Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Confusing first paragraph

The first paragraph start off by saying the uninhabited islands are claimed by the People's Republic and Republic of China. Japan's "claim" is only mentioned after this and nowhere in the first paragraph is the fact the island are currently under defacto Japanese control mentioned - this fact is only mentioned much further down in the article in a different section. Saying the islands are under Japanese administration now is NPOV and certainly does not mean an editor is taking a side in the conflict - its just simply stating a fact. I changed the first paragraph to mention the current Japanese administration of the island. I hope nobody has a problem with that. --Westee 12:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Check talk:Liancourt Rocks - Apparently, many Japanese editors are against the word "administration". Deiaemeth 06:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I used the word control which to me seem more appropriate when discussing an unihabited region. Either way the current defacto status must be discussed in the first paragraph in my opinion, just like the claims. --Westee 08:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay! Deiaemeth 08:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right! So I made the dispute on the first line. Control imply military intervention of which differs from administration which is paper pushing. Defacto in what context? The islands are in dispute!

Hd8888 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Be responsible and stay neutral. It is clear from the international treaties sign in Egypt after WWII, Japan's only territory is of its 5 main islands. These islands are not US teritories to give Japan to administer or control. Did the Japanese SDF stop the Taiwanese Frigate, or the Chinese naval convoy? I thought not. With the page neutrality already in dispute why insit on revisionism that is clearly US or Japan leaning. Vandalism is with clear intention to cause harm.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/documents/potsdam.html

"(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. "

"We" are Allied powers NOT japan.

http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/diaohist.html

"The Cairo Declaration jointly issued by China, the United States and British during World War II stipulates the return to China by Japan of all the territory she had stolen from China during and after the Japan-Ching war, including Taiwan and Manchuria. The Potsdam Proclamation issued by the allies stipulates that Japan must carry out the clauses of the Cairo Declaration. These islands have been automatically reverted to China as its territory just as Taiwan has been automatically returned to China from the time Japan unconditionally accepted the Cairo Declaration and the Posdam Proclamation and surrendered to the allies including China...one should reject the name Senkaku Islands, which was adopted by Japanese militarism after seizing them from China"

It is clear, the title "Senkaku" is already offensive in wording. By imposing "Control" or "administrative" in the introduction clearly stipulates the ignorance of the issue and its bias leaning. The only vandals I see is one of ignorance.

Hd8888 03:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Senkaku" is what most people refer to them as. It has also been agreed on other similar pages to use such a term - eg "Dokdo". It is also true that the islands are controlled by and administered by Japan. This can be seen by the fact that neither China nor Taiwan attempt to stop Japanese people going there, whereas the Japanese coastguard removes protestors that go there from either place. John Smith's 18:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Senkaku" is what most people refer to them as. You have sources to back that up? I'm sure all those Chinese who are pissed at the Japanese about this certainly don't refer to them as the "Senkakus"...--Comrade Conrad 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The last incident was a Taiwanese Frigate. You think the japansese SDF did not detect the ship. What you claim as truth is in fact still developing. I don't see how control would be more neutral than just list the claims.

Hd8888 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Taiwanese frigate did not actually go to the islands, it just went around the waters in protest. As I have said before, Japan has actually initiated all the "security" activities regarding the island. Neither China nor Taiwan has put any "security" personnel onto the islands or into its immediate vicinity. Only Japan has. Japan also had the claim before China and Taiwan - they only became interested when the UN suggested there was oil there.

In any case, this only follows the method used on the Dokdo page. If you can get them to agree to a change then perhaps we can do it at the same time. Otherwise it's silly to change one and leave the other. John Smith's 19:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Dokdo page. There's nothing silly in keeping article neutral when it clear has a bias intro. If merely suggesting the existence of frozen gas deposites on the chinese continental shelf, then japan has already lost its claim. The japanese coast guard forces to few civilian protestors, only when convenient. Why would they not arrest the entire Chinese naval convoy when they were surveying the site. Control is still relative, thus not neutral. It is not for you or I to decide except keeping the article neutral. neutrality is not about popular voting either.

Hd8888 21:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it has been decided that how wiki deals with both this and the Dokdo pages are important. See the discussion about renaming the page below.

This isn't about the gas fields at all. The PLAN ships went near the gas fields - the Senkakus weren't the issue. Japan is the only country to repeatedly have demonstrated any control over the islands. They've put lighthouses up, etc. China and Taiwan have done nothing, other than seen protestors kicked off. They aren't removed when convenient, they're removed when they get there - end of story. John Smith's 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's under Japan's "administration" for the time being. Wait till the balance of power shifts to PLAN favor, and we'll see who controls it next...--Comrade Conrad 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So with your logic, being your neighbor, I can camp out in your yard and claim it is mine just as long if you don't bother me? What is wrong with staying neutral in a dispute? You can say administration. But you can not say control. So now it's not about the gas field? It's about a lighthouse illegally place there without asking the owner? So JP administrates it, now they own it? Your edits are clearly expressing a bias view. Check POV. Hd8888 00:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't hide an obvious bias to Japan if you clearly state japanese control in the intro page as well as the dispute section. It clearly does not make the article neutral when the sovergnty of the territory is THE dispute of the claims. In some case the truth is relative. In this case, it seems like whom ever keep censoring out the other point of view. This clearly violates NPOV. In addition, it also display a lack of knowledge to the bias censor.

Hd8888 15:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you that wants to censor in the name of the "truth"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V

Hd8888 15:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's sad. A few pro-japanese vandals choose to degrade wiki information over political agendas. Come on, make your point, talk. If you feel that Japan's claim is the only "truth". I hope this page does stay in the JPwiki project, since the JPs really need to take more history lesson.

Hd8888 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've been blocked for 24 hours for your 3RR, I hope you will continue this discussion in a more civilised way. I have been good enough not to throw insults at you. If you care so much about wiki policy, the least you can do is follow its rules concerning how we interact with each other. John Smith's 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's funny stuff. Someone actually took it personal for me to ask then to post talks in the discussion page. I'll be back cheers!

Hd88888 18:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you wouldn't mind if I called you a pro-Chinese vandal then? I guess that's in wikipedia's etiquette guidelines. Well if that's the case then you obviously haven't learnt to treat other people on this board with more respect, which will probably land you more bans. John Smith's 18:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You should check your own talk page before accusing others. I like your other edits, but on this page you clearly decide to take side on an on going issue. Hd8888 16:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Natural resources

I had heard that the islands have some sort of onshore or offshore oil reserves or something of the like. Does anyone know about this? With all this fuss about these islands they must have something, either resources or a strategic location or something. Any ideas from anyone? 129.12.200.49 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not oil but gas. The islands matter because nautical borders are measured from the coastline. So whoever owns the islands owns most of the waters lying south of Japan. And these waters contain a field of natural gas both countries could use very well indeed. See: "China en Japan ruziën om olie en gas" in De Standaard 14/04/2005 (Belgian Paper)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Endroit 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This article should be entitled "Pinnacle Islands" or...

the "Liancourt Rocks" artcle should be changed to "Dokdo". This would make sense in terms of consistency and equal application of titling. See "Liancourt Rocks" and "Senkaku Islands"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liancourt_Rocks

Request for move to Pinnacle Islands.--Sir Edgar 09:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Support per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Visviva 11:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Hong Qi Gong 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Senkaku Islands is the term used in referece works such as Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta. --Kusunose 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kusunose: Are you saying that Senkaku is a neutral name under W:NPOV? Thanks! Tortfeasor 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Following the naming of reference works is in accordance with WP:NPOV. --Kusunose 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Should Dokdo be reverted to Liancourt Rocks, Senkaku MUST be moved to Pinnacle Islands for consistency. If not, Senkaku may remain entitled so. --Sir Edgar 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - As the CIA Factbook shows, these islands are called Senkaku Islands by the United States, which is also the Japanese name.[1] Between 1945 and 1972, the United States has clearly controlled the Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands as part of Okinawa. In 1972, the United States transferred the jurisdiction over to Japan. [2] There are conflicting claims to these islands by the ROC (Taiwan) and the PRC (Mainland China), and there still remains a possibility that these islands will be peacefully handed over to either of the two. However, this is unlikely because the United States and Japan do not have diplomatic relations with the ROC. And there exists an iron curtain between the PRC and United States/Japan. So I believe that the United States and Japan dictate the naming of the islands in this case.--Endroit 07:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - It would be hard to deal with the Republic of China(Taiwan)'s territorial claim under this convention. ROC has territorial disputes with China (whose entire territory), Mongolia (whose entire territory), Russia, Myanmar, Afghanistan, India, Vietnam, and most of Southeast Asia nations. Should we name all above "disputed areas" with "more neutral English names"?--Captain0 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose With contested territories such as these where the naming is itself contentious any name has an element of POV. What is important, then, is what name is most commonly used and as someone who is currently studying East Asian international relations I can testify that Senkaku is by some margin the more common name used in the modern literature, as (to a lesser extent) is Dokdo (if anyone wishes I can provide a selection of sources as examples). I don't believe I've ever seen the islands referred to as the Pinnacle Islands, typically they are labeled as Senkaku, Senkaku/Diaoyutai or some similar variation. I also don't believe it's a particularly good idea to needlessly confuse matters simply because another article has chosen to do so. Daduzi 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Liancourt Rocks is another problem. We must not relate it. How had United States written these islands in U.S. government age(1945-1971)? We must follow it. Reference : All Wikipedias other than Chinese including Korean are writing it as Senkaku.Objectman 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Don't you see the logic under the dokdo-senkaku-pinnacle-liancourt? If you don't want to relate it, then please say why. Then we can talk about it. If you just say NO, then what can I say?

Why should we follow the written documents in 1945-1971? I don't understand. please explain.

And Koreans are not part of Chinese. Those are two different countries. Janviermichelle 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: We need to apply the same standards to all sides in the dispute, i.e., China, Japan, and the Republic of China(Taiwan), and if we do, some ridiculous results can be foreseen, as I pointed above. For example, the official names of Beijing and Ulaanbaatar adopted by the ROC government are different than those used by China and Mongolia, but shall we use some rarely-used English names to replace the real official ones just for NPOV? And, being a Taiwanese, I don't have enough knowledge on the Dokdo islands dispute, and I guess most of the Korean editors don't have enough knowledge on the Senkaku islands dispute either. Different disputes have different natures, it's better to resolve their naming issues case-by-case.Captain0 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks is another problem. Between neutrality and avoiding a name of a related country, both are unrelated.This Wikipedia is English edition. For example, should it be written to English edition Wikipedia as "Daehan-minkook" instead of "Republic of Korea"? Japanese do not protest against the "Kuril islands" because it is a general name in English. But, "Dokdo" is not common.Objectman 16:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this wikipedia is english edition. that's why we use germany for deutschland and japan for nippon etc. but do you have english name for small cities towns and islands? are you gonnna find some weired names like pinnalce and liancourt rocks from historical sources for every towns in every country? that's not possible. find a weird english name (or making up if it doesn't exist) or just use the name what the locals use? Janviermichelle 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not said that it should give the name of the English style. I have said that it should attach a general name in English.Objectman 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In your theory, Kuril Islands dispute will be referred to as not being a neutral title. Bur, Japanese don't oppose it because "Kuril" is general English name.Objectman 06:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I think that the special consistency should not be suggested as a reason for the chage of the title, because it may violate consistency based on other point of view.Reito-maguro 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The other article is at Dokdo, so this stays where it is. —Nightstallion (?) 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose.It does not know why it links with the dispute over Takeshima islands.Support is impossible unless it can be convinced to it. --Celldea 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - There are no dominion struggle between Japan and the Chinese Communist Party. As you know, Senkaku islands are well known to world that they are Japanese island. Comparing with Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) is nonsense. -- Himawarichan 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

double standard. Janviermichelle 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose --nachi 06:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following opinions (not votes as this article is not officially up for move yet) did not follow the request for Support or Oppose comments and thus are not relevant to the discussion.

