Talk:Senkaku Islands

The title/name of this article sounds quite POV

As mentioned in the subject above, the title of this article "Senkaku Islands" sounds obviously POV. The Islands are disputed ones as clearly labeled in one of the categories of this article, as the ref sources the content of this article has been used. I would suggest the title be changed into "Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands", which reflects in NPOV way the names used by the two disputing parties (China including both sides across the Taiwan Strait, and Japan), which has also been used in many English medias. I am going to move the whole part of this article under this new and NPOV title.--Lvhis (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Previous attempts were made to change the name to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" and they've basically gone nowhere. I'd advise you to read all previous discussion on naming dispute to get a feel of what's going on. If you want to help, you are welcomed to post your input and research. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just realized the long discussion history on this and reviewed some of those roughly. The disputes on this sounded focusing on "number" results from Google. As my thought, the bottom line here is: the islands are disputed ones, no matter from the viewpoint of history and realistic facts, or from the viewpoint of wp:source. Therefore, the current title or name "Senkaku Islands" is a POV one, and the dual one "Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands" or vice versa is NPOV one. Wikipedia is welcomed worldwide by its NPOV, the one of its five "pillars". Actually, outcomes (numbers) of Google search results on different disputed names of the Islands are all big enough already. If one only plays search numbers of Google search while ignores the huge facts of the dispute on the Islands name, it would make Wikipedia at least somewhat lose its reputation on this article and its related articles.--Lvhis (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your suggestion could set a dangerous precedent. Take the example of the Spratley Islands - should that be moved to "Xinsha/Spratley Islands" plus whatever they are called by the Thais and other claimants? I think that the title should be based not on Google hits but rather on what the majority of maps say, which I believe is "Senkaku Islands". ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 02:00, Wednesday February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any dangerous precedent associated. It's a pretty unique case of diplomatic nightmare (and in my opinion, a set-up by the U.S. to inflame Sino-Japanese long-term relationships). Since most countries gave a wide berth to taking an official position in such a dispute, it's obvious that this is not at all similar to Falkland Islands. But anyhow, sovereignty discussions is a whole different matter, so I will stop at this.

As for your other point, there's little reason to give maps more importance over say... articles from major news media. For the more scientifically-inclined among us, it is well-known that it's not hard at all difficult to manipulate presentation/sampling of data to argue in any direction possible. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

---

You are most certainly not going to move the title.Sorry, that was unnecessarily harsh. This was discussed at very great length before. There is a lot of information in the archives, but the quick and dirty summary is this:

• Policy and guidelines say we need to choose one name, not a joint name. Exceptions are extremely limited, generally fail, and would need a very wide consensus (including at the naming conventions pages).
• In news searches, the two terms are used approximately equally, although its hard to tell because news searches produce both Japanese and Chinese POV links. In scholarly searches, Senkaku had an edge, although not a very significant one. These searches all get very complicated, though, when you look at them, because, for example, it's not enough to say, "Article X uses both Senkaku and Diaoyu" if the whole article uses Senkaku throughout and just mentions Diaoyu paranthetically. I tried to do some more complex hand counts of news articles, and again found Senkaku with an edge, but not a huge one.
• In other encyclopedias we could check, one had none of the three terms, and one had Senkaku as the entry. I wish other people would check their local library, as I don't have access to one.
• I did, though, have time to look at the almanac section of a university library while in the US one day. Every single almanac that listed these islands either listed Senkaku first, or listed Senkaku only. This, for me, was the key tipping factor.
• Since we have to choose one and only one name, the only alternatives are take the Senkaku edge and leave it as is (which is what an RfC found by a large margin), or choose "Pinnacle Islands", an alternative US name that is almost never used (like, by a factor of 10 to 1 or more, especially in recent publications).

As such, you are going to need to present a lot of convincing evidence to show that the article needs to change name, especially since the name you recommended is explicitly listed as a bad idea in policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am not going to re-elaborate my disagreements with User:Qwyrxian's methods (i.e. statistical significance of results, sampling, etc). But if someone's going to attack the problem again, then it'd be a good idea to do it at a linguistic stand point. It's too bad we don't have any linguists among us. I've only taken two grad courses in computational linguistics, so I only have a very basic idea of what kind of sampling methods are reasonable. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have gave my two pennies in the reply to user:Bobthefish2 as above. Because POV in the title/name of this article is so obvious, and violates one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, I believe this is a case of so called "extremely limited exceptions" to use dual name. Some search results you (User:Qwyrxian) mentioned above supported my point. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• This makes sense realistically, but if you've read the previous discussions, you'd notice others like myself have tried this and more. If you are in fact very interested in helping us out with this matter, you should read through this and this thread carefully.

