Wikipedia

Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7

< Talk:Senkaku Islands
Latest comment: 13 years ago by 72.81.233.159 in topic The title/name of this article sounds quite POV
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Minor change for legibility purposes

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If no-one objects, I will clarify the 1st sentence of the 1sy paragraph under heading "Names" by rearranging the words to shorten the sentence. The intended change is as follows :

Original : "...first recorded name of the islands, Diaoyu, used in books such as..."

Clarified sentence : "...first recorded name of the islands was Diaoyu. It was used in books such as ..."

I will change it tomorrow if no objections Marcopolo112233 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've made that change and a further one in the same section. John Smith's (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming section

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Ok, Tenmei, I don't understand fully what you're trying to say. Can you please write out what Isaac Titsingh did with regard to the name of the Senkaku Islands and Europe? At the moment it suggests he brought a book or books back to Europe. There's no explanation of why the books were brought back, what they said, how they were distributed (if at all), etc.

Can you just start from scratch and write out here what he did and why it is important.

Similarly what's the story with Edward Belcher and what is "Pinnacle Island"?

I think the whole naming section is problematic and is a collection of random "facts". I'm not even sure that these facts are all correct. Can someone confirm, for example, where the potentially controversial statement The collective use of the name "Senkaku" to denote the entire group began with the advent of the controversy in the 1970s is supported? The link in the citation doesn't seem to direct me to anything useful. John Smith's (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's -- Does the article need a timeline summary like this?
Timeline
  • 1796 Isaac Titsingh returns to Europe, importing Japanese history books written and published in context of non-Eurocentric (Japanese) historiography. Among these books is Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説, An Illustrated Description of Three Countries) by Hayashi Shihei (1738–93). The book includes the first published reference to islands in East China Sea which can be examined directly and studied by European scholars such as William Marsden in London and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat in Paris.
  • 1832 Julius Klaproth publishes posthumous translation of Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu in French
  • 1848 first published reference in book published in English
 
A 1785 map in Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説) by Hayashi Shihei --- see digitized original, Waseda University [1] 三国通覧図説.
John Smith's -- Perhaps I can do no better than to respond seriatim to your questions:
A. "...what Isaac Titsingh did with regard to the name of the Senkaku Islands and Europe? At the moment it suggests he brought a book or books back to Europe."</ref>

Yes, one book mentioning the East China Sea islands — (a) text written by a non-European historian, and also (b) text discussed by Western scholars in European settings

B. There's no explanation of why the books were brought back, what they said, how they were distributed (if at all), etc.

Yes, no explanation or analysis is presented in this "Names" section. Rémusat added the original to the collection of the Bibliotheque Nationale; and the 1832 books was distributed by subscription. I don't construe this contextual information as relevant in the narrow context of this article.

C. "... what's the story with Edward Belcher and what is 'Pinnacle Island'?"

Yes, the facts set forth in the one-sentence paragraph are clear, accurate, and supported by citations from reliable sources (with embedded hyperlinks to make double-checking easy and straightforward).

D Can someone confirm, for example, where the potentially controversial statement The collective use of the name "Senkaku" to denote the entire group began with the advent of the controversy in the 1970s is supported?

Yes, see "advent" I don't understand this question. The direct relationship between the sentence in our article and the explicitly cited source could not be more on-point. This was supposed to become like the grain of sand around which a pearl is developed over time.

Strategy. A review of the edit history of Senkaku Islands will show that this section was not created by me. I discerned an unstated purpose in this section; and my guess was that it was initially intended to further a specific, non-neutral point of view. The additions I contributed were designed to begin a process of mitigating any perceived flaws and to establish a potentially useful model for assessing the academic credibility and consequences of assertions about these islands. As a closer examination reveals, there is no contemporary POV in the paragraphs which are deconstructed in A+B+C+D above. The way in which each element of each sentence is supported per WP:V becomes a kind of small step towards a generalized model of scholarly transparence. For example, in the above
  • the context of the reliable source is expanded in order to assess the degree of weight which should be accorded in the context of a specific section of our article
  • the specific sentences in the reliable source are made explicit on request, etc.
IMO, this section was already an essential element of this article before my participation began; and the significance of this section is underscored in the arguments which are to be found at Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Tenmei

Names in Early Historical Context of Senkaku Islands

I am unsure as to why you made this change where you deleted a mention of how the early Japanese text 順風相送 referred the island as "Diaoyu". While I suggested to keep the name usage as neutral as possible, I believe what the island was first called is quite relevant. If you feel the need to add in a Japanese-usage reference, feel free to dig up some legacy European-drawn Asian map that uses Senkaku Islands instead.

I am not going to revert your changes since I don't want to bother with page-long discussion, but this is something for you to think about. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2-- This edit responded explicitly to the questions John Smith's asked above; and the context was informed by Cla68's addition of a "modern history" section heading here and here.

As originally conceived, the "Names" section appeared to be an element of Senkaku Islands dispute, but a slightly refocused text presents the same information as the historical background against which that contemporary dispute becomes a silhouetted issue. In other words, minor word changes are consistent with a non-controversial plan mirroring an etymological development section in the Oxford English Dictionary

  • ¶1: Earliest reference to minor geographical features of the East China Sea, 1403–1534
  • ¶2: Earliest reference in the West, 1796–1832
  • ¶3: Earliest reference in any English-language source, 1848
  • ¶4: Early references in British Admiralty sources, 1870-1880
  • ¶5: Early references in Japanese sources, 1900-1950s
  • ¶6: Earliest reference using collective proper noun, 1970s
Bobthefish2 -- Your question focuses our attention on a short paragraph without in-line citations or bibliographic reference source supports. As formerly drafted, the sole subject of this paragraph was the name "Diayou". As re-drafted, the subject is two Chinese books or the earliest recorded references to islands which are the subject of a dispute in the 21st century. You will have noticed that the somewhat unclear concluding sentence in this paragraph remains unedited for now.
  • Former:
"The first recorded name of the islands was Diaoyu. It was used in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù), dated 1403 and 1534 respectively.
  • Re-drafted:
The earliest recorded mention of these islands is found in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) (1403) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù) (1534).
Now that the point is emphasized with a question, I can see how the 21st century argument requires that the former opening sentence is restored; and this has been done here as supplementary amplification of the paragraph subject sentence.