Conditional Support: If we were not to maintain double standards on matters some editors deem controversial, should Dokdo remain as it is, it should remain as Senkaku Islands. If Dokdo were to be removed back to Liancourt Rocks, it should be moved to Pinnacle Islands. Deiaemeth 18:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support: SAME as what Deiaemeth just said. Janviermichelle 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Conditional support/Conditional oppose. My logic is exactly the same as those of Deiaemeth on Dokdo-Senkaku-Pinnacle-Liancourt. Mr Tan 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for the article to be moved to Pinnacle Islands and Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks. English names must prevail over local names in all cases. Masterhatch 19:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I must add that while i agree with renaming this article Pinnacle Islands and the other article remaining at Liancourt Rocks, in no way do i feel that the two articles should be tied in together. If this voting is to mean anything, the voting must be separate for the two articles. The only way that the two articles should be tied in together is if it was a vote for all of wikipedia and it was stated something like "all articles in wikipedia are to use neutral english names and not local names or spellings even if the actual English name is less common than the local name in popular media." since this is not encompasing all of wikipedia, then we must separate these articles in the voting. Masterhatch 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What I think you overlook is that Senkaku (or Senkaku/Diaoyutai) is the English name for the islands, at least in the vast majority of scholarly work, journalism and political commentary. Parcel Islands is very seldom used. English names don't have to be made up of English words. Daduzi 23:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Senkaku Islands and Liancourt Rocks is different problem.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I agree with the decision that Senkaku Islands should not be moved at this time. Perhaps my call for a poll was premature. As long as Dokdo stays where it is, then there is consistent application of NPOV. However, should Dokdo be moved back to Liancourt Rocks, I think this issue must be brought up again.--Sir Edgar 01:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Deiaemeth 08:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Japanese Opinion

Japan is made to war against China. And, South Korea obtains an advantage. The strategy of Edger is very excellent. Edger is ideal and great Korean. --70.159.21.50 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Korean, but thanks!!! I've been called everything from "pro-Chinese" to "anti-Malaysian". I'll just add you to the list of Japanese who thinks anyone critical of Japan's foreign policy must be "a dirty Korean"!--Sir Edgar 01:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do really think Koreans are neutral??? Both China and Korea have dominion problem between Japan. We can easily guess that Koreans would help Chinese for anti-Japanese sentiment. Korea is not neutral, and Korea have no relation with this problem between Japan and China. -- Himawarichan 01:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI- The above user Himawarichan has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. Probably for incessant vandalism. I don't know. This is despite my friendly warning against vandalism.--Sir Edgar 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm British, so I hope my view can be accepted as neutral (though I lived in China for a time, I honestly have no bias towards China, Taiwan or Japan in this matter). I would stress again what I said earlier: the most important issue is what name is most commonly used. I think everyone discussing this issue needs to read Wikipedia:Naming conflict carefully. In particular the following section is very relevant:

---

Article names Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.

The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).

Proper nouns The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

---

It needs to be stressed that nowhere is the naming of other articles mentioned. Whether the Dokdo article remains at Dokdo or is moved to Liancourt Rocks is something for the editors of that article to decide, based on the criteria above. This naming of this article should remain a separate issue, again based on the criteria above. Those who wish to move it need to show that Pinnacle Islands is the most common name of the islands, nothing else matters. --Daduzi 08:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What matters to me is the consistent application of Wikipedia rules.--Sir Edgar 01:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but I'd stress again that the rule is that "the most common use of a name takes precedence." If Senkaku is the most common name of these islands, and Liancourt Rocks the most common name of the others, then naming this article Senkaku and the other Liancourt Rocks is a consistent application of Wikipedia rules. --Daduzi 08:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think "Liancourt Rocks" is the most common name? It's not. It's "Dokdo". Google search reveals 653,000 hits for Dokdo vs. 64,300 hits for Liancourt Rocks.--Sir Edgar 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the most common name, I merely said if it was the most common name... The simple fact is that all that matters is what the most common name in English is, and if the editors of the other article choose to change the name to "Liancourt Rocks", even though that isn't the most common name, it doesn't mean this article should also go against Wikipedia guidlines. --Daduzi ^talk 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In the case of "Senkaku Islands" and "Dokdo", both are the names given by the administering countries and also the most common names. So, we're in agreement then.--Sir Edgar 02:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Common as in what context? You have 1 billion+ chinese known these islands as their historical names. You have 127 million Japanese 80% of which don't care about politics. And another 300 million Americans that can't even name the capital of their home state. Administration is just that between US and Japan. Even Europeans wouldn't call it Senkaku. Hd8888 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Common in English usage. Again, read Wikipedia:Naming conflict, the details are spelled out quite clearly there. These aren't rules I just made up, they're well established Wikipedia guidelines. And you're wrong as regards Europeans, I'm European and I've read the islands named as Senkaku in many, many European newspaper and journal articles. --Daduzi ^talk 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, if Chinese people say the sky is green, then the Japanese must agree, simply because there are more of them. Ridiculous.--Sir Edgar 06:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And clearly these are either Japanese or Chinese terms. Surprise! I'm European too. I won't debate you on wording, but I would contest on accuracy and neutrality. Most media outlets are filled with filled with mistakes. And btw, the sky is green and the Japanese do agree that is green, cause they took it! Hd8888 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They're originally Japanese or Chinese terms, but they're also used in English (just like Beijing or Tokyo). Are we supposed to rename the Hawaii article "Sandwich Islands", since "Hawaii" isn't an English word? As to the media making mistakes, I'll stress again that it's not important what the legally correct or morally correct name is, only what name is most commonly used (this is quite clear from Wikipedia:Naming conflict), so whether it's mistaken or not is irrelevant: if it's the most common name, that's what the article should be called. Besides, it's not just the media, academic books and journals also overwhelmingly use Senkaku (alongside Diaoyutai), and almost never use Pinnacle Islands. --Daduzi ^talk 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." I am not debating over the title of the article, rather the neutrality and the description. I have not attempted to redirect the pages, but only to neutralize the introduction as administration is inevitably a different word from control. Even the US government will not assert that. Again, anyone can tell that the Wiki naming convention and the POV policy is in conflict. Google search or not. Hd8888 21:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're not debating the title of the article, then what are you debating with me? --Daduzi ^talk 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, if this page is to remain with the current title, and part of the wikiJP project, I hope you all try and stay as neutral as possible. Since JP is already a very ethnocentric society, it just hurt JP society more if even public wiki articles becomes a political point.

Hd8888 00:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Taiwan Province" - PRC POV

This is POV garbage and should be changed as it does not reflect reality.

"The islands are currently administrated by Japan as a part of Ishigaki City, Okinawa prefecture. In China, it is a part of Taiwan province (Daxi Village (大溪里), Toucheng Township, Yilan County, Taiwan Province)."

Suggestion:

"The islands are currently _administered_ by Japan as a part of Ishigaki City, Okinawa prefecture."

"Administrated" isn't the same as "administered" - the correct term is most certainly "administered". Furthermore, as neither the PRC or ROC have control of the islands, it isn't really part of any PRC or ROC administrative region and hence any suggestion of this should be dropped. This appears to be a lame attempt to introduce pro-PRC POV and doesn't serve any useful purpose.

Zerot 05:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just change "In China, it is a part of..." to "According to both the PRC and ROC, it is part of..." and be sure to link to Taiwan Province--Jiang 07:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ROC vs. Taiwan

The entity that is disputing the control of the islands is the ROC, not Taiwan. The two are different. The ROC is a government, Taiwan is just an island. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're driving a personal position over Chinese nationalism - as somehow I doubt you believe Taiwan should be able to have formal independence - too far. Relatively few people know what the ROC is. However many more have heard of Taiwan. Taiwan is also the most commonly term used in media these days - not the Republic of China. Besides while you talk about the "entity" of the ROC, do you even recognise it as a legitimate entity? Because the ROC is not a properly recognised government in international circles.

Taiwan is only put in brackets with ROC for informative purposes. I don't think any reasonable person can object to it. Of course if someone replaced "Republic of China" with Taiwan I would agree. But it is not, so what is your problem? John Smith's 15:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have stated my reason for the edit. I'm not sure why you are questioning my personal political opinions or implying I have some ulterior motives for the edit. Check the China article, the ambiguous disclaimer at the top says "Republic of China (Taiwan)", but you'll notice that I haven't tried to edit that.

But to answer your question anyway - of course I think the ROC government is "legitimate". It has de fact sovereignty in Taiwan despite the fact that it is not officially recognised internationally. If I fall under your assumptions of my nationalistic intent, I would be trying to edit out the mention of the ROC government entirely or insist on adding that the ROC government is a rogue or illegitimate regime. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire point is that this is not the China article. It's an easy reference - why is it forbidden for adding a helpful identifying reference like "Taiwan"? John Smith's 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the reference is incorrect. Just like China or mainland China does not just redirect to People's Republic of China, Taiwan does not just redirect to Republic of China. The sentence does not say "People's Republic of China (PRC/China)", so why should it say "Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan)"? You may not believe you are making a political statement, but in essense, you are.

But to be honest about it, I don't feel too strongly about this edit. So unless other people agree with me, I'll relent and let you have it the way you want it. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but people KNOW what China is, as in regards the PRC. If you have Republic of China in as well they'll get confused - but not if there's "Taiwan" next to ROC as well.

Daduzi reverted your edits as well, so that indicates the thinks it's ok. John Smith's 16:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do people know of what China is, then? That it does not include Taiwan? That would be POV. Referring China only to the PRC, and not Taiwan, is POV. The same with referring to Taiwan only to the ROC. On the other hand, not mentioning China or Taiwan in reference to what the PRC and the ROC governments claim (which is the context here), would be NPOV. Like I said, you may not think you are making a political statement, but you really are. Saying Republic of China (ROC) without mention of Taiwan, is neutral. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, how can there be TWO Chinas? That is what the first thing that someone will think when they see this page. A reference to Taiwan clears that up immediately.

Oh, ho-ho. So now I'm being political? Well I think you trying to claim mentioning Taiwan as a simple reference is political shows your own inner bias. If you really don't care then you'll drop the issue. If you continue being obstinant then actually you're contradicting your own words through your actions. John Smith's 16:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. And I know I'm awesome, but no need to call me Jesus. I can't live up to the label. I already said I'll let you have your edit so I don't know how I'm being obstinant. I'm just stating my opinion here that the neutral thing to do is to not include Taiwan as an entity that's claiming these islands. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Though the situation seems (thankfully) to have been resolved, I just want to make it clear that my reason for favouring the "Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan)" format is because Taiwan is a commonly used synonym for the ROC, and parentheses are typically used for alternate names. Thus "United Kingdom (UK/Britain)" would, in my opinion, be an acceptable formulation since Britain is often used when referring to the United Kingdom, even though the UK is larger than just Great Britain. I think sometimes it's possible to be too concerned with the correct formulation of things on Wikipedia; what Wikipedia (like any good encyclopaedia) should do is reflect common usage rather than try to determine it. --Daduzi ^talk 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just change it to Peoples Republic of China (PRC/China) and Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) and the situation is resolved, however I feel that most pro-CCPers would find the former reference rather distasteful, but they can't have it both ways. The current sentence reflects common sense and realistic reporting of the situation _as it is currently_ and pro-CCPers have no cause for complaint. Zerot 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Article title needs to be changed to something more neutral

The current singular title "Senkaku Islands" seems to flat out accept Japan's claim that it belongs to them when in fact it is heavily disputed with China. I suggest adding "Diaoyutai Islands" in brackets right after the "Senkaku Islands" to more neutrally reflect current Japanese control over the islands as well as its heavily disputed status.--Lssah 88 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Try telling that to all the japanophiles circling this page like sharks circling a rocky outcrop in the Pacific Ocean... --Sumple (Talk) 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahhah, couldn't agree more. But that will probably also mean we'd have to convince the Koreans to move Dokdo back to Liancourt Rocks.  :-p --- Hong Qi Gong 05:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There's basically no precedent on Wikipedia for giving an article two names, with one in parenthesis. As a general principle, we almost always try to find one name—the most common name—and stick to that, while explaining other names in the article text. Now, I know next to nothing about the Diaoyutais or the Liancourt Rocks, but, if Senkaku and Dokdo is how they are more commonly known in English, then that's where the articles should be located. It has nothing to do with accepting Japan's claim to sovereignty over the islands.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it though? I've never even heard of the name Senkaku Islands until recently. --Sumple (Talk) 23:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea. I was surprised to find that it hasn't been discussed more thoroughly (ad nauseam) in the past, but there was a move request which gives the impression of a vague consensus that Senkaku is more common.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that "Senkaku" was decided because Japan has effective control over the islands, and not because of common usage? --- Hong Qi Gong 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but, if so, that's not a very good reason.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references, "Senkaku Islands" is the most common name in English.