Lvhis, if you look at the policy, it actually says that we have to balance out NPOV with other issues, specifically the need for all articles to have one and only one name. Furthermore, past disputes have shown that all changing to a dual name does doesn't actually solve the NPOV issue, because people just end up arguing that the ordering of the names is NPOV. And finally, the name isn't really NPOV if that is the name used most often in reliable sources, especially those of encyclopedic level. For example, consider, Florence; by looking just at POV, isn't it a violation of NPOV to call it Florence when everyone who lives there call it Firenze? Or, if you want to look at disputed places, isn't it POV to call them the Kuril Islands, when Japan disputes ownership of them and calls them the Chishima Islands? And this doesn't even get into places that are disputed where every town in the area also has a disputed name. This is why WP:PLACE exists, because we have to choose what to call things; otherwise, every single disputed place would have to have a dual title. What about all of the cities in Tibet, or Ireland? Our goal is to choose the most common English name; right now, that looks like Senkaku Islands. If there is ever a time in the future where the actual, commonly used name is "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" (which I actually think there may be, if the trend among some newspapers carries over into the academic fields), then that would be the correct name for this article. At the moment, though, it dos not appear to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)As to whether or not this qualifies for an exception, note that neither Kuril Islands nor Sea of Japan qualify for such an exception, and those are nearly as equally disputed. In fact, as far as I know, the only ones that do are a small set of cities, somewhere in Europe (it's in the WT:PLACE archives), where the government itself actually recognizes the dual names. The only other alternative, as I say, is to choose "Pinnacle Islands", which I was considering until I found unanimous support for Senkaku Islands among almanacs.

If you do want to pursue a name change, my feeling is that you'll have to try another RfC, and present new arguments and/or data that haven't been presented before. The last RfC was pretty recent though, so it may not be looked upon too favorably. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian, wall of text doesn't help. If he's interested in helping, he will read up the threads I listed. Within, it contains everything you just said above. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the last RfC lacked a lot of depth. If you looked at the paragraphs pro and anti, they were ~ 2 sentences each. If my memory serves, our actual discussions on various aspects of the matter spanned many pages. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...you're right. Perhaps the thing I agree with more than anything else that you said about me in that discussion on that noticeboard is that this naming issue is a hot button issue with me, and I definitely got carried away. Lhvis' initial comment to me sounded like xe was minutes away from moving the article, so I freaked out. I really need to learn to relax a bit sometimes. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input Lvhis. I don't agree that the article title is NPOV. There is no requirement to have an article title use all names of an island group/territory if its ownership is disputed. E.g. Falklands Islands, not Falklands/Malvinas Islands. We have discussed this quite exhaustively. John Smith's (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion! I sometimes confuse myself. I meant to say that I didn't think the article title was POV. John Smith's (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I reviewed more of the history of the naming discussion or dispute on this article, and the wp:NPOV, wp:PLACE, and wp:TITLE, and the messages above from all you three users. My feeling is as follows:

1. Clearly the current name/title of this article is POV one. Bobthefish2 and John Smith's said this frankly already. Or at least, it is a hot disputed one, as Qwyrxian expressed. The extent how hot this dispute can be told by the mountain like discussion history record.
2. No consensus on this has been reached yet. That the current title can stay here is due to no consensus as said by user Winstonlighter on 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC) "It's obvious that either Japanese or Chinese names for the disputed islands aren't overwhelmingly more common than their counterparts, according to the previous search research on google scholars and google books. However, Wikipedia also states that when there is no consensus reached, it will hardly change anything." But hardly change anything does not mean the POV problem has been solved.
3. The case of naming this title is not a clear-cut one as mentioned in wp:PLACE, and wp:TITLE, if one insists on using single name. I strongly feel this is the case of "extremely limited exceptions" to use dual name.
4. Some examples or precedents above: Florence/Firenze - does not work because the margin between using Florence and using Firenze is larger than the one between using Diaoyu/Senkaku, and Florence is more English one; Falklands/Malvinas, similar to the case of Florence/Firenze and Falkland is even more English one, that happen to be generated and used by UK. Kuril/Chishima is a bit comparable, but I think we still need deal with these case by case.
5. To reflect NPOV of wiki's important policy, I believe for the time being we can put the template {{POV-title}} on the top. It serves two functions here: a) warn readers and editors this title is not a consensus NPOV one, and tell them the wiki does not take side on the naming dispute; b) encourage them to participate in the discussion. This template should stay there till a consensus can be reached including the article can be peacefully moved or peacefully stayed.