In addition, please note that "citation needed templates" were added to all sentences in this section which do not have verifying support.

Bobthefish2 -- This explanation demonstrates that my edit was mindful of the issues highlighted by discussion threads on this page and at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. I would hope this summary is construed to be consistent with WP:Burden.--Tenmei (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei, this doesn't have to be so complicated if we use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE. It is good that you made changes in response to my criticism, but I much prefer the paragraph as I last saw it weeks ago. As I recall, it was much simpler and the reference to the name "Diaoyu" was directly accompanied with the a reliable source (順風相送). The sentence you added in just now had a "citation needed" bracket appended to it giving an impression that there's no supporting evidence.
If I want to manipulate the presentation of information to create an illusion of unreliability over certain elements, then I would do just that. But again, I am not going to modify any of your changes. While I have a degree of trust in your respect for WP:NPOV, potential new comers may see things differentlyBobthefish2 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 -- Non-response is a constructive reply to needlessly provocative phrases here. Acknowledgement is married with "No".
  • No. Neither 順風相送 nor 順風相送 ≠ WP:Cite
  • No. There is no justification for these words: "... manipulate the presentation of information ...."
  • No. Nothing justifies this phrase: "... illusion of unreliability ...."
As you know, a request for citation support is modest and reasonable, e.g.,
  1. ¶1 — The earliest recorded mention of these islands is found in books such as Voyage with a Tail Wind (simplified Chinese: 顺风相送; traditional Chinese: 順風相送; pinyin: Shǜnfēng Xiāngsòng) (1403) and Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryūkyū (simplified Chinese: 使琉球录; traditional Chinese: 使琉球錄; pinyin: Shĭ Liúqiú Lù) (1534). [citation needed]
  2. ¶1 — The first recorded name of the islands was Diaoyu.[citation needed]
  3. ¶1 — Adopted by the Chinese Imperial Map of the Ming Dynasty, both the Chinese name for the island group (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) both literally mean "angling".[citation needed]
  4. ¶5 — In 1900, when Tsune Kuroiwa, a teacher at the Okinawa Prefecture Normal School, visited the islands, he adopted the name Senkaku Retto (simplified Chinese: 尖阁列岛; traditional Chinese: 尖閣列島; pinyin: Jiāngéliè Dăo), literally Pinnacle Islands, to refer the whole island group, based on the British name. [citation needed]
  5. ¶5 — The first official document recording the name Senkaku Retto was by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nihon Gaiko Monjo (日本外交文書, Documents on Japanese Foreign Relations) in the 1950s.[citation needed]
  6. ¶5 — In Japanese, Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼) and Senkaku Shosho (尖閣諸嶼) were translations used for these "Pinnacle Islands" by various Japanese sources.[citation needed]
  7. ¶5 — Subsequently, the entire island group came to be called Senkaku Rettō, which later evolved into Senkaku Shotō.[citation needed]
There is nothing unconventional nor out-of-the-ordinary in adding [citation needed] as a tag for sentences without inline citation support per WP:V + WP:Cite. --Tenmei (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, can you condense what you just wrote into 2 sentences? Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 -- Non-response is the only constructive reply to the disingenuous question here. Acknowledgement is married with "No". --Tenmei (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't help me adequately understand what you are attempting to express. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Almanacs

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As I had mentioned before, I said that when I had the chance, I would check a university library for more background on the naming issue. I was able to check a number of almanacs, but, unfortunately, did not have time to check encyclopedias (research I was doing for real life writing needs took precedence, sorry). I checked every international geographical Atlas published after 2000 that I could find in the main "map" section of the UC library I was at. Many of the atlases didn't list the islands at all (they are, after all, not really all that important to anyone other than the principals). The 5 atlases that included a name for these islands were:


Concise Atlas of the World, Dorling Kindersley, 5th edition, 2008 The Great World Atlas, Dorling Kindersley, 2nd Edition, 2002 Oxford Essential World Atlas', Oxford University Press, 5th edition 2008 Touring Club Italiano nuovissimo Atlanti Geogratico Mondiale', Touring Club Italiano, 2002 National Geographic Atlas of the World, 8th Edition, 2004


In all 5 maps, the only name that appeared was Senkaku-shoto. None listed an alternate name on the map itself. In Oxford, the name Diaoyu Island was listed in the index (it said Diaoyu Tai = Senkaku Shoto); none of the rest listed Diaoyutai, Diaoyu, Tiaoyu, or any other variant that I could find in their indexes. To clarify, the Touring Club Italiano gave the name as "Isole Senkaku", as the atlas was in Italian.

For additional info, both the 2 DK atlases wrote on the map "Senkaku-shoto", and underneath it said "claimed by China, Japan, and Taiwan"; the Touring Italiano said "Isole Senkaku", and underneath said "GIAPPONE rivend. da Corea del Sud e Giappone" (this makes me doubt this atlas a little, since I think that says that it's disputed with South Korea, which is of course not at all true), and National Geogrpahic said "Senkaku Shoto" and afterward said "Administered by Japan/Claimed by China and Taiwan").