• Google test: about 77,100 English pages for "Senkaku Islands"[3], 11,400 English pages for "Diaoyutai Islands"[4] and about 216 English pages for "Pinnacle Islands"[5].
• International organisations: The United Nations Cartographic Section lists "Senkaku Island" as "JP Territory" in List of Territories (pdf).
• Major English-language media outlets: At BBC News, seaching Senkaku Islands returns 47 articles while Diaoyutai Islands returns 2. At CNN News, Senkaku Islands returns '193 (estimated)' while Diaoyutai Islands returns '33 (estimated)'.
• Reference works: Columbia Encyclopedia[6] and Encarta[7] uses Senkaku Islands.

--Kusunose 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid these results are unclear. There are an additional 55,000 English google hits for "Diaoyu Islands" and there are 147 hits on BBC news for diaoyu OR diaoyutai vs. 132 for senkaku.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krause is correct. The current results on all major search engines produces number in favor of Daioyutai in some instance and not in others. At the very least, the numbers are close. If search results in the only reason to keep this page's bias title, it should be reviewed.

You will not refer to other users as 'japanophiles' - this is unprofessional and unacceptable. I do not think you would take kindly to being referred to as a 'communist' or any other derogatory reference reflecting your political alignment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.202.87.178 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 August 2006.

Dear anonymous, I don't think "Japanophile" is derogatory reference. It just means "someone who likes Japan."—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a term often used negatively, though, a bit like "fanboy". So the term has to be used carefully.

Anyway, I'm not sure how the article could be titled otherwise. It is the term most commonly used in English from what I've seen. John Smith's 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No offence, John Smith's, (and not accusing you of being a fanboy), but what you have seen could be biased by your affinity with Japanese culture rather than Chinese. --Sumple (Talk) 00:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more fuel to the fire, "Proceeding from the Japanese people stand of opposition to militarism, one should reject the name Senkaku Islands, which was adopted by Japanese Militarism after seizing them from China. Use the only correct name in history, namely, the Tiaoyu (Diaoyutai) Island" ----------- Japanese historian Kiyoshi Inoue.

In all seriousness, if "Japanophile" want to keep vandalize this article. I say let them try. After all, no international law is drawn up on wiki articles yet. Ignorance can not be edited, deleted, or interpreted in good context. Ignorance is just plain dumb. I'm glad this issue is active among the general public. As long as it is not butchered, pillaged, raped, beheaded, denied, then ignored, we will be fine. Hd8888 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree, as a neutral international observer, that the article name should be changed to it's English name, or as it is known to the national community prior to the ownership disputes over the last hundred or so years, to retain neutrality. I noted above that there had been a vote on this matter, however on further inspecting each voting users userpage and edits, I found that almost all of those opposed had either edited with interest in, or originated in some way from one of the two countries arguing over the territories and thus causing a cultural astroturfing for lack of a better word.It'd be like saying, "We should change the article about 'suicide bombers' to 'homocide bombers' because that's what it is!" without getting the Islamic community coming through and broadsiding the motion. We need to retain a neutrality if we are to go to another vote and we need a means to be able to do it.Please, before posting to this sub-thread below this line, only contribute if you wish to put forwards a means by which we can have a TRULY LEGITIMATE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW vote without encouraging the astroturf from both pro-China and pro-Japan voters. Keep all "ZOMG HAHA U SPENK MONKEY OBAH HENTAI" shit elsewhere.

Since the Dokdo page has now been changed to its English/NPOV name, it's time for this page to be moved to its respective NPOV name (this being Pinnacle Islands). The reason should be blatantly obvious for those who supported to move the Dokdo page to "Liancourt Rocks". --DandanxD 06:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at with Google Earth, you will see that the islands in dispute are on the continental shelf, clearly not a group of vocano island. While Ryu Kyu and Okinawa are clearly part of the vocano chains. So the wording "vocano" is not a truethful expression. I'm not sure what the Japanese scientists will call them.

Chris from Canada

I don't get it.

This dispute .. it's terra nullius. Thus first person to pitch a flag and settle there owns it. You can't maintain lands outside coastal and economic regional waters and that island falls outside all of the contenders who claim it as theirs. Any international law experts or LOS experts here who can put in their two cents? 211.30.71.59 15:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can be not to get it though Okinawa to Senkaku is much closer compared to UK to Falkland Islands and Hainan to Spratly Islands. Jjok 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

You know the story. Don't edit war. Resolve your disputes some other way. enochlau (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The page protection is highly dubious since obviously you have strong opinion in this issue. I need to ask you why you reverted to the other guy's version before protecting it? If you're an admin and you're involved in an edit war, using your sysop power to justify your POV is a definite no-no.-- 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the editing of this article. All I want to see is the ending of edit warring on this article, among others. The revert was because it seemed to be the version with the highest consensus. Now get on with thrashing out a final peace deal with the others. enochlau (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta, I would like to ask you to create Taiwan-China relations article before add the link to this article. Otherwise, it will just confuse people.--Jjok 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure I will do that as long as the admins don't delete it. And as for the comment above, I simply don't get why you would need to revert it to one of the version and then protecting it. Obviously, you just involved yourself in this edit war to push a controverisial POV. And then Using your special sysop access to shut your opposition down, these are all direct contrast to the optimal admin conduct.--Certified.Gangsta 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your opinion that enochlau is supporting pov and I do not know how administrator should behave in this case very well. However, I feel the revert itself is reasonable to avoid users to guess what is Taiwan-China relations. It is quicker for you to further discuss here

I notice that there is Cross-Strait relations (Taiwan-china relations) so suggest the opening as follows. (Please do not forget to expand Taiwan-china relations article.(^-^))

To anyone who added "China-Taiwan relations": --- from jw919 You should at least make clear two basic things before your addition: 1. It is not correct to write China-Taiwan. You can write "mainland China and Taiwan" - then nobody would debate on this. 2. Both mailand China and Taiwan agree that Diaoyutai Islands (Senkaku Islands) belong to Yilan, Taiwan. Furthermore, mainland China claim Taiwan, as a whole (of course including Diaoyutai Islands), is part of PRC - but this is another topic, not related with Diaoyutai Islands. So, please stop adding sentences like "major issue between mainland China and Taiwan". In the issue of Diaoyutai(Senkaku) Islands, they have the agreement that the islands belong to Taiwan.

Suggestion for unprotection

• the last paragraph of the opening: "Their status has emerged as a major issue in Sino-Japanese relations and Cross-Strait relations."
• add [[Category:Cross-Strait interactions]]

--Jjok 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented your suggestions, and unprotected the article. However, it will quickly go back on protection if the edit war flares up again. enochlau (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Maybe no more the same kind of edit war since User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH has been blocked. ==Jjok 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that the edit war(s) will continue while User:Certified.Gangsta remains unblocked. --Sumple (Talk) 04:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sumple is not in a position to make this accusation when he definitely has a strong POV and is part of the content dispute. In response to the offensive, rude, not to mention unjustified comment above. My main objective is to bring NPOV to Taiwan-China related articles. Advocating me and the blocked user are both troll seemed to be out of personal vendetta. It is worth noting that Sumple placed this attack on an article talkpage in which the content has absolutely nothing to do with the article. No one is edit warring here because a compromise was already reached above, unfortunately an unregistered user (possible sockpuppet) began to distort the information in the article right away without reading what was already on the talkpage, going as far as branding me pushing a Taiwan Indepence POV without justifying his groundless accusation. I find Sumple's comment ridiculously out of place and should be removed accordingly.--Certified.Gangsta 08:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how my statement is an attack on you. You and the anonymous user, and other users prior to this, were engaged in repeated reversions, which is an edit war. Your motives matter not on the question of whether a segment of editorial history constitutes an edit war. For more information, see Wikipedia:Edit war.

On a separate note, you are indeed correct that a compromise was reached with regard to the issue at hand. However, you are not reverting to the compromise version:

• • Here is a diff of your revert: [8];
  • Here is a diff of you changing the wording away from the compromise proposed by Jjok (above): [9].

You should not say you are editing according to consensus when you are blatantly editing against it.--Sumple (Talk) 08:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well no. The version I accepted was [[10]] apparently the unregistered user wasn't happy about it and attempted to play some kinda word game.--Certified.Gangsta 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term "Taiwan-China relations" does not appear to be a part of the consensus as disclosed by the talk page. From the talk page, the consensus would seem to be "Cross-strait relations", which, as you will no doubt note, is a more neutral term than either "Taiwan-China relations" or "Taiwan province-Central government relations". --Sumple (Talk) 10:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the tweaking you did to the article, Sumple. Just make sure no one else try to inject other POVs into this article. happy editing--Certified.Gangsta 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Interetingly, all parties involved originally used the term Angling Island, refering only to the main island, but Japan later decided to give the archipelago a name which is a translation of the English name. When did the name change happen? ----user talk:hillgentleman 07:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles of infdividual islands and rocks

We have had Uotsuri Jima, Uotsuri-jima, Uotsuri jima, Diaoyu Dao, Taisho Jima, Taisho-jima, Taisho jima, and Chiwei Yu of which I redirected to this article since they were just copies of chinese claims of this article and did not contain any island specific information. Now, I found that we have more: (Chris 73, am I listing all?)

• Uotsuri Jima (main), Uotsuri jima, Uotsuri-jima, Uotsuri, Uotsurijima, Uotsuri-Jima, Uotsuri-jima
• Diaoyu Dao (main), Diaoyu dao
• Kuba Jima (main), Kuba jima, Kuba-jima, Kuba-Jima
• Huangwei Yu (main), Huangwei yu
• Taisho Jima (main), Taisho jima, Taishojima, Taisho-Jima, Taisho-jima
• Chiwei Yu (main), Chiwei yu
• Kita Kojima (main), Kitakojima, Kita kojima, Kita-Kojima, Kita-kojima
• Beixiao Dao (main), Beixiao dao
• Minami Kojima (main), Minamikojima, Minami-Kojima, Minami kojima, Minami-kojima
• Nanxiao Dao (main), Nanxiao dao

(It looks like filing a patent...)

Most of the pages has been consists of area and height with some cut/copy and paste edits from this article or can be transferred in this article, such as the nature of Uotsuri Jima and Chiwei Yu is possible the most east island of PRC/ROC. I think the corrective information is more useful for the users rather than scattering it in each article. In addition, 南小島 and 北小島 are ambiguous names for both China and Japan thus it is a bit misleading to connect them to here.

My biggest concern is, of course, unnecessary and unavoidable edit war and consistency of these pages. Current situation just seems like a minefield. Therefore, my suggestion is re-merge/redirect all the above pages to this article and lock them if possible. Jjok 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your view, and I am myself not absolutely certain if the islands should be listed in the main article only or if there should be an article for each island. For a few islands I added additional infos i found (about species living there, hopefully that is non-controversial). As i added some more info on two of the islands, I think these article could stay, as for the others, I hope that eventually there will be more information added. For now, I would be happy to get some input from other editors if there should be separate articles or not. In case the island info stays with the Senkanu article, maybe we should move away from a bulleted list to a number of sub-headings to make the reading easier. In any case, I definitely don't want to quarrel over it, the islands are not really important to me. However, I definitely oppose Yeahsoo creating a POV fork, (which i hope is OK with you). -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

if you want to create Uotsuri Jima record, that is fine, but you move Diaoyu Dao which created first and redirect all chinese name into japanese name is against NPOV, and is not accepted practice, so I moved them back, you can add japannese info on Diaoyu Dao or Chiwei yu record, it is your right. but do not move it.--Yeahsoo 21:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As the Islands are under the control of Japan, they should be listed under their Japanese name (similar to Senkaku being at Senkanu and not at Diaoyutai Island). Creating a POV-Fork to present only one side of the article is not allowed. Also, it is not which article is created first but which is the better version on a Neutral and English encyclopedia. Please do not change it just to improve your countries claims on the islands. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the islands are under control of Japan, US returned them to Japan, and ROC and PRC had never claimed the sovereignty before 1971 affect the popularity and the international view, however, I do not think they do not automatically authorize the choice of the article title. The current title was chosen by voting and I think that's the way how wikipedia works. However, Uotsuri Jima/Diaoyu Dao, Kuba Jima/Huangwei Yu, and Taisho Jima/Chiwei Yu did not pass through the process and my understanding is the parent islands name does not automatically determine the article name of the consisting individual islands and rocks. If I am wrong, things are simple, however, if not, both of the edits are seemingly classified as pov and my opinion is that redirecting all the individual pages to here until we reach to some agreement including the necessity of the individual articles (I also hope some consistency can be achieved throughout the pages in the case and my current opinion is not necessary.)