Thank all of you. --Lvhis (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

done with adding the template {{POV-title}}.--Lvhis (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt consensus will be reached given my experience with this page. If you want to score a breakthrough, you'd need to provide some pretty convincing analysis and evidence that makes logical and statistical sense. For reference, you can also read some of my old arguments in that RfC I gave you (which were mostly being ignored). Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Question for Lvhis: Can you please explain where you don't see consensus for the current name? I just looked back at the most recent RfC, and I do see consensus for the current name. The only objections I see are 1) Bobthefish2, 2) San9663, who was objecting only at the beginning, and more to the process of data gathering, as I saw, and 3) Jiang, who wasn't objecting to the name but instead claiming that the search results were wrong (which we determined were because he used Google searches incorrectly). Several previously uninvolved editors commented that the name as it stands is the correct English name (note, that is what we are looking for--not the "neutral" name, but the name that is most commonly used in English). Note that consensus does not mean a majority, but it also doesn't mean 100% agreement. Maybe I, because of my strong opinion on this subject, am seeing consensus where it did not actually exist, so that's why I'd like to hear why you think there wasn't consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember writing a section about how that RfC was set up in a way to favour a certain outcome. If my memory serves, the RfC was submitted before I had a chance to summarize the term frequency data we found. The introductory text was very short given the high dimensionality of our problem. It also omitted much of the issues we were discussing. If we look past my additions (which occurred after much of the voting took place), your part of the introduction had almost nothing useful. It is as if you summarized the 1000-page American Health Care Bill in 1 paragraph and asked people to vote on it.

Looking back into our old discussions, it does appear to me that this "naming-issue" evokes some very strong emotions from you. For example, phrases like "compromise is considered a failure" seem to suggest you've already made up your mind about the issue regardless of evidence (something you angrily accused me of committing multiple times). Since you tend to be a responsible editor, it's important for you to know whether or not your objectivity is compromised. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that "compromise is considered a failure" comment, but I don't remember the exact context. Thus, I'm not sure what I meant at that moment, but I think I can clarify what I think that phrase means now. Wikipedia does not strive for compromise, it strives for consensus. So, for example, we should never have a case where 2 editors say "Since we can't agree, let's just put in both (POV/quotations/sentences/whatever)." Regarding this specific issue, we can't "compromise" on the name; instead, we must, if we can, pick the name that is most commonly used in English. If we were to choose Senkaku/Diaoyu, it should only be because that is the actual name used in English sources, not because one side thinks it should Senkaku and the other side thinks it should be Diaoyu and thus we compromise on a mixed name. In other words, consider the mixed name not as a POV compromise, but as one of 5 possible names for the article: Senkaku, Diaoyu, Diaoyutai, Senkaku/Diaoyu, or Pinncale. Now, if sources did show that the mixed name was the most common, I would accept that, and move on. But that's not what the sources show. At best, they show an uneasy mix between S alone, Diaoyu alone, and S/D together. Unfortunately, accurately measuring that mix is nearly impossible given that it would require a hand count, which I tried to do but even found that to be giving me wacky results. To me, the almanac and (minimal) encyclopedia evidence completely sealed the deal, but, of course, if presented with other evidence, I would change my opinion.