Again, apologies that I couldn't check the encyclopedias; I really wish I had access to an English university library all of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a map I found about 3 months ago in the American Geographic Society Library. It dates back to 1818 and recorded the islands as "Tiaoyuou". There are other links to other maps I saved somewhere, but I haven't had the time to look through them yet. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Dual-name usage in text, captions and table

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion
This section re-introduces an archived thread; and it re-engages issues which have been held in abeyance for two months.
November 2010

We've discussed this previously. As far as I could see there were no legitimate reasons given why in the previous discussion in the geography section there had to be a duplication of the Chinese name of the islands in the table header and in the image captions. We don't keep referring to the "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai islands" throughout the article, so why must this one section have the Chinese name - and just the Chinese name, not the Taiwanese or "English" (i.e. Pinnacle) names - in the header? There is no reason as far as I can see .... John Smith's (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010

January 2011

The neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith's in this diff were valid in November. The passing of time has in no way diminished the correctness of the modest edits which were proposed. No good reason for further procrastination been put forward. I endorse these modest changes, especially in light of the newly added "Geography" section here at Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a huge thread about this issue with numerous debates. If you are to say John Smith's was right and those who disagreed with him were wrong, then you may want to point out the specific reasons.
Also, the content in the geography section is not new at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 -- Responding to your two points,
A> No, this thread does not present a "right/wrong" dichotomy.
The misconception and duality implied by the word "right" is both inaccurate and unhelpful. Issues of "right" or "not right" can only be resolved in real world venues outside the scope of our Wikipedia project. The explicit term used was "valid" meaning "verifiable". In other words, John Smith's words are valid and congruent with WP:Five Pillars. Subsequent talk page threads clarified the validity of John Smith's's analysis here and here. In the alternative, no subsequent investigation has served to invalidate the conclusory statements John Smith's put forward in October 2010 and in November 2010. We have invested more than enough time and discussion in going around the mulberry bush.
Going around the mulberry bush tends to happen when people decide to ignore issues addressed in the past or try to unnecessarily complicate matters. What I've said earlier was clear and perfectly reasonable. I don't see any cause to start a fuss about it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
B> No, the quibble here about the content of Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Geography is a red herring.
As you know, (a) the "Geography" section (with its table) was added here in January 2001; the edit was proposed here in November 2010.
This thread highlights a number of related edits which have been on hold. In the intervening period, neither extra research nor an RfC has produced persuasive reasons for further delay.

The modest changes John Smith's proposed in October may now proceed without diminishing any open-ended prospective edits at Senkaku Islands dispute and on-going discussions at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. --Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This "new" Geography section that was "added" was almost directly copied and pasted from another page and that section existed for a very long time there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's comment

I very strongly disagree with half of the changes you just made. I think that removing the second name from the image caption was correct, in that I don't believe that we should use both names in every time we have the opportunity. However, moving the one mention of the Chinese names to the references section is extremely POV and a misunderstanding of consensus. I guess I have to go back and look again, but I am pretty sure that John Smith never advocated hiding the one and only mention of the Chinese names for individual items down in the references section. I would prefer that User:Tenmei self-revert or fix that part themselves, as I don't want this article getting locked for edit warring, but I will make the change myself as I believe this change is against consensus. I believe the best solution for the table would be 2 columns, labeled "Japanese name" and "Chinese name". Actually, are there separate Taiwanese names? If so, three columns. But putting them down in the references section is POV--just like we have the main name (Diaoyu) listed right in the lead, so should the Chinese names be in the main table. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Without actively tracking Tenmei's activities, I've already noticed a few other things he did or proposed to do:
1. Have Japanese names go first in the table of names
2. Remove reference to an early Japanese book dated in the 19th century that cited the usage of the name "Diaoyu"
3. Remove the reference of the name Diaoyu being used in early history
I don't know, but that sounds like what a POV-pusher would do... Oh yeah.. he did give me a reply when I asked him about some of these issues and his style of writing makes it very hard for others to interpret what his reasonings. Maybe you can give that a try. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In response to your post on my talk page: I've actually underestimated the extent of your changes before reading your post. I find it puzzling that you'd have to persist in removing Chinese references and names in the page. The table was there for a long time with both Chinese and Japanese names there and very few had any issue with it. Now, you decided to copy the table over to the dispute page and removed all the Chinese names in the original. First, that's a very bad case of POV-pushing (and it's obvious who's doing it) and second, it makes a mess out of the dispute page. After all, the Senkaku Islands dispute was created to house issues dealing with sovereignty debates that actually are taking place in the world. The dispute with names and naming technically does not exist in the real world because it ties with the sovereignty issue. However, since we disagree on how to best write these articles, the naming issue is important to us. Let's hope now you'd understand why the table should not belong in the dispute page at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


First, to clarify, I'm talking about the names for the individual islands, not the whole chain. All of the names for the chain are listed in the lead, as they should be. The Chinese names for the individual islands are not in the lead; neither are they in the infobox. I see the Chinese names for the individual islands in two places. One is in the middle of "Early historical context"; there placement here and within that paragraph imply that these are strictly historical names. The other place I see them are in notes 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, and 35. I believe that the chart at Senkaku Islands dispute#Geography should be copied here (although, to match the title of this article, I believe the Japanese column should come first).
I just looked back at John Smith's comment, and, more importantly, at the page as it existed after JS edited it. At that point, JS did have the Chinese names of the individual islands in the infobox. For me, that is an acceptable solution. In other words, I'm not saying we need to list both every time. But I do believe the Chinese names for the individual islands need to be listed either in the infobox or in the table in the Geography section. Are you perhaps somehow thinking that they are still in the infobox right now?
Finally, could you please stop making graphs that you believe represent our dispute or conversation or argument? You need to understand that they are only helpful for you or someone else with experience in symbolic argument, which is not the majority of WP users (including myself). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd add that his style of expression is almost never used in science except in a few very specialized fields. Good communication styles involve concision and a scarcity of unnecessary abstractions. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd attempt to respond to Qwyrxian

The serial interspersed diffs in just this one section have created an impossible-to-unravel Gordian knot -- not of my making, and not within my abilities to parse without help. --Tenmei (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll simplify. Right now the Chinese names for the individual islands are not in the lead, and they are not in the infobox. Some of them are in the historical section, and they're all in the references/notes. Why are the not in either the infobox or in the chart in the Geography section? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: I think you're making is mistake, because you say above that the Chinese names are in the infobox, when they are not (only the names for the whole chain, not the names for the individual islands). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You rejected the form of my reply to your comment. I identified specific sentences in which I felt more information would be helpful. You ignored those explicit requests for more information. Instead, you re-formulated your position -- ignoring the substance of the reply.