About the numbers, I purposed to help find them on the map. Jjok 05:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

蛇足: When did China find Chiwei Yu? Is it described in the History of Ming?

I agree with Jjok. Redirect them all to Senkaku. This is ONE issue, not 10 and it all concerns Senkaku Islands. If the community decides that the article should be named Diaoyutai, then those articles should lead to that article. Why create 20 edit wars if we can just settle on one, where a coherent debate can take place? Mackan 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am convinced, i added all the info into the main article. I structured it as subchapters, hope this is OK. Feel free to change it if necessary. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it named Senkaku Islands as the title?

The sovereignty of the islands is clearly disputed and debated. So therefore it should reflect both Chinese and Japanese names to be fair and NPOV. A move is in order. -Nationalist 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't write "Tiaoyutai Islands, Senkaku Islands" if you really want to move it. It just looks stupid and awkward as an article title. I say pick the more commonly used one and make another a redirect. Vic226_(chat) 06:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Vic226 -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Pinnacle Islands since that is a neutral term. -Nationalist 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The discussions are still on this page. See #This article should be entitled "Pinnacle Islands" or... and #Article title needs to be changed to something more neutral.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic reason is that the current title Senkaku Islands has been agreed to be NPOV. This is because Wikipedia Naming Policy essentially says that the only criteria for naming a geographic entity is the name most commonly used in English. Since Senkaku Islands has been agreed to be the most common then that's the title that is used. This is Wikipedia policy. 'The sovereignty of the islands is clearly disputed and debated. So therefore it should reflect both Chinese and Japanese names to be fair and NPOV'. This is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia Naming Rules and thus NPOV policy. Issues such as sovereignty and neutrality don't apply to geographic names; just English usage. The name should only be changed if you can show that another name has a more common English usage. Macgruder 13:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Almost all english sources use both names in their articles. Senkaku Islands is not the most common.

You are contradicting yourself. Neutrality doesn't apply to geographic names? So that means it can be POV? But you say Dokdo is POV and it should be moved. I'm pretty sure NPOV trumps Wikipedia naming policy. Good friend100 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not get some examples together, Good friend? I believe Senkaku is more commonly used, but you are free to try to get a consensus together that it's not. I agree that picking one name out of the dispute when both are used equally (such as the current situation on the Dokdo page) is wrong. In that case, even though it's not the most commonly used English name, and even though it's not a neutral name, it was picked. It fails both tests you put forth. On this article, though, it's not the case. --Cheers, Komdori 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So, whats the case here, then? You still don't answer my question why you are not trying to make this article NPOV, like you are at Dokdo? Ihave stated how they are almost the same in terms of the situation.

As for sources "Senkaku Islands" is not the most commonly used name. Like most name disputes, the sources usually write both names down.

• London times[11]

• Times [12]

• Times [13]

• USA today [14] - unfortunately I can't get the full article Good friend100 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality does not require a double name; see WP:NPOV#Article_naming. We recommend certain types of evidence as to which name is more common; see WP:NCGN for more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As they did with the Dokdo article, this page should be changed to its English name. For those who agreed with the Dokdo-> Liancourt Rocks move but disagrees with my proposal, you're a bloody hypocrite. --DandanxD 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you to find convincing evidence. If you do find that Pinnacle Rocks is indeed the most common name then it should be changed. This equating stuff with Dokdo is a waste of time. Liancourt Rocks was decided as the most common name. Do the same with Senkaku. 221.133.86.254 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, the Liancourt name was decided because it's the most NPOV name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also encyclopedic, academic, and popular English name. Pinnacle Islands seems only achieve neutral and academic so far, but neither popular nor encyclopedic (also seeems ambiguous because of the generality of the word. you can find several kinds of Pinnacle Islands). Senkaku is popular, encyclopedic, English, and maybe neutral in international organizations such as UN according to above survey by Kusunose. I think Daoyu is also popular and may already be English name (you can do the same kind of survey to show the popularity), thus it is natural that the title is chosen or concurrently used among Senkaku and Daoyu, but not Pinnacle, depending on the popularity. (That was the reason I added both Senkaku Islands and Daoyutai Islands in the English name section of the infobox, Hong Qi Gong)

By the way, which is correct, Daoyu Islands or Daoyutai Islands? The former seems popular. Jjok 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure which is more used. But anyway, you have to consider that the very use of either "Senkaku" or "Diaoyutai" is, in fact, POV. And we do not know that every establishment that uses either word are actually neutral. For example, the UN recognises the islands to be Japanese territory - that's a POV problem for us. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan

Template:Disputed islands claimed by Japan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Endroit 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments and counterarguments

OK, HongQiGong, me saying "stalking" was a bit over the top. I made a good faith edit to this page, and I really didn't know that you were editing this page on a regular basis. My bad. Anyway, I don't see why we should add counterarguments to the "Japanese" position, we already have a section on the "Chinese" position.--Niohe 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just to maintain balance. I don't see anything wrong with presenting counter-arguments on each "side" of the argument. A counter-argument is provided on one of the Chinese sections as well, in the "Tokyo court ruling" section. If counter-arguments exist for any of the individual arguments presented, I think we should insert them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, I will take a look at that. But as far as this paragraph is concerned, the fact that the Qing dynasty conquered Taiwan in 1683 is not a particularly strong counterargument, since that fact in and by itself does not mean that the Diaoyu islands were controlled by "China" (neither were they, of course, controlled by "Japan"). Qing authority over Taiwan did not extend beyond the Western coast of the island.--Niohe 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, since no one has responded I will remove the sentence. I think 24 hours have passed since I made my first edit, so I hope I won't be busted for 3RR.--Niohe 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ming and Qing dynasty claims

I added a fact tag after the Qing dynasty claim. I can't really see how the conquest of Taiwan in and by itself meant that China exercised control over the Diaoyu islands. That is next to impossible to prove, especially since no government exercised full control over Taiwan proper prior to the Japanese occupation 1895. If the point is that the government of the PRC makes that claim, this should be made explicit and an appopriate source added. Actually, I think both the Chinese and Japanese claims sections should be merged for better clarity. For instance, to write "Ming dynasty claim" makes it look as if the Ming dynasty actually claimed the islands, which would be difficult to prove. --Niohe 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No government exercised full control over Taiwan proper prior to the Japanese occupation 1895??? Define the term "full control"? If you count the revolts of Taiwanese and native people during Japanese occupation, actually, I think the only government has the full control is the ROC government nowaday.--Jerrychen0067 10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove the source I provided. The sources on both sides of the argument can be said to be POV. But that's why we include both sides of the argument in order to achieve NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article also have a "Disputed Title" banner?

Why does only the Dokdo article have a "Disputed Title" banner and not this one? The name of the islands is clearly in dispute.--222.233.205.193 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if Dokdo's name has been changed to Liancourt Rocks, NOT Dokdo or Takeshima, this island should be definately called "Pinnacle Islands". If this is not fair, dokdo should be renamed Dokdo or I would think wikipedia is definately leaning onto the Japanese side JustShin 10:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. I hope Wikipedia to be consistent on all naming issues. Several users in the Talk:Dokdo page have claimed that Dokdo renamed to Liancourt Rocks because it is English Wikipedia, and commonly used English name. Even though Dokdo is also widely used in many English books and documents. If that's how it works, the Japanese name Senkaku should be changed to Pinnacle. Pinnacle is commonly used and English, While Senkaku is not English word. Motivr 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article to "Pinnacle Islands"?

In light of the recent article move at Liancourt Rocks, I want to formally bring up this discussion again to possibly rename the article to "Pinnacle Islands". From what I can gather at the Liancourt article, the disagreement basically broke down to the issue of whether to adhere to NPOV or not. I personally think we should move this article to the Pinnacle name in order to be NPOV. Since both the names of "Senkaku" and "Diaoyutai" are names advanced by governments in a territory dispute, "Pinnacle Islands" is the most NPOV alternative for the islands. Some points I would like to bring up:

1. The supposed "neutral" sources that we might find that use either "Senkaku" or "Diaoyutai" are not necessarily neutral. For example, the UN actually recognises the islands to be Japanese territory - that's a definite NPOV problem for us. And a news source like BBC News that's usually known for being neutral does take a side in certain disputes - it continues to use the name of "Burma" to refer to Myanmar even though "Myanmar" is the English name officially recognised by the government of Myanmar. And really, it can be said that the very use of either the "Senkaku" name or the "Diaoyutai" name makes a source bias.
2. Google search and even Google Book searches are inherently inaccurate - depending on how many pro-Japan or pro-China writers or bloggers are writing about the island dispute, you will get more hits for either "Senkaku" or "Diaoyutai".
3. In past discussions about renaming, people have cited that they wished the article to remain at "Senkaku" because Japan controls the islands - but this is not a written rule in any policy or guideline, and it violates NPOV in the existence of a territory dispute.
4. Also in past discussoins, people have cited that they wished the article to remain at "Senkaku" because the Liancourt article was named "Dokdo", for consistency sake. The Liancourt article has been renamed now, so we should do the same here for this article.

Please voice your opinions and concerns. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to get as involved in this article as I did at Liancourt Rocks, but I'd like to toss in my 2 cents on this issue. The article should be renamed to Pinnacle, for the same reasons we decided to move Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks. Pinnacle is the Western name and it's NPOV, because it doesn't support either the Japanese or Chinese claims. NPOV trumps usage in cases involving disputed names. Parsecboy 03:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I support Senkaku Islands on the same ground as I supported Liancourt Rocks - Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Senkaku Islands is the most commonly used term in encyclopedias; see Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta. On the other hand, searching "Pinnacle Islands" on those encyclopedias (and Britannica) does not bring relevant results. --Kusunose 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That name, however, still violates NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is chosen in accordance to Wikipedia:Naming conflict and that guideline is "within the bounds of the NPOV policy". --Kusunose 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, firstly, that "Columbia Encyclopedia" link you provided goes to a WP mirror, so of course it says Senkaku, because that's the current name of this article. Secondly, Encarta MSN does not establish most common English usage. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The link I provided has both Columbia and Wikipedia articles in the same page. Here is another link for Columbia's Senkaku article. --Kusunose 09:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo is definetly more widely spoken than Liancourt, but Kusnose wanted the article to be changed to Liancourt for NPOV. I think Kusunose is counterpointing his argument. He is supporting Japan.Kingj123 05:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and comment on the issue at hand. Commenting on an editor like that is not helpful. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When Dokdo was renamed last year, the naming of Senkaku islands was one of good reference to do so. All the reasonings were so similar and the situation was so, too. Now that the article is renamed to Liancourt Rocks, which is practically dead word, but still preferred by slighlty more editors than Dokdo as English name, I don't see any problem to change Senkaku to Pinnacle. It is not important that some encyclopedias use some names for some objects. They are largely relics of old days which don't reflect current situations well. Rather, what is more important is whether it is the most common ones. If you don't find the most common ones, then go back to those old and dead english names, even though they are no more (frequently) used. That's what happened on dokdo article. Senkaku is not a English word and it is always accompanied by Diaoyutai. There is no reason to stick to Senkaku. Ginnre 06:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For me, the issue is pretty basic - why use a POV name when a neutral alternative is available? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because those allegedly neutral ones are not the most common ones these days. Furthermore, those english names largely originated from the imperialistic expansionism in the 19th century. In this world of political corectness, nobody wants to use such words any more. Ginnre 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of these names may or may not be "most common", but they're still POV - something that I think needs to be given consideration in the availability of neutral alternatives. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong wrote "And a news source like BBC News that's usually known for being neutral does take a side in certain disputes - it continues to use the name of "Burma" to refer to Myanmar even though "Myanmar" is the English name officially recognised by the government of Myanmar." But the question (for the BBC) is is the government of Burma the legitimate government? AFAICT in this case the word Myanmar is used in Wikipedia because it seems that is common in American English, but not so common in British English, so to date the argument seems to be that it falls under the WP:MOS#National varieties of English.