Part of what concerns me is that I just don't understand what we need to do to put this issue behind us (at least for a few years, until sources change). Re-raising this issue every few months takes a lot of effort and pain, and never gets us anywhere other than where we are right now (a majority, but not totality, of editors support the current name). What do we need to do to end this discussion and say, "Not everyone agrees, but this is the best we have for right now"? Note that I'm not trying to shut this discussion down, but to figure out what steps you (Bobthefish2, Lhvis, etc.) think we need to take that ensure we are moving forward and not just spinning around in circles, repeating the same discussions over and over again. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It may help if you and User:Lhvis have a private initial discussion on the relevant angles of the problem first. This will give a general scope of the problem (which we did not adequately provide). It may also be convenient to leave the word usage matters to a bit later since it is rather complicated to resolve. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Bobthefish2's doubt and question, I strikethroughed "consensus" somewhere in my note above.--Lvhis (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Answer to Qwyrxian's question regarding last RfC: the last RfC is just a part of long record of this naming dispute. Neither can it be taken as a final conclusion on this dispute nor can it solve the POV problem for the current title. The only consensus, if we can call it consensus, is that there has exited drastic dispute on this article's naming. So putting that template on the top may be a relative realistic way we can do for now, and also a compromising way from me. I personally believe the dual name D/S or S/D would be the best in terms of NPOV. A lot of evidence listed by editors/users involved in this dispute has been there already, and the key problem is how to interpret them. --Lvhis (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this handled with English version redirects so that people looking for the erroneous term will still find the correct article while foreign language wikis can use whichever term is the most popular in that language? Hcobb (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is that we can't agree what the English version of the name is.

Also, as far as the tag...well, I don't really mind it being there, as I can see the justification for it (even though NPOV isn't the only policy we have to follow with regards to article naming). It is a little sad to think of it staying up indefinitely, but at least I understand the complaint. I wish I could figure out how we could get a firm, strong consensus like Sea of Japan or Spratly Islands (that is, one written directly into the guidelines). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I was just re-reading WP:PLACE, and found a relevant point regarding dual names. It explicitly says "There are occasional exceptions, such as Biel/Bienne, when the double name is the overwhelmingly most common name in English (in this case, it has become most common because it is official and customary in Switzerland; the usage does not appear to be controversial). This should not be done to settle a dispute between national or linguistic points of view; it should only be done when the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place." That means, as I've said before, that this article doesn't meet the exemption, because even though many news articles do use both names, they do so by listing them separately, not by actually writing them as Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku. Since English-speakers don't "call the place" the dual name, it's not an acceptable name for this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP doesn't have a standard for dual name usage. Biel/Bienne's case is certainly convenient, but I've not seen anything about them being the limiting conditions. In the end, it's just a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. But again, we've been through this before. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what? The quote that you're responding to right here is about dual names, taken from the guideline (i.e., standard) on naming articles about geographic places. It explicitly says not to use dual names except in cases where "the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place." I don't understand how you can say that there is no standard. I hate to sound like the wikilawyer you think of me as, but the guideline is very clear here: unless we can establish that the dual name is the commonly used English name, it cannot be the title of this page. I know, I know, you may be thinking of WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. However, my stance, not just here but everywhere on WP (after my first few months editing) is that local groups (our group of editors here) should not override site-wide guidelines and policies (which is written right into WP:Consensus). Oda Mari, I'm pretty sure that Bob is right that inserting new comments in the middle is acceptable so long as it's done to show the thread of an argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Philg88. As far as I know, Nautical charts published in en speaking countries, namely Australia, UK, and USA, use "Senkaku Shoto" and this is en WP. I don't think the article title is POV. I'll remove the template. If you disagree with me, please provide RS that the en charts use a different name or the article title is not NPOV. Oda Mari (talk)

Hi please face the fact here: within around 26 hous the discussion here has pile up such long in size. Please see here and here. Please do not remove that template, thanks.--Lvhis (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The linked pages are not RS. The first one is a blog. Kristof's wife is a Chinese American. He said "So which country has a better claim to the islands? My feeling is that it’s China, although the answer isn’t clearcut." in September. Looking at the map, not a naurtical chart, on the second link, it says "Senkaku Shoto". Furthermore, both links treat the dispute. It is natural they mention the both names. Oda Mari (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@Bobthefish2, when you post your new comment, please do not insert it between past comments. Instead post it on the bottom of the thread. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Negative. There is little reason to post it at the bottom of the thread when I was addressing a specific post. It is also common practice. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, User:Lvhis, don't let this revert discourage you. You have no doubt just experienced your rite of passage in this page. For your benefit, you should read up on WP:RS to get an idea on what's a reliable source. Since User:Oda Mari asked for an WP:RS, you can simply search for something from CNN, CBC, BBC, scholarly journal, etc, that supports your position (if any exist). Enjoy. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable with Oda Mari's revert of the tag. I was figuring that the tag could stay for a while, while we tried, once again, to hash out the name. I'm loathe to revert Oda Mari to re-add the tag, though, because I'm afraid that that will practically guarantee full protection of the article. Ugh... Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I don't want to have to debate the name every time a new editor makes a complaint. The discussion is, for now, closed. We should focus on other things. John Smith's (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a wise choice. If the page is locked, then we might have to waste some time dealing with an ANI about User:Bobthefish2 baiting hapless editors into edit-wars to get pages protected.

