally, with more people than just the group that's been debating this forever), that at that point the tags can come down and will need to stay down. I also think that there's enough people here, some of whom are likely to start actively discussing it soon, that we can legitimately say that some people think the titles are POV, thus fulfilling the requirements of the tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The POV tags are there because there are editors who believe that the current name, which is the one used by the government which has controlled the islands for the last 116 years, is POV? We probably should, then, take a quick straw poll right now to see what the current status of opinion is: Cla68 (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better for all parties to cool down for a while, then we can calmly discuss the most disputable issue, the name issue. As for the tag, it should be removed only when the final consensus or compromise is reached to determine the "NPOV" title. The tag is mainly shown there is ongoing dispute, or the ongoing dispute has not been solved. Cla68 judged that as long as the name is the one used by the government which has controlled the disputed geographic entity, the name will not be POV. Following this, the Liancourt Rocks should have been named as Dokdo in this Wikipedia because the extent of control by Korean government over it is much stronger than that of control by Japanese government over the Diaoyu/Senkaky/Pinacle islands (e.g. Korea has inhabitants residing on Liancourt Rocks, while both Chinese and Japanese fishermen cannot effectively fish in the water around the Diaoyu/Senkaky/Pinacle islands). It is not a good idea to take a quick straw poll now regarding if the current title is an acceptably NPOV one. We need calm discussion to reach consensus or compromise, rather than just do this straw poll. I won't go in this poll. --Lvhis (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, a quick straw poll can help determine if a consensus currently exists. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I'm perfectly cool. Are you? If you are, then I don't see the problem. John Smith's (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is very obvious that the consensus or compromise on the naming issue has not been reached. If you assert the current Japanese name as the title of the WP page is NPOV, you need to give your base and reasons, but not just a "yes" vote. Cla68 gave a reason above, while I gave my justification that his such reason or base cannot stand. John Smith's, you should give your base why the current name/title is NPOV, as you are perfectly cool now. I am busy now, and also I think I need to be more cooling down although I have been sort of that already. --Lvhis (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a straw poll, not a final decision. Just say "no" below and then we can check to see where others stand. John Smith's (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

JS, your opinion on the poll is challenged by Lvhis, then please explain your logic as to why the Japanese name is NPOV. STSC (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@John Smith's, giving the reason why you think it is NPOV is more helpful for reaching consensus than just give a simple "yes" set by such straw poll. Again, we have been clearly aware of no consensus reached yet even without such straw poll now. --Lvhis (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the straw poll is split. Again, the tags just don't matter to me anymore; what matters is figuring out what we are going to do to achieve a consensus so that, whatever title we go with, the tag can be removed. I think it's pretty clear that we have pretty differing opinions, which is why I think we need to go outside of ourselves (RfC). But I don't think we're yet organized enough to do that, so perhaps we need to do that first. Which reminds me, I'm going to ask Feezo if we can undelete the mediation pages now. Oh, and, finally, in case anyone didn't notice, STSC is now on a 3 month topic ban for this topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is STSC on a 3 month topic ban on that guideline WP:NCGN topic or on this SI topic? --Lvhis (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Both. (i.e. he's banned primarily from this dispute here, and secondarily from the guideline page insofar as his edits there are related to it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explanation. Lvhis (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)