If a WP:RM request is made I think it should be laid out in the same format as the recent Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 . With only support in the survey and all the common possible options listed eg: "Senkaku Islands" "Diaoyutai Islands" "Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands" "Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands", "Pinnacle Islands" etc. With this type of survey, second preference opinions are encouraged. For example if the "Keep the article at Dokdo" supporters had cast a second preference for "Move to Dokdo/Takeshima" that might well have been the compromise that came out of the survey. Only choosing one desired option and sticking to that and not considering a compromise may well lead to the survey throwing up a name that is unacceptable to a large minority. This is not the intention of these surveys, the idea is that people change their opinions to find one around which a consensus can be built even if it is not the initial first choice of anyone. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't given this a lot of thought already, but there are a few key differences between this and Liancourt. On that page, the usage of Takeshima and Dokdo were virtually identical on the web, and all standard reference sources were using Liancourt, so common use wasn't really an argument. In this case, almost all standard reference sources use Senkaku, and google shows a massive number more for Senkaku (many times the number of the Chinese name).

Sure any name can be disputed, but is the dispute noteworthy enough to affect naming? (That is, like Wikimachine said, if Korea suddenly claimed Alaska, do we switch to a third name?) A rough guideline of if it's noteworthy for naming might be to say if the dispute is at least as "famous" as either name itself... that is, if an editor is more likely to encounter an article mentioning both names rather than one. Can someone explain the difference why the UN et al use Senkaku and didn't use Dokdo? I'm not interested in "bias" accusations on the part of the United Nations, just curious if there is a legitimate reason.

In the end, I wouldn't oppose Pinnacle for the same reasons I supported Liancourt Rocks, but it might be nice to make sure we're not giving undue weight to the claim. My gut feeling is the "neutral" name might be the best, I'd just like to understand the differences. —LactoseTI^T 10:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Pinnacle is a good move, for the reasons outlined by others above (which boil down to WP:NPOV). I only hope that not quite as much wikitext is wasted on this renaming as on the other one. Oh, and if someone could make a note not to invite the entire Japanese and/or Chinese public to the discussion, that would be great.  ;-) -- Visviva 11:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also getting behind the move to Pinnacle, especially if someone can show that Pinnacle is accepted in a modern context. It doesn't have to be much, just a few articles need to mention something like "Pinnacle in English" (government sites would help, etc.) Even if this fails, I suppose we could still move it, but it would be much easier if someone could show it was a modern name. If it isn't, perhaps a slashed name would work better, just throwing that out there. --Cheers, Komdori 12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Support renaming: I think Hong Qi Gong's argument is sound. Given everything that has been said on this page about the dispute, there is a strong case for "Pinnacle".

To LactoseTI re: the difference between Dokdo and Pinnacle as far as the UN is concerned: my personal hypothesis is to do with the parties in the dispute, in two respects.

First, whereas South Korea and Japan have been players on the international stage on somewhat equal footings for the past few decades, China (both Republic of China and People's Republic of China) has not been so when compared with Japan. Whereas Japan has been involved as an increasingly important state and ally of the Western, democratic world after World War II, the Republic of China was a dictatorship and for most of the post-1945 era confined to only one corner of its former territory, not exactly a good diplomatic bargaining position; the People's Republic of China is ruled by communists, and did not have a voice in the UN until the late 1970s.

Secondly, the US is directly involved the territorial dispute over the Pinnacle/Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands, whereas it isn't in Dokdo. For all practical purposes, Japan's control of the islands stem from the US handing them over to it at the end of the occupation post World War II. In this sense, any legitimacy of Japans' claim results from the US. The US's strong position internationally is likely to lend more strength to Japan's claim in the dispute, as against China. --PalaceGuard008 12:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be renamed. Both Pinnacle Islands and Laincourt Rocks suck as names and I think it should be Senkaku and Dokdo, but the same principle applies and the title MUST be changed.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.212.69.195 (talk • contribs).

For article naming, WP:NPOV is not to use a term you perceive as neutral; it is to apply set of rules (such as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION, WP:NCON; see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names) objectively. So please show me some evidence that Pinnacle Islands meets these. --Kusunose 14:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the debate is about NPOV vs Common in use. Because these two elements are both important, slash name should work the best. Kingj123 14:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information, WP:NPOV explicitly deprecate slash (or double) article name. --Kusunose 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If we do decide to use both local names in the title, here's a good example of how to do it: Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud). Parsecboy 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If Pinnacle is virtually never used in the modern world (I don't know) and if one of them is (much) more commonly used than another, it wouldn't hurt to use this parenthesis style. If the situation was more like the Liancourt Rocks page (with such evenly split usage), I might think differently and want to use a "third party" name even if it was relatively uncommon. I don't have time to research either one of these conditions, though, any takers? --Cheers, Komdori 15:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we won't get into the ridiculously detailed Google-battles here, but I would note that "Diaoyu islands" and "Senkaku islands" have broadly similar hit counts (53k and 59k respectively); "Pinnacle islands," on the other hand, has less than 2k. In this respect the situation does not seem terribly different from Dokdo. -- Visviva 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, hopefully no one will argue about the two alternatives being about the same. How about modern usage? I'd be happy if Pinnacle showed up in encyclopedias, even as an alternate name (doesn't have to be the main entry), just something to show it's being used in a modern context. --Cheers, Komdori 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) is contrary to policy; it should not be used as a precedent. The question is currently under mediation, and I expect that the handful of Iranian nationalists who support it will be persuaded not to. One danger with such names is that they are unstable; indeed, the Iranian faction would prefer Arvand Rud (Shatt al-Arab) even now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I started this discussion just to gauge opinions right now. If an obvious majority does not support a rename, then that's fine, and the article will stay. If opinions look split, I might start a poll on whether to move the article or not.

On common usage - I don't think that because this specific organisation uses it or that organisation uses it, that it necessarily establishes common usage. Now I still do think that Google tests are inherently inaccurate if we are to consider how many POV sources may be present, but for the sake of the argument, if we do a search in English websites only, and for results that do not have the word "Wikipedia" as to exclude WP mirrors, we actually see that "Dokdo"[15] gets more hits than "Liancourt"[16]. This Google test is described in Wikipedia:Naming conflict. This same search for "Senkaku Islands" yields 47,300[17] results and for "Diaoyu Islands" actually yields 52,200[18] results. Admittedly, the same search for "Pinnacle Islands" only returned 317[19] results. So can we so easily say that common usage is the Senkaku name? (Note that this search for "Senkaku" without the "Islands" returned results for people named Senkaku). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about common usage (we were comparing Dokdo/Takeshima there, not Liancourt, just like we'd compare Senkaku/Diaoyu here). I'm just wondering if we can establish that Pinnacle Islands is a widely accepted modern name for the place (it was easier at Liancourt because of the reasons stated above). It might not be a deal breaker if it couldn't be shown, but it would certainly be nice. --Cheers, Komdori 16:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

From the google search I provided, it looks like the Pinnacle name is used by some books and articles. The reason I brought up common usage is because that seems to be a reason to justify the article name to stay at the Senkaku name - but this name is not necessarily the most commonly used one. And together with the old justification of maintaining consistency because Liancourt was previously named Dokdo, the reasons for this article to stay at the Senkaku name has grown very thin. In light of the availability of neutral names, I would personally prefer the Pinnacle name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Visviva in that NPOV should be heavily considered. NPOV was the largest factor in the admin's decision to move Dokdo. Good friend100 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Goodfriend. Users showed us again and again that Dokdo was the most common English name but despite this, it was moved because of NPOV. I think the main reason why people are now pushing the "Liancourt Rocks" name is because the Japanese government now knows that their claims to have Dokdo renamed to "Takeshima" are very low. BTW, why is the title of this page based on most common use? Shouldn't it be on NPOV? --DandanxD 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The name for these islands that is used most commonly in English is Senkaku; both the BBC and the NYT use it. The people who are claiming NPOV seem to be motivated by a desire to *not* use the Japanese name rather than a desire to use what they are claiming is the most neutral choice. DandanxD's point about the Liancourt Rocks article is equally valid here - the Chinese claim underlies the push for using the Pinnacle name. To turn Hong Qi Gong's phrase around, in light of the common accepted use of a single name in English, I would personally prefer that name be used on en.wikipedia.org. Alexwoods 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Senkaku Islands" is the American name for the islands

"Senkaku Islands" is not just the local Japanese name. It is also the local American name, as used by the U.S. military. In fact, it was the name used by the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands, and is still officially used by the United States government as well as by its allies. Sole usage of "Senkaku Islands" (without the alternate names) is common. By contrast, "Pinnacle Islands" and "Diaoyu Islands" are hardly ever used in the United States, except in conjunction with the word "Senkaku" to describe the dispute.

With respect to Google searches, you will see that "Diaoyu Islands" is used the most in the .CN domain (China). Local usages in China and Japan should be filtered out adding "-site:.cn -site:.jp" to all searches, and you will see that "Senkaku Islands" is the most common name for the islands outside of China and Japan. In addition, it is clear that the Chinese government and organizations have boosted the Google results by using Chinese embassies throughout the world. To counter that, I suggest using "-chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate" in all Google searches.

• 26,700 hits: "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia -site:.jp -site:.cn -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate -Diaoyu
• 11,700 hits: "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia -site:.jp -site:.cn -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate -Senkaku

Alternatively, I suggest a simpler search restricted to .COM only (by adding "site:.com" to searches), which makes it more clear:

• 15,000 hits "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia site:.com -Diaoyu
• 497 hits "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia site:.com -Senkaku

If you really go in and take a closer look, usage of "Diaoyu Islands" without "Senkaku" is used only by the Chinese government and organizations. Whereas, "Senkaku Islands" is used by the United States and its allies, as well as by the United Nations.--Endroit 18:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know I was a contributor to the American Wikipedia. Parsecboy 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just correcting the popular misconception here, that Senkaku is merely the "Japanese name". It's actually the "American name" as well.--Endroit 18:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone else have a picture of Sam the Eagle pop into their head when reading this section's topic? One point I drew from Endroit's contribution is that for a name to be widely accepted in the English speaking world, it generally might also be accepted in the US. Not always, but often. He also raises some common usage points (ballot-box stuffing, and so on). --Cheers, Komdori 18:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice tweek, Endroit, but this just shows how Google searches are not accurate. As long as more pro-Japanese than pro-Chinese websites register at .com domains, we'd get the search results that you got. You are bringing the NPOV issue within the common usage issue here, but there's really no telling that the hits in your search results are not equally POV. All that a Japanese bias source has to do is register at a .com domain and not mention the Chinese embassy and it'll add to your search results. Ultimately, if NPOV is your concern, using the neutral alternative of "Pinnacle Islands" is the most NPOV. But if you're talking about just common English usage in and of itself, stick with the previous searches I presented, which excludes "Wikipedia" and limits to English websites only. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the American name in English should take precedence over any Chinese or Japanese names, whatever those are, especially if it's the most common in English-speaking countries. The situation is similar to Bonin Islands where the American name in English took precedence, and we moved it from Ogasawara Islands (the Japanese name in English) to Bonin Islands.--Endroit 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So Endroit, "Dokdo" is not an english word but "Senkaku" is an english word simply because "Senkaku" has "more" hits on google than Diaoyu? Your selectiveness is totally unfair and I think its a rude way to play on Wikipedia.

Remember that the move to Liancourt Rocks is not justified and simply a small confusion from the admins. And also remember that Liancourt Rocks is not the most commonly used word. Encyclopedias use it but nobody else does and it has few google searches compared to Dokdo. Good friend100 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Senkaku Shotō" has a uniquely common "American name" in English, as does "Nansei Shotō" and "Ogasawara Shotō". Their respective "American names" in English are: Senkaku Islands, Ryukyu Islands, and Bonin Islands.--Endroit 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most English websites (including American) uses "Dokdo", not "Liancourt Rocks" or takeshima. Also, this still doesn't solve the issue of NPOV. --DandanxD 13:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Google searches, common usage, and NPOV alternatives

I want to try to address what I think of some of the issues at hand here:

Google tests do not address NPOV issues. Try to tweek Google searches as we may, Google searches are not going to address NPOV issues. For example, here if I searched only the English-language .org domains, excluding any possible Wikipedia mirrors, "Diaoyu Islands"[20] yields more search results than does "Senkaku Islands"[21]. And I'm pretty sure I can do different variations of these tweeks to get the results I want. But the bottom line is that they do not address NPOV issues. Some random person could type "Senkaku Islands belongs to Japan!" in any number of internet forums, and that might count towards the number of hits for "Senkaku Islands" - and vice versa for the "Diaoyu Islands" searches. The only thing Google searches can possibly be good for is establishing common English usage that ignores POV usage, and when we search for all English-language sites, excluding possible Wikipedia mirrors, what we have is this:

• 52,400 "Diaoyu Islands" hits
• 47,400 "Senkaku Islands" hits

However, like I said, in the end, both of these names are POV.