Jokes aside, we might not necessarily have an immediate need of bringing out the issue again. If User:Lvhis turns out to be not that interested in going through with this in the end, then maybe we can simply devote our energy on other more immediate matters. Given the amount of work involved, I am probably not going to do this unless I know there are others who are interested in helping. On the other hand, if he is actually quite serious and devoted into dealing with this matter, then that's a different story. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully support Lvhis' solution to preserve Wikipedia's neutrality while there's ongoing disagreement on the current title.STSC (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

STSC, please do not reinsert the tag. All editors are alerted to the objection, and there has been detailed, recent discussion about what title the article should have. The tag should not be used simply because some people are still not satisfied with the article title. Someone will always be unhappy, so should the tag always be there? Clearly not. John Smith's (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I assume the article will be fully protected by the time I wake up tomorrow morning. Unless, maybe, both sides stop. It doesn't even really matter which version the article stays in as long as we are talking and not reverting... Qwyrxian (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, John Smith's, you and your gang just cannot provide any valid reason to remove the tag, can you? STSC (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

STSC, that is not a helpful comment. Tagging articles are designed to raise awareness for discussions, not lodge an official protest. If you look at the NPOV page you will see that it states that articles should be tagged only as a last resort. We can't be at the "last resort" stage if we're aware of the situation and discussing it. John Smith's (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You should be careful about what you say, User:STSC. Assuming bad faith is a very bad thing in WP and can give people an excuse to report you for being unWP:CIVIL or having WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob, your sarcasm really does you no favours. You didn't learn anything from the discussion on Wikiquette alerts, did you? John Smith's (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not much. But let's see... I did learn that you are a person who finds fault in a lot of things. I also learned that a combination of diff's and wiki-lawyering can be quite useful for smearing or character assassination. Then additionally, I was made aware of a few things about User:Qwyrxian.

Anyhow, the Wikiquette did open up some nice opportunities that were previously unavailable. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to those who like to remove the tag {{POV-title}}: The dispute here and its long history have enough reason to have this tag put on. If you ask RS, it is easily found out from the dispute history, as I said all of evidence has been listed out but the problem is how to interpret them. The POV tag is not only for editors, it is for wiki and its READERS too. Go back my starting point: please respect wikipedia's reputation. If you leave such obvious POV title/name without this POV tag, it will make a lot of readers distrust this article at their first glance at the title. I prefer moving this article under a dual name and believe I can find automatically get supporters, but I respect those editors holding opposing opinion. So keep that tag on is the best way we can do for now.--Lvhis (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, as I pointed out on your talk page, you haven't said why you want the tag on the article. It isn't a means of registering a protest, it is to seek attention to a problem. The NPOV dispute page makes it clear that you should use a tag as a last resort, i.e. if you can't get attention without it.

You should not look for supporters, that would be canvassing. You have to raise the issue in an impartial way. It's clear that you're not getting traction here. You might want to try putting arguments forward here for a bit longer, but if not I suggest you try other venues. The first one would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, as then you will get specific feedback on whether it is POV/NPOV to have a title like this if ownership of the islands is disputed. You could subsequently try raising a proposal on Wikipedia:Requested moves to try to formally move the page. Separately you can leave a message on Wikipedia talk:Article titles to ask if there are any other good venues for discussion.