I have now stricken this rejected text, in part because it was ineffective and in part because of the intervening diffs Bobthefish2 has added. --Tenmei (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd attempt to respond to Bobthefish2

As an illustration of priming the pump:

Neither 順風相送 nor 順風相送 ≠ WP:Cite

Is this a constructive place to begin anew?

It helps if you can explain the issue with 順風相送 (and others) in plain English. While I can certainly spend extra effort in parsing your convoluted expression style or go through all the links to learn your ubiquitous idioms, I'd much rather not to. If reaching an agreement with me and others is within your interest, then I'd expect this much from you. After all, I am not the only one who has issues with your linguistic style and several of us here are actually academics (and thus have lots of experience with "reading comprehension"). Again, write in plain English. It's not hard. Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a bit busy at the moment but will try to make my point clearly. I don't think that we should boot Chinese names to the references section. Currently they are included in the infobox (I don't think they should be in italics). I think that it's fair to also include the names in the table, as previously discussed with the Japanese names first. Following that, though, the article should just refer to the Japanese names in the main body of the article and the image captions. John Smith's (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am comfortable with them being only in the infobox. Alternatively, I would have no problem with them being in just the Geography table. My problem before was that Tenmei was saying that the information was in the infobox and the lead, when, in fact, it was not. So I guess that we need to decide which is clearer: both names in the infobox, or both names in the Geography table? Me, I don't actually care. If I were forced to choose, I'd put it in the table, just because the formatting seems more aesthetically pleasing to me, but that's a really trivial reason.
If they're in the infobox, I don't know if, format-wise, separating the islands with dots is clear enough. What if instead we wrote "Uotsuri Jima(J)/Diaoyu Dao(C)", etc.? I'm just thinking of a way to clarify it for those people who can't identify which name is Japanese and which is Chinese just by looking at the form of the info. 00:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC) whoops...must have messed up my tildas--this comment was mine Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Control prior to 1972

Latest comment: 13 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

Given that I can find a number of semi-reliable sources (still trying to track down a fully reliable one) that states that the U.S. used the Senkakus for bombing practice, are people really disputing that the U.S. didn't control it prior to 1972? Either my sources so far are wrong, and the US wasn't bombing them, or my sources are correct, and you're implying that China/Taiwan didn't actually care that the US was bombing their territory. I don't understand how this phrase is disputed, and it seems like BtF2 is correct on this. Am I misreading the sentence somehow? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- A faulty premise in this diff encourages a WP:Synthesis which needs to be discouraged in our collaborative editing context. --Tenmei (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2011
Explaining revert
In the edit sequence below, Bobthefish2's provocative revert is non-neutral; and his edit summary construes a PRC-proposed theory as an axiomatic "factoid". In contrast, the edit summary of John Smith's is prudent, nuanced, measured.

The relevant series of edits are:

  • A. diff 10:46, 24 January 2011 STSC (30,565 bytes) (Better wording in general)
  • B. diff 19:29, 24 January 2011 John Smith's (30,543 bytes) (copyediting - also made it sound like the Americans had the jurisdiction to say who controlled the islands)
  • C. diff 07:57, 26 January 2011 Bobthefish2 (30,565 bytes) (Undid revision 409813432 by John Smith's (talk) That was what happened, unless you wanted to dispute American control before 1971)
  • D. diff 08:03, 26 January 2011 Tenmei (30,543 bytes) (Undid revision 410130590 by Bobthefish2 revert original research, not verified)
WP:Five Pillars requires us to reject the unstated premise in the edits of User:STSC and Bobthefish2. As real world context, see Feng Zhaoku. "Diaoyu dispute sowed by US," China Daily (Beijing). September 15, 2010; and compare Isles in Ryukyus Claimed by China," New York Times. January 2, 1972; excerpt, "Peking says that Japan 'illicitly' handed over the islands with the Ryukyus to the United States after WorldWar II".

This newly contrived tempest in a teacup is a non-starter. --Tenmei (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2011

I supplement Tenmei's explanation. "the islands were reverted to Japanese control by the Americans" is legally incorrect as John Smith's succinctly pointed out "it sound like the Americans had the jurisdiction to say who controlled the islands". The reversion was not made "by American" but "under the United States- Japan Treaty of 1971"[2] or more widely recognized using intransitive verb as "the islands reverted to Japan".[3] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2011

ENDORSE the matter-of-fact reasoning and tone of Phoenix7777's diff above --Tenmei (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, wouldn't it be more correct to state "... administration of the islands were transfered from the U.S. to Japan through the "United States- Japan Treaty of 1971". After all, John Smith's edit can be interpreted in the way that some pan-global authority (i.e. U.N.) was involved in giving the islands to the Japanese government, which is not true. An U.S.-Japan treaty is between only the two named countries and technically involves no consent of any other powers.
As Tenmei has noted, this is a tempest in a teacup, but I am not at all the instigator of this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand the distinction; I misunderstood why the edit was being questioned; I think clearer edit summaries, or a discussion here, would have clarified. And, now that I look at it again, and then check dictionary.com to be sure, I am reminded that grammatically the other version was incorrect: "revert" is an intransitive verb (despite the way it's used here on Wikipedia); as such, it is impossible to make it into the passive form "was reverted...by...". So, forgetting about all of the historical facts, it's actually linguistically impossible in the other form. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2011

ENDORSE the matter-of-fact reasoning and tone of Qwyrxian's diff above --Tenmei (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Bobthefish2's diff here:
  • Re: ¶1—WP:Synthesis informs our appreciation of the potential usefulness of an otherwise interesting analysis.
  • Re: ¶2—the adjective "provocative" is not a synonym for the noun "instigator"
Comment: The explicitly cited edit history above -- A+B+C+D -- is straightforward.
1st> STSC's initial edit was accompanied by an edit summary which announced an intention to achieve "better wording in general."
2nd> John Smith's edit resolved a perceived problem by deleting four words only.
3rd> Bobthefish2's restoration of four words was accompanied by an edit summary which was "provocative."
Despite the mildly critical nature of the adjective, the sole action was simply the restoration of a status quo ante. In other words, my edit re-established neutral language in one subordinate clause. In one phrase only, the words in red were removed:
"... when the islands were reverted to Japanese control by the Americans."
In other words, "instigator" is an inapt word-choice in this very small context. --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to know what part of it is "synthesis" and why the other version wasn't. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just substitute "revert" with "change back", we may say:

"The property was changed back to the squatters' control by the caretaker." - It's structurally correct and more informative.