On common usage. The common usage rule is great when we are faced with a naming dispute like the one with Sea of Japan, where no neutral alternatives are available, but it completely ignores cases where neutral alternatives are available to us. And I think the common usage rule was framed in the context of the actual Sea of Japan dispute anyway. It adequately answers the question "What if we have two POV names?", but it ignores the cases where "What if we have neutral names?".

NPOV. If you think we need to be NPOV like I do, then ultimately the best choice is "Pinnacle Islands". It's plain as day - this name is not advanced by any of the governments in the territory dispute. When no NPOV alternatives are available, I think we should primarily rely on common usage, but this is not the case here. The Pinnacle name is not only NPOV, it's a good compromise that'll better mitigate future POV naming rants and discussions that'll surely arise if we use either the Senkaku name or the Diaoyu name.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding Wikipedia Naming Policy. If a name is the most common it is by definition NPOV. NPOV for names is nothing to do with what is acceptable to the Chinese or Japanese. It is only about the common name. (I'm not saying here that Senkaku Islands is the most common name but that is what you need to find out). Comments like this name is not advanced by any of the governments in the territory dispute are irrelevant. Wikipedia naming policy WP:NCON clearly states:

The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should NOT be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable [NOT used to determine usage]?

Stick to Encyclopedias first, then respected sources, then news. If that is not conclusive then at the very last use Google. It is clearly outlined here: WP:NCGN and WP:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name

I agree. We can't start going down to a "Senkaku/Diaoyu" discussion. As many editors emphasized at Liancourt Rocks, we need to keep this NPOV and an english word. Also note that many of the editors who voted for "Senkaku" in the last poll said that this article must be consistent with Liancourt. Good friend100 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"What if we have neutral names?" We would use it if it is commonly used. Pinnacle Island is not. It fails to meet Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references. It has far fewer Google hits; I can't find any usage by international organizations, at least on the web; I can't find any usage by Major English-language media outlets using Google News, BBC News and CNN; Encyclopedias do not use Pinnacle Islands; and the NGIA GNS server do not recognize "Pinnacle Islands" as the standard name. Pushing uncommon usage for POV reason is inappropriate per WP:NPOV. --Kusunose 01:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks did not have any usage in BBC News, CNN, or Times. I can't find any usage by major English-language media that uses Liancourt Rocks! Yet, the article got moved while it is clearly shown that Liancourt Rocks has almost no usage. Check it on google.

You pushed for NPOV at Liancourt, why not here? Pinnacle is NPOV and its the english name for the article.

Here, it says that in English they are sometimes called the Pinnacle Islands. [[22]] Good friend100 02:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Liancourt Rocks" is used by international organizations and Encyclopedias, recognized as the standard name by the geographic name server. I have supported Liancourt Rocks per WP:NCON, because following established conversions is NPOV. Pinnacle Islands does not meet them so I'm not supporting it. "Pinnacle Islands should be used because it's a neutral name" is a point of view not supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Kusunose 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Article naming is really quite broad, and doesn't specifically require that names be chosen according to established conventions. I don't see anything there that would disallow "Pinnacle Islands" here. -- Visviva 04:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Naming Policy requires the widely accepted name in English (defined by respected sources usually). Pinnacle Islands does not meet that requirement. 221.133.86.163 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dokdo is more common.Kingj123 03:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then argue that on the Dokdo page. 221.133.86.163 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kusunose - that's fine. I expect disagreements. I personally think Wikipedia:Naming conflict is woefully inadequate in addressing the availability of neutral alternatives. It's a good guideline to follow when we must pick a name that's ultimately POV, like the Sea of Japan naming issue. But for this article, there's a very easy way to settle its POV naming issues - pick the neutral name. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Naming conflict is a guideline written and agreed upon by handfuls of editors over time. Maintaining neutrality per WP:NPOV, on the other hand, is an official policy as dictated by Jimmy Wales. According to WP:NPOV - maintaining NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". Keeping that in mind, I think when we can be NPOV, we should do it. In this case it would be picking the Pinnacle name. Admittedly, the Pinnacle name is not as used often, but it is still used by a number of papers that's been written[23]. However, both the Senkaku name and the Diaoyu name are POV, and I think that's a bigger issue that needs to be solved. Wikipedia:Naming conflict might settle the POV issue with naming Sea of Japan, but it falls short when it comes to this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use your disagreement with Wikipedia Policy to frame your argument. That is defacto POV. If you think it is inadequate, discuss the inadequacies there, and try to get it changed. Sea of Japan is NPOV because it follows Wikipedia Policy of most common English name. 221.133.86.163 17:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV#Article naming: alternate article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. So I'd like to see evidences that the viewpoint Senkaku is inappropriate and Pinnacle should be used because of the neutrality issue is supported by reliable sources and not a minority view. --Kusunose 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You neglected to include the leading sentences in that section: A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. The general restriction against POV forks applies to article names as well. The section in question pertains to POV forks. Nobody is suggesting we make another article called Pinnacle. The discussion here concerns if we should have one definitive name of "Pinnacle Islands". The evidence that we need to assert that Pinnacle should be used for neutrality sake is simply that it is a name that is not advanced by any of the governments involved in the territorial dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread the leading sentences. In any case, I have to repeat this: although "Pinnacle should be used for neutrality sake" seems a point of view held by many editors here, the view is also held by outside of Wikipedia is not asserted by external references (yet). Please show me some reliable sources that support your claim. --Kusunose 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tons of sources mention that there is a territorial dispute concerning the islands, that the Japanese calls them "Senkaku" while the Chinese calls them "Diaoyu" or "Diaoyutai". The one name that is not advanced by either side is the Pinnacle name. Here're a couple of examples [24][25]. I have to ask - do you recognise that the Senkaku name is advanced by the Japanese and not the Chinese? Do you recognise that there is a territorial dispute concerning the islands? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the territorial dispute. It is covered in the article. I know Senkaku is used by the Japanese government as the local name. I don't know if the Japanese government is promoting it as the single English name. --Kusunose 12:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment on this again if you didn't see it. English they are sometimes called the Pinnacle Islands. [[26]] Good friend100 12:49, 3 reputablenessJune 2007 (UTC)

The problem is it's not used often and not by reputable sources recommended by WP:NCON. --Kusunose 14:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking reputable sources, how reputable is the second example[27] Hong Qi Gong provided in the above comment? It uses Pinnacle Islands as the primary term at least in the summary. --Kusunose 14:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kusunose - I know that you're basically demanding a source that specifically says "'Pinnacle Islands' is the most neutral name." But I don't see how this is necessary as we are not trying to actually add to the content of the article to comment on the neutrality of any of the names. I don't think I can change your mind about this issue, but to me the logic is simple - the Pinnacle name is not advanced by any of the governments involved, and NPOV is non-negotiable and would take precedence over any perceived application of WP:NCON. Conversely, I'd like to ask how the Senkaku name is justified anymore. Is there a source that says it is the most neutral name? And we can see from a Google test for most common English usage that "Diaoyu Islands" actually get more hits than "Senkaku Islands". So really, the Senkaku name is actually more justified according to WP:NCON. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are applying your perceived neutrality. I'm applying WP:NCON which is regarded as one of "the essential guidelines for making article names the most NPOV possible". As to Diaoyu, I think your last sentense has typo and you are saying the Diaoyu name is actually more justified according to WP:NCON. I disagree. Google test favors Diaoyu. International organizations favors Senkaku. Major English-language media outlets generally use both names equally. Other encyclopedias favors Senkaku. Geographic name servers... it seems the GNS server is not working at the moment but if I remember correctly, they recognized both Japanese and Chinese names as the standard. recognize both Japanese and Chinese local names (not Senkaku Islands and Diaoyu Islands but Senkaku-shotō etc.) as the BGN Standard. Considering Google is the least reliable source, I think Senkaku is more justifiable than Diaoyu. --Kusunose 15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to HongQiGong's Google counts, I'd factor out the English usages from the PRC (the .CN domain), as well as from Japan (the .JP domain), because they're biased and don't reflect real-world usages of the terms. The .COM domain gives clear-cut preference to the term "Senkaku Islands" as I have already shown above.
.ORG, after factoring out the Chinese embassies:

• 1,160 hits "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia site:.org -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate
• 1,480 hits "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia site:.org -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate

.ORG, after also factoring out dual usages of "Senkaku"/"Diaoyu":

• 672 hits "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia site:.org -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate -Senkaku
• 761 hits "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia site:.org -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate -Diaoyu

.ORG appears to favor dual-usages of the terms, & .COM appears to favor "Senkaku Islands". I believe that usage in the United States makes a big difference here, affecting the real-world usages in the English language.--Endroit 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said - you can have some guy comment in any number of internet forums and write "Senkaku Islands belong to Japan!" and that'll count toward a Google search hit, vice versa for pro-Diaoyu search hits. If you care about being NPOV, like I do, then ultimately "Pinnacle Islands" is the most NPOV because it is not a name that's not advanced by any of the governments in the territorial dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not nearly as bad as the PRC boosting Google counts (for .ORG) tenfold, using Chinese embassies throughout the world. This is significant, and so needs to be factored out. After factoring out PRC usages, "Senkaku Islands" is clearly in the lead.--Endroit 15:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How is Asia times not reputable? Good friend100 15:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, and if I modified that .org English search to take out "JapaneseEmbassy" and "JapaneseConsulate", all of a sudden "Diaoyu Islands" gets about twice as many hits.

• 10,100 hits for "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia site:.org -JapaneseEmbassy -JapaneseConsulate
• 5,140 hits for "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia site:.org -JapaneseEmbassy -JapaneseConsulate

I got 1,490 instead, for the above search, not 5,140.--Endroit 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• 52,600 hits for "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia -JapaneseEmbassy -JapaneseConsulate
• 47,200 hits for "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia -JapaneseEmbassy -JapaneseConsulate

You can tweek Google tests a thousand different ways to get the results you want. They're ultimately not going to show you all the NPOV hits. The Pinnacle name, on the other hand, are not advanced by any of the governments in the territorial disputes. The only reliable test for common English is to simply search all English-language sites that are not WP mirrors. And you should realise, the US does not own English. It's the de facto international language. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your searches basically confirm that excluding the Japanese embassies didn't make much difference. Excluding the Chinese embassies, on the other hand reduced the count from about 10,000 to 1,160. Which is more significant? Anyways, you should just exclude BOTH embassies from Google counts.--Endroit 15:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to tell if excluding any of a number of words actually return NPOV results. Look at this:

• 48,400 hits for "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate
• 46,700 hits for "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate

I don't really feel like doing these Google dances more than I already have. The point remains that both of these names are POV. These Google tweeks show nothing more than how to work your Google searches to get more hits for one particular POV. The Pinnacle name remains the most NPOV for not being advanced by any of the governments in the territorial dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I would go one step further and remove the entire .JP & .CN domain results, since they're inherently biased:

• 21,600 hits "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate -site:.jp -site:.cn
• 38,700 hits "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate -site:.jp -site:.cn

When using Google results, I think we should be careful to eliminate bias on BOTH sides.--Endroit 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But you're really not eliminating both sides of anything. Any number of pro-Japanese people could be posting on any number of .com internet forums and using "Senkaku". Google searches are not going to eliminate POV search results. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If they're any significant, they would stand out, like in the case for the Chinese embassies. The Chinese embassies was a glaring stand-out, and I doubt you would find anything similar. I guess we can assume that the other cases balance out each other. Then we can safely say that the difference is made by the reputable publications such as MSN Encarta and the others mentioned by Kusunose.--Endroit 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

After also factoring out dual usages of "Senkaku"/"Diaoyu", in addition to excluding the Chinese embassies and the .JP & .CN domains, we have:

• 11,800 hits "Diaoyu Islands" -Wikipedia -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate -site:.jp -site:.cn -Senkaku
• 26,600 hits "Senkaku Islands" -Wikipedia -chineseembassy -chinaembassy -china-embassy -chineseconsulate -chinaconsulate -china-consulate -site:.jp -site:.cn -Diaoyu

The difference is clear, if we exclude all PRC & Japan usages.--Endroit 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming like at Liancourt Rocks where we start boiling down to minute details. Pinnacle islands is the best alternative because its NPOV and an english name. Good friend100 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not really that minute--on Liancourt Rocks we were talking about 10%-20% differences that swayed back and forth between the results once we eliminated major issues (like names, etc). Here, we've got what, about twice as many of one than the other? Add to that the encyclopedias, governments, etc. universally using one name and it's clear that it's not the same case. Again, we're not here to teach people what should be used, but to reflect what it is. Try to stop thinking this is the same as another article when it's clear it's not, and evaluate it on its own merits. I've repeatedly said I didn't have as strong of an understanding at this article as the other (as is also clear for several users who are somehow asserting they know this is "just like" something else). Look at the evidence that people present rather than bringing your own biases along, whatever they may be. --Cheers, Komdori 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to fiddle with google searches. Search Liancourt Rocks and Dokdo and see how few hits there are for Liancourt.