I wouldn't mind you putting the tag on so much if I thought this would settle the matter once and for all. But it won't. You're not the first editor to want the article's name changed and you won't be the last. But the simple fact of the matter is that when a subject is heavily disputed some people will always be unhappy. So if we followed the logic that whilst there is a dispute over something the article must always be tagged, every article like this would forever have an NPOV tag on it. That's not what the tags are for. John Smith's (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's， the tag is not for "protest" at all. Please do not misunderstand or misinterpret this. Please review what I have said in itme 1 through 5 of my note on 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC) above and the one just beyond yours above. This does be an almost last resort, at least for now. When I said "I can find supporters" I mean I can get supporters automatically. Anyway, instead of moving the page under a dual title, no matter through me or through requesting Wikipedia:Requested moves, I, maybe plus others shown by recent edit history, believe the realistic way or last resort is keeping that tag on.--Lvhis (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Lvhis, I'm not following you. What is having the tag on the article going to achieve? John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a {{POV}} tag (albeit a slightly different one) before and User:John Smith's the one who removed it. Somehow, I managed to miss it, but then the page was flooded with edits and it's not something I noticed. But to provide a fair argument, the act of moving sovereignty dispute materials to a sub-page does not necessarily remove POV content. Anyhow, there are 4 editors who thought the tag should stay. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For John Smith's again, please review the point 5 of my note on 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC) and my note on 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC) again. Wikipedia is a free Encyclopedia, and it is not only for registered editors/users. It is also for readers. Keeping that POV-Title tag on this article will achieve a point keeping Wikipedia standing for its NPOV as far as it can under current difficult situation over the hot dispute on the title/name. Otherwise, I can just simply move the whole pages of this article as I said at my very beginning.--Lvhis (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that I think that John Smith and Lvhis are each only half right about the purpose of tags of this type. I do believe that it's not about just notifying people, and we can't remove it just because some editors are now aware of the concern. However, I think Lvhis is also wrong in that the tag can't just stay up because the article isn't being moved. In other words, the tag can stay on if an only if we are going to engage, now, in a protracted discussion of the potential POV of the article title. That is, the tag is supposed to start discussion on the title. It can't exist in lieu of discussion on the title. So, Lvhis and STSC, you can't say "We don't like the decision that was come to earlier, so we're going to put up a tag to say the decision is wrong." However, you can put up the tag to say "We think that the decision that was made earlier was wrong, and we need to keep discussion it more," and then begin such a discussion here (with, as always, both sides presenting evidence, policy arguments, etc.). I guess we would need another RfC (this time, not drafted by me, since one of the complaints is that I drafted it unfairly last time). If that fails, we'd have to try mediation, which would fail, because someone will refuse to enter mediation. Eventually, if one side can show consensus, then the issue has to go away, with either the article being moved or the tag being removed. But you can't just go to an article, say "I see a history of dispute here, I'm going to add a tag, but I'm not going to actually discuss how to remove the tag." Furthermore, the stance cannot be "The tag stays up until the article changes names." It needs to be "The tag stays up until we come to a consensus about whether or not the title meets our title guidelines (including NPOV)." So, for those that want the tag, are you prepared to start this discussion again in full? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think more accurately, User:Lvhis is saying there is an unresolved POV-issue.Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; then we need to start discussing again (as much as I don't see the point). Also, there needs to be a point at which we move on. In other words, if we're going to have this discussion again, we need new information, new evidence, new arguments. I can accept that there are still things to say on this topic; for instance, we still haven't identified what term is used in regular, recent, paper encyclopedias (one of the tests recommended in the guidelines). But simply saying "this isn't over yet", at some point, becomes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Maybe we're not there yet, but we're pretty darn close. So; I believe the tag can stay if and only if we are going to discuss the issue further. Do an RfC, a RM, make a mediation request, even just start a regular discussion in a new section with new points. But the choice is not "move the article or accept the tag." It's "work towards consensus on whether or not this article title is POV and/or should be changed." Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not very nice to assume WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when a number of us have provided good reasons on why the previous RfC's (including the one you put up) had major issues. Anyway, I will let you guys take the lead if this matter is to be brought up again. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Qwyrxian: I am afraid it is not proper for you to cite WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for here the current situation. The very appropriate or fit wp policy for this case is here Wikipedia:POV Cleanup. The current single title is a POV one, or alternatively, if the title is "Diaoyu Islands" it is also a POV one. No consensus has been reached now, and the dispute has not been solved. Therefore, the tag POV-Title should be there. Those users removing the tag have violated this POV Cleanup policy. Another option is: move the pages under "Diaoyu Islands" and keep the POV-Title tag on the top. Let me finish here with the content of the tag: "The neutrality of this article's title, subject matter, and/or the title's implications, is disputed. This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints or other implications of the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Someones interpret this tag in an ORG way. That is wrong. Whether a new RfC and so on is needed immediately or soon after the tag on is not a determinant for whether this tag should be there.--Lvhis (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that maintenance tags may be removed if there is no discussion on the talk page to support their continued place on the article. You cannot just leave the tag and then walk away from the article. We are challenging your addition of the tag. We say that there is no POV issue here, because the article title accurately reflects the most common name of the islands as used in high quality sources. If the title does that, it's not a POV title. I'm trying to say that if you (or someone else who wants the tag there) is willing to discuss the title, and work to determine whether or not the title is POV, then the tag can be there; I'd even recommend protecting the article to keep the tag in place while we (once again) sort this out. But I would expect a serious discussion, and a discussion that involves something new. I accept Bobthefish2's criticsm that the previous RfC "had major issues". I don't agree, but that's obviously because I wrote it and it got the result that I believe is correct per policy/guidelines. Because I seemingly never tire of this, I can handle going once more around the block on whether or not the title matches our title guidelines. Adding a title and then intentionally refusing to discuss the issue is simply not acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a few things: What high quality sources are you referring to? How comprehensive is your analysis? What were the dates of those sources? Unless I somehow have memory issues, I believe ample evidence were provide to you that many high throughout analyses did not support your this clear majority you were talking about.