"The property changed back to the squatters' control." - By who? Does it mean the action was universally approved? Surely the readers want to know.

STSC (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I know, STSC. Certain people definitely seem to want to misrepresent facts to give an impression of universal approval. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'd feel rather bored if they didn't start another pointless edit war! STSC (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"The islands were reverted to Japanese control by the Americans." - It's simply structurally, grammatically, factually and historically correct. STSC (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm going to play the "English teacher" card, and tell you that what STSC says with respect to grammar is unambiguously wrong. There is no transitive form of the very "revert" (that is, "revert" is never used with an object)--every dictionary I can find shows that revert is only an intransitive verb. You cannot ever make a passive form of an intransitive verb. You can only make passives of transitive verbs. So, for example, it is possible to say "He was killed by the explosion", but it is impossible to say "He was died by the explosion", because "die" is only intransitive. Now, the phrase, "The United States gave back control of the islands to Japan," or "The islands reverted from United States control to Japan," but, grammatically, we cannot say "The United states reverted control of the islands to Japan," or "Control of the islands were reverted to Japan by the United States." Another way of saying this is that the subject of the verb "revert" must be the thing undergoing change in ownership; i.e., "The islands reverted" or "Control reverted", but not either owner, so not "the U.S. reverted". The English teacher in me really really wants to change the sentence right now, but we're dangerously close to an article locking edit war. Can STSC and BtF2 please accept that the sentence as written is grammatically impossible? Personally, my recommended phrasing would be either "when control of the islands reverted to Japan" or "when control of the islands reverted from the U.S. to Japan." Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Many verbs including "revert" can be either transitive or intransitive, depending on their context in the sentence. Please don't say it's impossible. I have seen many instances in respectable books and articles where "revert" has been used as transitive verb. STSC (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In this context, the word usage is meaningful and verifiable. Illustrative examples include, e.g.,

  • "Country Guide: Japan," Washington Post (US); retrieved 26 Jan 2011; excerpt, "... in the early 1970s when the United States agreed to relinquish its control of the Ryukyu Islands, including Okinawa, which had come under U.S. administration after World War II. All of the Ryukyus formally reverted to Japanese control in 1972."
  • "Profile: Japan's Okinawa," BBC News (UK). 22 September 2010; retrieved 26 Jan 2011; excerpt, "In 1972 Okinawa reverted to Japanese control ...."
  • McNeill, David. "Okinawa's US base took one PM down, can it take another?" Irish Times (Eire). June 26, 2010; excerpt, "In 1972 the islands reverted to Japanese rule ...."

Congruent language is used in relation to other islands not in the East China Sea, e.g.,

  • McCurry, Justin. "Change of name for Iwo Jima," The Guardian (UK). 21 June 2007; retrieved 26 Jan 2011; excerpt, "It reverted to Japanese control in 1968 ...."

This usage and format is consistent throughout a wide array of "reliable sources". --Tenmei (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. The phrasal verb "revert to" may be used transitively, but, in that case, the subject is the thing undergoing transition, and the object is the final possessor of the thing or the state. So, for example, "The islands reverted to Japanese control" is correct, as is "The islands reverted to Japan". However, we cannot add "by the United States," because the "revert" is not an action that the United States can "do."
Maybe I can ask this as a question: STSC, are you saying that "The United States reverted control of the islands to Japan" is correct? That both violates every dictionary entry I, as well as my natural English teacher/native speaker intuition. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, again, we're bordering on edit warring. And over a fairly trivial phrase, at that. It doesn't matter what state it's in exactly now, so can't we talk about it here rather than reverting? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, one more thing--note that our use of "revert" here on Wikipedia is not at all a standard use of the word, and not relevant to the discussion, in case anyone finds that point odd. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
These dictionary pages say the verb is an intransitive verb. No mention that it is a transitive verb. [4], [5], and [6]. STSC, if the passive voice can be used as the standard usage with the verb, please provide RS. Take a good look at the sentences. This is the current version. Japan controlled these islands from 1895 until her surrender at the end of World War II. The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972, when the islands reverted to Japanese control. Adding "...by the Americans" is simply wordy. Oda Mari (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, maybe you're just an old fashioned teacher, maybe you need to update your knowledge? The usage of "revert" in the modern days can be intransitive or transitive, as stated in many modern English dictionaries, e.g., dicts.info, websters-online, etc. STSC (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Websters online lists only the intransitive version, as does dictionary.com, and (although not stated explicitly) wiktionary. My paper American Heritage only lists intransitive versions. I see that Webster's unabridged on dicts.info lists transitive version. So, one source that allows transitive versions. Why is this worth fighting over? Look at Oda Mari's logic above also--even if correct, it's redundant. Even if we ignore the transitive/intransitive issue (which I still don't think we can, but...), it's sloppy to say "A owned X until 2008, then X was given back to B by A." "I lent a car to my brother until Wednesday, when the car was given back to me by my brother." I just don't understand why you want this word there enough to want to go with grammar that is, at best, suspect (given that multiple dictionaries say it isn't). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit surprised that you offered such an irrelevant example. I hope you realize there is a difference in terms of the threshold of ambiguity allowed at different contexts. If you've ever studied linguistics (I did), Oda Mari's sentence has an ambiguous meaning. While you WP:LAWYER love to argue about English correctness and language flow, clarity and precision is also important. Otherwise, we wouldn't have law books and diplomatic documents written and reviewed carefully by many authorities. If you really want to ensure sentences flow well and use correct language, there's always the option of re-writing it in a different form as suggested. If that's still not reasonable, then maybe I should recommend STSC to also rewrite parts of the page and make it "flow" just as well as what we have here.
Anyhow, John Smith's was the first to start the revert sequence and I believe I have provided adequate reasoning of why it was appropriate to reverse his revert. However, it appears you guys have a problem with that and would simply like to do make any arbitrary changes you feel like to make. Even now, Tenmei has not deleted his useless geographic names table when he was already told they were totally irrelevant. Then there were of course all the issues we've fought over in the past (such as some epic filibusters by Oda Mari and Phoenix on obvious reference misuses). You know, I would really like to make this a cooperative process, but this is very hard to achieve if a significant portion of people only write arbitrary things that support their fantasies. Maybe I should ask Magog the Ogre to look both pages again so that we don't have to go through this anymore? After all, there's enough reasoning to support the notion that there will not be constructive editing going on in this page at this current state (which is actually true).
By the way, I do apologize if my expectation is too much. I am in academia and generally not used to bs being used or accepted. Perhaps I should've lowered my standards and tried to accommodate everyone's freedom of speech. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, you know what, it's not really that important to me (other editors may speak for themselves). I am still firmly convinced that the sentence with "by the Americans" is grammatically incorrect, and that, by definition, grammatically incorrect sentences cannot be "precise," but it really isn't important enough to fight about. I do want to raise another point you brought up in a new section. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Other editors of course do, since they've involved themselves to use whatever ill-thought-out excuses to skew the presentation of facts. As for myself, I am just getting tired of this type of shit. If you don't see a problem with that, then I'd wonder if you've ever been an academic at all. Or perhaps you'd care more when someone start adopting the same tactic to misrepresent events in a way that goes against your favourite point of view.
Anyhow, the lack of any constructive efforts on this page is evident. Perhaps locking this will allow some people to go off and contribute their time on something like Nanking_Massacre_denial. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the crux of the thread:

A. Bobthefish2 -- No, the investment of time and thought in this thread is not about "John Smith's was the first to start the revert sequence ...."

This thread is about four words added by STSC in one clause: "... when the islands were reverted to Japanese control by the Americans." The significance of three words only is expressly recognized in edit summaries here and here. The crux of concern about "by the Americans" was crisply distilled here. The problematic meaning ascribed by STSC to the prepositional phrase "by the Americans" is underscored and amplified in restatements here and here.

B. STSC -- No, this thread has demonstrated that the unstated purpose and function of "by the Americans" was to ascribe an implicit role to the United States.

Our Wikipedia policies do not permit us to concur. As real world context, compare

WP:Five Pillars requires us to reject "were ... by the Americans" as John Smith's has done here. --Tenmei (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PRC didn't exist until 1949

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Because the ROC was synonomous with 'China' until 1949, and the PRC didn't exist until that year, I suggest that in the section "Dispute over ownership" we change the line: "control of the islands reverted to the PRC or ROC at that point" to "control of the islands reverted to China at that point." Dfl8cornell (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That does make sense, but I'm not personally comfortable negotiating whatever sorts of compromises we usually make on Wikipedia to handle the PRC/ROC distinction. Other thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Or how about "reverted to Taiwan", given that both the PRC and ROC see the Senkakus being part of Taiwan? John Smith's (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
yes, but not quite. more like Taiwan Province, to remove any ambiguity. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I just came across the following comment put on STSC's talk page by Bob.

"Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like "Japan in World War II" and "Nanjing Massacre"."

Can we please not have anyone deliberately engage in edit-warring to get the page locked? :( John Smith's (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011

ENDORSE hopeful comment response by John Smith's above. --Tenmei 03:26, 29 January 2011 ... Follow-up: In the strained context created by Bobthefish2's provocation here, a constructive next step is to restate and underscore my approval of John Smith's blunt, no-nonsense words above. In fact, WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING — which is a wiki-speak way of echoing what John Smith's meant when he suggested "put the spade down and stop digging" here --Tenmei (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2011 ... More: In response to more poking here, please "stop digging" --Tenmei (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess this shows, beyond a doubt, that Tenmei and John Smith's are all about criticizing STSC and myself just for the sake of doing so. Here's the original comment to STSC, with selective bits intentionally clipped off:
Don't start a revert war with them. ' Those Japanese editors are very keen at being Wiki-lawyers and slamming users with "warnings". Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like "Japan in World War II" and "Nanjing Massacre".
By the way, have you recovered from your motorcycle accident?
If the majority of us can't even exercise a fair bit of objectivity and reasoning in the editorial process, then I find it doubtful that anything positive can actually come out of it. The fact that Tenmei joined John Smith's in this foolishness seems to suggest all his elaborate use of flamboyant language is nothing but a facade that covers up a closet disregard for WP:NPOV. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you don't explain what "Let's just get the two pages locked" means. You probably think that you're not edit-warring at the moment - but you are. Perhaps you're trying to be disruptive enough so that the pages get locked again but without you getting blocked? Prove me wrong - stop reverting people on this page and the daughter article on the territorial dispute. John Smith's (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
My dear John Smith, as a reputable editor, you should understand there are many legitimate ways to do this without being disruptive. Since I am sure you love to cooperative with me, you shouldn't assume bad-faith on my part. After all, I do have a history of making fair statements and edits. So why don't you be a good little brit and refrain from jumping with joy and excitement upon my every comment? Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to cooperate with some who edit-wars, bob, especially if they make nasty comments like calling me "a good little brit". You're not endearing yourself to anyone with this attitude of yours. Maybe it's you who needs to go somewhere else, rather than hope the pages get locked and other people despair of ever making meaningful progress. John Smith's (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry that you find my comments nasty. Sometimes, it can be hard not to lose patience with people that I find to be of (without pointing any fingers) far inferior editorial caliber, although I do sincerely try to be more tolerant. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with being a brit. Even though the British Empire no longer rules the world or exists, Britain is still a reputable country just as you being a reputable editor (which I acknowledged many many times!) - and I am a big fan of Manchester United, which is a British soccer team.
If you do genuinely want to cooperate with me, I feel it is actually not that hard to achieve. All it takes is a little good faith, a fair bit of respect for WP:NPOV (which can be quite fair these days), and some love for Manchester United.
Friends? Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Calling someone "little" is patronising and rude, which is bad enough. But you've managed to just cap that by suggesting that I might be ashamed of my nationality because the Empire is gone. Listen, why don't you just put the spade down and stop digging? John Smith's (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry John Smith, "little" is an endearing term in Chinese. For example "my dear little sweet heart" is an expression of affection rather patronization.
I didn't mean to insult Britain as a country. My impression of your previous post is that you were offended by the fact that I called you a brit (possibly because you felt the Japanese are cooler? Well, I don't know) and all I was trying to do was to explain that it is cool to be a Briton and that there's nothing to be ashamed of in being one.
Here, let me cool things down a little bit with a cartoon.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, lets all just calm down. As I said on Bobthefish2's talk page, there's no way the Btf2 is edit warring, since he hasn't edited the article even once since the comment to STSC. Yes, you can edit war without breaking 3RR, but you can't edit war if you're not editing at all. So let's all just slowly back away...I, for one, would still like some clarification from Btf2 in the section above this one, as it appears he had some problem with one table or another, and I wasn't even sure which table was the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already replied to the above section. What I meant was summarized in the two links. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I thought those were Tenmei's comments. I'll look at the links you provided. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