And don't accuse me of being POV, because thats just going to make me laugh. I'm proposing Pinnacle, but my proposal is POV. Right, Pinnacle is a POV word. Good friend100 19:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no one is arguing about the lack of results for "Pinnacle," there is no connection here. --Cheers, Komdori 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I know others will disagree, but I would like people to consider how inadequate WP:Naming conflict is in addressing the availability of neutral alternatives. The way that guideline was written was to address a naming dispute like the one at Sea of Japan where no NPOV alternatives are available, so we are forced to choose a POV name. That guideline is to help us choose which name is best when faced with only POV choices. WP:NPOV, on the other hand, is an official policy that states that being NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". I believe the "non-negotiable" part is applicable to the weight that WP:Naming conflict gives to common usage. If we can be NPOV, it is non-negotiable to what WP:Naming conflict says about common usage. And I'm saying this knowing that a strict Google search for English websites, excluding WP mirrors, returns more results for "Diaoyu Islands". I'm not trying to advance either the Japan or China POV, I'm trying to give this article the most NPOV name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right that the naming conflicts section is weak on this area. Another issue that complicates things is that this place is not well known. I think that your argument is a kind of borderline "PC NPOV" criteria, which might be taking it a bit too far. As Wikimachine pointed out, if someone suddenly claimed Alaska, should the overwhelming name the English speaking world be ignored in favour of a PC term that would avoid calling it Alaska or whatever the (extreme) minority party wanted? The issue of NPOV on the other article meant that we could not use either of the about evenly used terms. Some people called for "physical control" to be the tie breaker. This can't be used in the determination, and I reject any argument for Senkaku based on control out of hand. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced of two things: a) that Senkaku is not used much more often (as opposed to about even usage) by general English speakers (ie, what would they most likely use to look up the article) or b) that Pinnacle is currently widely accepted (Liancourt was, demonstrably by the encyclopedia usage and English usage in governments). I'm not against using Pinnacle, but it might be nice if someone can come up with some nice discussion of these two points. Without beating to death Google, can anyone find fault with Endroit's proposed searches? Or perhaps suggest some alternate ones that would avoid government pushing on either side?

PC NPOV might be slippery... do we use obscure/unknown references for Myanmar/Burma? How about West Bank? Any time anyone could come up with a "third party" designation, no matter how obscure, we'd be replacing all the disputed names, which is not how the policy is set up. There was no established use of the Japanese or Korean names for Liancourt Rocks in the English world, but there is for Senkaku, so it makes it a bit complicated. Senkaku seems (by all evidence so far) to be used far more often officially and unofficially than Diaoyu (unlike Dokdo/Takeshima which are about even). --Cheers, Komdori 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This might be unfathomable to us, but in the theoretical situation where another country claims Alaska, especially if it is a relatively powerful country, then you're going to read about the dispute in just about every major news outlet in the world. Do we have to rename the Alaska article? Not necessarily - because that theoretical situation would be the same as the existing situation for Sea of Japan - there's no available neutral alternatives, and we'd have to rely on the weight that WP:Naming conflict gives common usage. Imagine for example, if Russia starts claiming Alaska, and a whole bunch of English sources support the claim and start using the Russian name for Alaska in English writing - I don't think it's so unreasonable that we question if "Alaska" should remain the name of the article.

Basically the same with Myanmar - there's no available neutral alternative. The Pinnacle name, on the other hand, has been used by modern articles and books to describe the territorial dispute. Also the Myanmar situation is drastically different anyway, there's self-identification to consider, and the Myanmar name is easily considered the undisputed official name. Just because the editors at BBC News refuse to use it, does not a dispute make. Two or more countries in an internationally recognised territorial dispute, on the other hand, definitely gives rise to disputed names.

Lastly, yeah, I find lots of faults with Endroit's proposed Google searches. It's basically a tweek to get the favourable numbers that he wants. And I've shown that anybody is able to tweek it in other ways to show numbers unfavourable to him. If we are strictly talking about common usage, then do the Google search for all English-language websites, in all domains, excluding possible WP mirrors. I've shown above how "Diaoyu Islands" actually gets more hits than "Senkaku Islands" this way. Believe it or not, English is used in China and Japan, too. But if POV is your main concern here, like it is my main concern, then the Pinnacle name is obviously the most neutral. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right in that I (and probably a lot of others) have about had it with Google searches (going over everything, that is). Hmm... there are about 200 results for "Pinnacle Islands" in English as opposed to the 11,000 "Liancourt Rocks"--can we get some assertion that it's a widely used, accepted name? If we don't care about acceptance, you seem to suggest that in case of conflict, we should always toss out the naming conventions on disputed names. After all, we could always say something like, "Islets at 45'59" x 119'55"", right? Just trying to get a clear picture of how you are arguing for the name Pinnacle. --Cheers, Komdori 21:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. No matter how we tweek it, I believe Google searches are inherently inadequate with determining NPOV usage. If we want to use Google searches to determine common usage here, then we should just include all English-language websites, in all domains. No matter how you try to contextually "refine" Google searches for NPOV usage, you're not guaranteed NPOV results. And yes, admittedly, Pinnacle is a much less common name. But it is still a name in modern usage. So yes, I think in the availability of a neutral name, we should use it, as I think NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. Also, while "Pinnacle Islands" is a proper name, "Islets at 45'59" x 119'55" is not. I'm pretty sure it's written somewhere that available proper names should be used in place of a description of a place, person, thing, etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just found that the hits for "Pinnacle Islands" include some other islands, like:

• "St. Matthew, Hall, and Pinnacle islands", in Alaska
• "Long and Pinnacle Islands as seen from hay field, Five Islands", in Nova Scotia, Canada

...and there are a few others which are unrelated. Perhaps, Pinnacle Islands should go to a disambig page?--Endroit 22:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed those as well, but I think they are shorthand for "Long Island and Pinnacle Island," etc. -- Visviva 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So the uniqueness of the name "Pinnacle Islands" hinges on whether it is singular or plural, because there are other "Pinnacle Island"'s(singular) in the world.--Endroit 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's also the Gardner Pinnacles in Hawaii, although they don't specifically call it the "Pinnacle Islands".--Endroit 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

PRC and Japan are generally NOT considered to be English-speaking nations. See Image:Anglospeak.png. They are NOT essential in determining what is actually used in English.

Also, with respect to Google searches, there's no need to be upset about it. BOTH of our Google searches can be prominently displayed, so that everyone can decide for themselves. There will be 2 versions, one including PRC & Japan usages (HongQiGong version), and one excluding them (Endroit version).

Everyone is free to include and/or exclude the PRC-boosted Google counts, and should be able to clearly see the differences. The PRC usages are clearly different from the rest of the world's.--Endroit 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hong Qi gong, anybody can manipulate the google searches to get what they want. Thats why we get such a long keyword when giving examples. And the manipulation was also what made you guys outraged when Wikimachine presented his google searches.

On NPOV terms, I still think Pinnacle should be used. The admin that moved Dokdo also agreed that it should be considered since he moved Dokdo largely on POV issues. Good friend100 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be renamed Pinnacle Islands. --DandanxD 13:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pros and Cons Organizer

Although it is obvious, let us see the pros and cons for each of these following titles. If you have anything to add in, you certainly can. I think this is a good way to sort things out. If you are opposing against some reasons/comments posted. place ?! (bolded) right beside. Please be short, concise, and clear. Kingj123 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No google results please.

• Pinnacle Islands:

Pros:

1. NPOV. Kingj123 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cons:

1. Relatively infrequent usage. PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Senkaku Islands:

Pros:

1. More frequent usage. PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Name used by party of actual control (Japan). PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cons:

1. POV. Kingj123 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Diaoyu Islands:

Pros:

1. More frequent usage. PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Earliest recorded name. PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cons:

1. POV Kingj123 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands:

Pros:

1. NPOV Kingj123 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cons:

1. May be inconsistent with MOS. PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands:

Pros:

1. NPOV Kingj123 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cons:

1. May be inconsistent with MOS. PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands:

Pros:

Cons:

1. May be inconsistent with MOS. PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pinnacle (Senkaku) Islands:

Pros:

Cons:

1. May be inconsistent with MOS. PalaceGuard008 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What about JSTOR, then?

OK, I have said that I should stay out of this, but I can't help giving my two cents. Having been around for a while, in different incarnations, I can see why Google searches are inherently evil. On the other hand, since Wikipedia is supposed to be based on verifiable and reliable sources, searches in academic databases can provide some reference information. There are a number of them, but I prefer JSTOR, which includes a number of journals in humanities and the social sciences. JSTOR is also available at most academic institutions, so many other editors will be able to make their own searches.

Here are a couple of results, for what it is worth.

• "Diaoyutai": 59 items (articles and book reviews).
• "Diaoyutai islands": 15 items.
• "Tiaoyutai": 10 items.
• "Tiao yu tai" 15 items.
• "Tiao yu tai islands" 7 items
• "Tiaoyutai islands" 1 items.
• "Senkaku islands": 127 items.
• "Pinnacle islands": 5 items (includes 4 articles on Pinnacle islands in Alaska).

I am not claiming that the results are conclusive, but the difference with Google searches, which usually yield a stronger preference for Diaoyutai, is interesting. My guess is that the preference for Diaoyutai on Google is a reflection of the many websites that advocate a handover to China, which makes them problematic sources from a NPOV. The preference for Senkaku islands in academic writing, on the other hand seem to be a reflection of status quo.--Amban 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed "Diaoyu [islands]", a variant of "Diaoyutai". Here is my Jstor count:

• • "Diaoyu": 73 items
  • "Tiao yu": 44 items
    • Subtotal for "Diaoyu": 117
  • "Diaoyutai": 59 items
  • "Tiao yu tai" 15 items
    • Subtotal for "Diaoyutai": 74
    • Total for "Diaoyutai" and "Diaoyu": 191
  • "Senkaku islands": 127 items
  • "Pinnacle Islands": 5 items

Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 03:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure you can add articles up like that, you may count the same items twice.--Amban 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Diaoyutai" can also refer to Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, which is totally unrelated.--Endroit 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there are likely to be miscounting in all of these references. Most of the results seem to be about the islands, though. I think it is not very likely (but not at all impossible) for the state guesthouse to come up in an academic article -- perhaps one about Madame Mao. I didn't read every result, but the ones I read through seemed to be about the islands.

A bigger problem is the "Pinnacle Islands" references: as noted above, there are various other islands called "Pinnacle". --PalaceGuard008 05:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they actually referred to as the "Pinnacle Islands"? There certainly are other Pinnacle Island-s (one in Bethel County, Alaska, and one in Cumberland County, Nova Scotia), but that isn't ambiguous with the use of the term here. Nor can I find any reference to the Pinnacles being referred to in this way. -- Visviva 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. Have modified the count to include only "Pinnacle Islands[plural". --PalaceGuard008 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are referred to as the Pinnacle Islands[28]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside that there are multiple Chinese names vs. only one Japanese name... I think that you must search for the Chinese names in the form "X Islands" instead. Omitting the word "Islands" from your search improperly boosts your search results. Be fair and reciprocate your searches, OK?