Also, if you are unable to acknowledge some of the concerns that were brought up regarding the matter, then I believe we might have some problems here. Maybe I should go through exactly why that RfC was bad? Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we break this off in a new section? I just want to separate out the "discussion about what the title should be" from the "discussion about whether the article should have a POV tag." Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just deal with the POV first. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit-dispute on putting POV-Title template was not worsen yet, while suddenly this article has been fully protected. I still want to clarify some points with Qwyrxian.

1. "You cannot just leave the tag and then walk away from the article."--This is an assumption which is against WP:AGF. You should only say this AFTER the POV-Title tag has stayed there for QUITE A WHILE, but neither BEFORE, nor it was JUST added on and astonishingly was removed only within several hours. Also, all users/editors for wiki are volunteers, some of them are quite busy in their real life, some may not be that busy and can put a lot of time devoting here. Please be little bit more patient, and this is also asked by wiki's civil policy.
2. You and someones say "that there is no POV issue here" and use this as a reason to object that POV tag. This is totally wrong. Why? Because in all instances where a POV tag is used, one party there said there is no POV issue in that way and the other party said there IS POV issue in that way, that is the exact circumstance where a POV template shall be applied for. When a part of an article has been exist there, the editors who wrote it and their supporters of course think no POV issue there, while other editors and users with different views of course think there does be POV issue there. If the dispute cannot be solved quickly or very soon, then a POV template can be used. This is a very good point of Wikipedia, a Free Encyclopedia. If your such reason or logic can stand, Wikipedia shall not need any POV templates at all! Please review the Wikipedia:POV Cleanup again.
3. Should "Whether the article should have a POV tag" be a new section? I do not think so. I think my first 2 points above have been quite clear to state why I don't think so. The POV tag ought not to be a problem at beginning. Unfortunately, the article has been locked without that tag reflecting the fact that there is an unsolved dispute on the title. Actually, when I saw Bobthefish2's earliest note after mine before I saw yours on the day 1 of this section, I stopped my initial attempt moving the pages, to learn the dispute history and to start discussing.

--Lvhis (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

---

I would like to suggest one minor change, which is to change the initial definition of the Senkaku/Diaoyu/not-getting-involved-in-that-one, from "uninhabited islands" to "uninhabited rocks". The term "island," under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is defined as some piece of land that is inhabitABLE--that it, not necessarily inhabited, but capable of supporting human life. See UNCLOS article 121. Although some of the Senkaku are above water enough to constitute slightly more than a "reef" (something that is only above water at low tide), they are not large enough or even capable of being developed into truely inhabited "islands". 67.190.227.132 (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)AED.

I believe that some of the "formations" are of sufficient size to be called islands. John Smith's (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is very POV. Look at the Liancourt Rocks article, which doesn't use Dokdo, or Takeshima, despite Korean de-jure control over the islands. It should be called the Pinnacle Islands, and Diaoyutai and Senkaku should be redirected to Pinnacle islands, just like Dokdo/Takeshima is redirected to Liancourt islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

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 keeping 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 a 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)