For example use "Diaoyu Islands" instead of "Diaoyu", "Diaoyutai Islands" instead of "Diaoyutai", and "Tiao-yu Islands" instead of "Tiao-yu". Also, "Diaoyu" or "Tiao-yu" (by itself) is also analogous to "Uotsuri", if you're going to reciprocate.--Endroit 09:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not comparable at all. "Diaoyu" is highly unlikely to appear as a proper noun in Chinese aside from the context of the islands. It's about linguistic conventions. Why don't you go through the JSTOR search yourself and see if any of them refer to anything other than islands.

BTW, I did search "Senkaku Shoto" but that returned 0 results. --PalaceGuard008 09:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to reciprocate "Senkaku Islands", it's "Diaoyu Islands". If you're going to reciprocate "Diaoyu" it's "Senkaku". Which is it?--Endroit 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting this arbitrary rule about reciprocity from? And who made you the authority on what is reciprocity and what isn't? As I pointed out above, the difference in search terms is based on the difference between the languages. In Japanese, you do get other proper nouns called "Senkaku". In Chinese, there are basically no other proper nouns called "dioayu".

Instead of nitpicking, you are welcome to repeat the search with your preferred terms and report the results. --PalaceGuard008 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For me, those spelling variants of the Chinese name seem to indicate that there's no established English name derived from the Chinese name. --Kusunose 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about JSTOR, what about the article "The Marginal Belts of the Coral Seas" by W. M. Davis? He and others seem to be using "pinnacle islands" as a geologic term, which might explain why there are several Pinnacle Islands around. For those without access, he's talking about different kinds of island and reef formations and their relative rarity or commonality in warm and cold waters. Here's a quote/example of how he's using it: "...the terrace might then be sunk to a considerable depth while the ocean waves were beating rather ineffectually on the plunging pinnacle cliffs. But pinnacle islands of this kind are rare in cooler seas, and the few that are known are surrounded by relatively deep water," "The rarity of pinnacle islands and shallow banks in these seas as compared with the abundance...," etc. Is this why islands in several places seem to be named this? Is this why some people seem to have refered to Pinnacle Island in Senkaku/Diaoyutai this way (the British survey from the 1800's)? --Cheers, Komdori 13:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

19th century Hydrographic Office

In the 19th century, the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (the "British navigators"?) has identified this island group as "Hoa-pin-su, Pinnacle, and Ti-a-usu Islands", according to the following:

"The China Sea Directory Vol IV.", By Navigating Lieutenant Frederick W. Jarrad, R.N., Published by J.D.Potter for the Hydrographic Office, Admiralty, London 1873, p.141

• Hoa-pin-su Island appears to be Uotsuri Jima (魚釣島) / Diaoyu Dao (釣魚島)
• Ti-a-usu Island appears to be Kuba Jima (久場島) / Huangwei Yu (黃尾嶼)
• Pinnacle Islands appears to be some fragile set of islands just east & north of Hoa-pin-su, which is a small subset of the whole Senkaku Islands group
• The island group as a whole doesn't seem to have a name except Hoa-pin-su, Pinnacle, and Ti-a-usu Islands.

If "Pinnacle Islands" was supposed to be defined as the entire Senkaku Islands group as our article suggests, it certainly doesn't appear to be the "British navigators" who defined it so. Can somebody provide a reliable source for the entire island group being defined as "Pinnacle Islands"?--Endroit 06:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question should be "Can somebody provide a reliable source for the entire island group being named the "Pinnacle Islands" by British navigators?" Your source casts doubt on the origin of the name ("British navigators"), but not to its usage to refer to the whole island group -- the more modern sources supplied above and elsewhere on this talk page do refer to the whole island group as the "Pinnacle Islands".

I might also add that whether the island group was first named "Pinnacle Islands" by the British in 1873 or not has little bearing on the discussion at hand, which is the naming of the article based on NPOV and/or common names principles. --PalaceGuard008 08:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the caliber of your "reliable source(s)", which you have yet to provide.--Endroit 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong provided sources above, e.g. [29]. How exactly is a 19th century British book a "reliable source" when considering modern usage? --PalaceGuard008 08:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it that other encyclopedias don't mention "Pinnacle Islands"? What seems to be the problem? Perhaps there is some discrepancy as to the definition of "Pinnacle Islands"?--Endroit 08:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably, back in 1873. Any source for your theory in the contemporary context? --PalaceGuard008 09:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your glaring lack of authoritative sources.--Endroit 10:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

... so an alleged lack of sources is the source for your theory? "Your honour, I think Mr Smith was the murderer because of the lack of any suspects for the murder case!" --PalaceGuard008 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many users think that NPOV means that there must be equal POVs from both sides. It isn't always right.

Let us just say that, France and England have a dispute over FE island. French explains many historical ties to France and its legal claim with its varification from many adjacent countries. Also, England tries explain its ownership over the island, however no one varifies its claim. Many Wikipedian users might think that it is neutral to express both POVs equally in the article. I think it is wrong. If French claim is more valid than the english claim, Wikipedia should tilt towards French claim.

Senkaku Islands dispute is somewhat similar to this situation but different at the sametime. However, the point I am making is that NPOV does not mean that there must be equal POVs from both sides. This applies to the title of the article too. Kingj123 01:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if I take "varification" and "varifies" as typos for "verification" and "verifies", I don't understand what you're saying. Nations don't, I think, verify the territorial claims of other nations. They may recognize these claims.

Are you talking about recognition? If so, this strikes me as a dangerous route. For example, there's good reason to think that China and Taiwan are two nations. (After all, each has a government, services, military, currency, etc.) Even if you disagree with this claim, you should agree that it's not an absurd one. But you'll have difficulty finding any nation that recognizes that these are two nations, for reasons that don't have to be repeated here. It would seem bizarre to me if WP were to avoid considering their perception as two nations merely because no nation explicitly and openly treats them as two nations.

Of course it's OK to pay more attention to some PoVs than others, and indeed to ignore PoVs that are only subscribed to by small and batty minorities. -- Hoary 07:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in verb usage?

Liancourt Rocks has recently changed its description of the control situation as "Korea maintains a physical presence" but "claimed by Japan". By contrast, this article states the analogous situation as "administered by Japan" and "claimed by China". Noting that several of the same editors active on this page are or were also active on that page, I suggest that some steps are taken to bring the two articles into consistency in this regard. --PalaceGuard008 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the term "control" in lieu of "administered" for this article (or is there a constant physical presence on the islands by the Japanese)? —LactoseTI^T 12:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a lighthouse, but no people, I think. I like "control", too. --PalaceGuard008 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; I'll make the change. If anyone objects feel free to change it I guess, but please put the reasoning here. —LactoseTI^T 13:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are Koreans living on Dokdo. --DandanxD 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-title

As the discussion on article naming have been inactive for more than a week, I'm going to remove {{POV-title}} in a day or two. --Kusunose 09:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Too late --DandanxD 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a move

This article should definitely be called Pinnacle Islands or Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands. It's totally ABSURD for it to be called the Japanese name when both sides claim the islands. Sky Divine (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I also second the motion, as per WP:NPOV and in concordance with the decision with Liancourt Rocks. Aldis90 (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, I am in full support that this article should be moved to Pinnacle Islands. NPOV outweighs other policies by a large margin and Senkaku doesn't seem to be more commonly used than Diaoyu. Senkaku has 135,000 hits and Diaoyu has 107,000 hits. Considering the decisions made in the move to Liancourt Rocks, we must stay consistent with a neutral english word for this article as well. I am requesting comments and opinions on proposing a move. Good friend100 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing I should open a poll. Good friend100 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting someone to provide WP:RS to show how well 'Pinnacle as a neutral English name' is accepted. --Kusunose 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this move issue was previously discussed, above. --BrokenSphere 04:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another, but there hasn't been much of a response to the issues various editosr have brought up or much response providing any evidence that Pinnacle Islands is a modern, widely accepted name (encyclopedias, newspapers, government sources, all seem very scarce or non-existent). Google is not a tool for this; Google counts are for resolving if one local governing power has two names for something. --Cheers, Komdori 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, but there hasn't been much of a respone to the issues various editors have brought up or much respone providing any evidence that Liancourt Rocks is a modern, widely accepted name!

Regardless of what your viewpoint is at Liancourt Rocks, I want to comment again that NPOV should be the main deciding factor for the title of the article. Husond's decision to move Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks was almost entirely based on the NPOV policy. Liancourt Rocks is not the most commonly used name, unfortunately.

That is why Pinnacle should be used. You and LactoseTI both emphasize the "english word" and NPOV in Wikipedia, so I believe that Pinnacle should be used.

Google is not a tool for this? Stop making excuses. You and LactoseTI were both heavily engaged in discussion about google searches and google books, etc. Saying that "google counts for resolving if one local governing power has two names" is a really poor response on your part. How can that make sense?

"One local governing power"? Tell me then, why you are insisting that Japan administers Liancourt Rocks? Also, South Korea has two names for Liancourt Rocks? I'm sure the KPOV is obvious in full support for the word "Dokdo".

Wikipedia suggests that google searches be used to make a rough estimate to find if one word is more commonly used than another and thats what I'm doing. I find your comment to simply be an excuse for a result you don't like. Good friend100 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed where I said, "encyclopedias, newspapers, government sources," which are not scarce for the other article, which has little or nothing to do with this one. I might add that the google controversy there was to determine if we should use the widely accepted global name instead of one of the two local names (since they were about the same in terms of usage). --Cheers, Komdori 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just open a poll. Kingj123 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how people's word changes. Dokdo and Senkaku Islands are obviously not being treated the same. I'm sure this article will NOT move to Pinnacle Islands because of all the pro-Japanese people here. So unfair...--165.244.20.220 02:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Dokdo and Senkaku Islands are treated differently. Kingj123 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

They are treated the same, by the same rules, but since the situations are significantly unique (there are a host of unanswered issues raised above), the outcome is not necessarily the same. Suggesting that the situations are identical reflects a lack of understanding of them. While it is possible this title should move as well, these issues should be addressed first. —LactoseTI^T 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost nothing is identical. The two cases are VERY similar though. But treated differently.

Thats right Lactose, they are treated the same, but unlike you said, we don't care what China or Japan thinks of the issue. How is the situation so different besides the fact that Japan is poking China instead of Korea? None! At least none that affects any of the decisions we make here.

Stop talking like this is a special case and instead of the ambiguity, throw out these "unanswered issues" that are so problematic. Good friend100 10:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the strangest discusions I have seen on Wikipedia in a while. Senkaku may not be entirely neutrality according to some people and I understand their position to some extent but there is simply no reasonable alternative available that could be used as an article title. The Chinese name is absolutely not an option as the islands are, despite the dispute, clearly under Japanese control at the present. The so-called English name Pinnacle Islands are not and were not ever established as a commonly used name for the islands in English-speaking references - at least nobody has provided any evidence of this. Using Pinnacle Islands would not be very different from simply inventing a "neutral name" for the islands. That would be a horrible precedent for Wikipedia. The Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks article is somewhat different in that the name Liancourt Rocks was/is commonly used to refer to the those islets by English sources, the US military for example. Pinnacle Islands was never as established and doesn't seem to be used today at all today. Inventing a "new name" for these islands just to make a point about the Dokdo article while hiding behind POV arguments is silly. For lack of a decent alternative, Senkaku Islands is the best option for this article. --84.153.52.205 10:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

why not name it Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands since it is still under dispute? Japaneses control is still questionable. Akinkhoo 16:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think changing the name to Pinnacle Islands is better. Wikipedia should hold a neutral view, and calling this disputed territory a Japanese name is not proper at all. 219.77.161.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Senkaku Islands" is not neutral, it is sided towards Japan. It would be good to rename to a more neutral name (Diaoyutai would then be sided towards the ROC, Diaoyudao to the PRC), similar to the Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks issue. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Although it may not be fair, most countries use standard U.S.-designated names for disputed territories. The Board of Geographic Names (BGN) is responsible for maintaining and updating such designations for the United States. The BGN has been around since the late 19th Century and is recognized internationally (albeit informally and not officially) as the definitive 'naming' body. 'Senkaku Islands' is the standard BGN designation for the islets, although the BGN website lists the other alternative names as well. When discussed internationally by non-interested parties to the dispute, 'Senkakus' is virtually universal. Use of the name does not imply recognition of Japanese sovreignty. The official U.S. position is that the USG recognizes Japanese administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovreignty dispute and encourages a peaceful and mutually-agreed resolution among the three claimants.169.253.4.21 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)TexxasFinn