EAST ASIAN language infobox

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Kusunose, I won't tolerate any POV-mongering such as this edit summary. a box from the same template appears on the East Asia article, and I am sure that more irrational people than you would have contested its inclusion there. But it remains, and that's that. If you have a problem with the language size, take it up at Template talk:Chinese, not here. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

HXL49, I removed the box you added to the article. The template is needed in the linked article because the article body does not say how it is called and written in native languages of the East Asian countries. But not here. The native names are already in the info box and the lead. I don't find the reason of the addition. Oda Mari (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a better reason, but still. If you read my first edit summary, I said "as the intro is getting to be a language mess". I propose limiting the intro to Japanese Kanji and Traditional Chinese (b/c the islands are closer to TW), and remove the full [PRC's official?] name and both transcriptions. I am still disappointed that people would oppose such an addition. The clean-up process is a work-in-progress thing, and only an editor trigger-happy enough would be quick in noticing my addition. No one has ever stopped me when I have added the box to other articles. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, {{Chinese}} template gives readers impression that the Chinese names is more important than other language names because of its size. The template is fine if it is used on articles primarily about Chinese culture. But I believe its use on articles other than those is inappropriate, especially where there are controversial naming issues like this article. --Kusunose 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I still dare you to remove it from there, and see what reaction you get. If you have an issue, either increase the font size at the template itself or raise an issue there. Neither has been done. and frankly, I care more about Oda Mari's input because s/he gives a far better, non-political reason. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING

This text is collapsed to avoid distracting from the constructive thread which unfolds below --Tenmei (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING -- see context here for zero tolerance. HXL -- These word choices demonstrate intention, not an accidental flare-up.

In response to Kusunose's explanatory opinion here, the use of the word "still" is damning – "I still dare you"

HXL -- I can only hope that the harm caused by these tactical edits can be mitigated by putting a spotlight on your strategy: This represents a thinly-veiled attempt to establish and solidify a perceptual transformation and paradigm. This were not emotion-driven mis-steps. --Tenmei 17:56, 1 February 2011 ... Explaining strike-out: Maybe these words will be perceived as unhelpful or counter-productive. I tried to explain what I think your words mean. Instead, maybe it is better simply to recognize that your words stand for themselves. Then, instead of presenting an opportunity for argument, there is an opening for improvement. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


I found that {{Chinese}} page has a link to {{Infobox East Asian}} which addresses my concern about character size. I'm not going to remove it from East Asia but want to replace it with {{Infobox East Asian}}. Unfortunately, {{Infobox East Asian}} is not as versatile as {{Chinese}} so it cannot be used as a substitute. --Kusunose 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
well definitely no substitution on the East Asia article, because of all the varieties of Chinese used, and Vietnam is considered by some to be culturally East Asian. The one issue is that people in Taiwan largely speak Min and Hakka, which Infobox East Asian does not include. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Focusing on this article, I don't see what value that infobox adds. We already have all of the names elsewhere. I'm not so concerned with the size, but I am concerned with the idea of giving precedence to the Chinese names (by devoting a whole box that focuses primarily on them). If there is ever a time in the future where the title of this article becomes "Diaoyu Islands," then I could imagine adding this template. But I don't see why we need such a large template to focus on the secondary names for the article/islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Adding: perhaps, though it's because I don't understand the purpose of this box. Why do we need a box showing the different forms of specifically the Chinese name of this place? Why isn't the text sufficient? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
As I see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language)#Box format, we would use a language box when the text is not sufficient, i.e. when adding various Chinese characters and romanizations to the text hampers readability. --Kusunose 01:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
And I see from that link that use of the box is a consensus based editorial decision ("It is up to the contributors to each individual article to determine together what information should or should not be included in such a box, or whether they want a box at all.") Well, I, for one, don't think the box belongs there; we would have to include a similar box for Japanese for POV reasons, and then it's just getting silly. I personally don't find the lead confusing or unreadable, so I think it should stay out. But, consensus calls...Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This entire debate is downright ridiculous because even the Spratly Islands article uses the Template:Chinese. And Qwyrxian, obviously the name "钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿" is not the simplified form of "釣魚台列嶼". The way the article presents the abbreviated name and the full name is inaccurate and a direct copy of the source code of ZH-WIKI (釣魚台列嶼，或称钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿). For your reference, 或称 means "also known as" --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Then we should fix the names in the text. Again, inclusion of this infobox is one of editorial agreement. This article exists in a very delicate POV balance, and, as such, may have to have compromises not seen on other articles. The amount and placement of the Chinese names has long been a complicated one here, and the infobox upsets the basic balance we've set up. Of course, if consensus decides to add it, it can go in. But you need to get that consensus first. Note that several different parts of Wikipedia policy, including WP:MOS state that while articles have to be consistent internally, we don't need formatting to be consistent across multiple articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Good point about MOS. We don't have to follow the use of infoboxes in other articles. John Smith's (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Geographic Table

Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Bobthefish2, above, you say you "Even now, Tenmei has not deleted his useless geographic names table when he was already told they were totally irrelevant." Do you mean the table labeled "Table:Islands in the group"? If so, I apologize for not noticing before that you thought those were irrelevant. Aren't they a standard inclusion for groups of this type? I checked Hawaii, Japan, and U.S. Virgin Islands; on the latter two you have to go to Geography of Japan, etc., but it seems like that kind of info is included. Or are you referring to something else? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute#Geography_section_intro_sentences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute#Geography Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Still being ignored Bobthefish2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC).
A quick review of other island articles included in Template:Territorial disputes in East and South Asia reveals corollary tables, e.g.,
In context, these do not appear to suggest issues relating to WP:Ownership. --Tenmei (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh...Bobthefish2, you're saying you think the table should be removed from Senkaku Islands dispute? In that case 1) I support this idea, and 2) we should discuss it over there. Is that correct, or do you have a problem with the table here (where I would support keeping it)? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you got it right. I didn't delete it myself because I felt it is a good example of User:Tenmei not listening to others and proceeding to do whatever they wanted. I hope User:Tenmei will, as a sign of good faith, delete it and acknowledge there's a good reason for it not to be there. After all, everyone here should strive to be responsible editors. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've started a thread on the other talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, it's about the name ordering in the table. I've reverted the persistent effort to change nothing but the name ordering in this article. This talk page has an HUGE discussion about this issue since Nov, 2010 but no consensus has ever been reached. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

W-Lighter, this issue was settled weeks ago. You don't have to be consulted to achieve consensus. If you have a case for changing the table as you did, feel free to make it and try to get consensus for your change. Otherwise, please do something constructive. Thanks, 06:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You might need to point me to the appropriate thread on this (since I don't really keep tabs on the name-ordering issue), but I don't really remember there is a consensus on changing the name-ordering. Of course, even though I don't care about the name-ordering myself, others (such as yourself and Winston) may not share my sentiment on the matter Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Without looking back, I don't understand how this can even be a discussion. The title of the article is Senkaku Islands. That's consensus supported by policy. Since the English name for the island group as a whole matches the Japanese name, it only seems logical for the Japanese name to come first. What logical reason is there for the Chinese names to come first? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You can always check the previous threads to see what others say. Again, I don't really care. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Responding to the question Qwyrxian presents in the last sentence of the diff above:

Compare threads which considered the subject of "name ordering", e.g.,

Expanding, supporting and emphasizing the core point Qwyrxian presents in the diff above: Yes, the name of this article — Senkaku Islands — is the result of consensus supported by policy and redundantly repeated, exhaustive research applying a variant-Bayesian inference and analysis of Google search results, etc. ... and extended discussion

Compare threads which considered the subject of "article name", e.g.,

In other words, a mere straw poll conducted among a few active editors who demonstrate intensity of preference is not consensus and polling is not a substitute for discussion. The edit history of this talk page is a compelling record, including many threads which address "name ordering" and "article name" and the relationship between them. --Tenmei (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:TL;DR. However, I hope you know what's Bayesian inference. It's one thing to use scientific terms and it's another to apply them aptly. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I sure don't know what it means. In any event, what Tenmei says here isn't really all that relevant--I'd like to here from Winstonlighter why after months of disappearance xe believes that xe can revert the page back to a much older version without a rationale, and against what seems, to me, to be common sense. WL could well have a good, rational reason for preferring the Chinese names first, which I'm hoping xe will provide, so we can see if they have any merit in light of the article naming issue being settled. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei, I didn't miss that (you didn't need to biggify it), although that's just because I happened to actually to try to scan through everything you wrote (not something I always do successfully). In any event, though, I want Winstonlighter to say it now, after such a long time. I want evidence that WL retains the same logic or plans to show us an argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe it is that hard to understand actually. If my memory serves, the name-ordering issue was last brought up when I called a WP:BRD on User:John Smith's edits. In the end, no agreement was reached and I recalled that User:San9663 had a similar stance as User:Winstonlighter. Presumably, the original ordering had Chinese names going first.
By the way, I'd like to add a point about delayed editorial action - Even if something managed to stay for a moderate to long period of time, it shouldn't mean its legitimacy cannot be disputed. In our case, both User:Winstonlighter and User:San9663 seemed to have taken a (partial or full) wiki-break. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
San9663 has simply disappeared, so we have no idea when or if he might come back. Winston, on the other hand, has continued to edit, even if he hasn't done much since last year. He had an opportunity to involve himself in the page editing and the discussion. He didn't say that he was going to be off for a certain period of time, so there was no reason to have to wait for his approval or input. He hadn't contributed to the discussions here and on the other article since October last year.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe anyone said on the talk page last month "I strongly oppose the changes because of X,Y,Z but am not reverting to avoid an edit war - let's discuss it further". I thought that there was acceptance (whether reluctant or positive) to the table being reorganised. John Smith's (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe what Winston did was that he acted on a change was made in a way that was at odds to what was agreed (or not) on an issue. For a sparsely populated page like this, changes can sometimes be made without others noticing. For instance, I do not keep track of every edit. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean he "acted on a change was made in a way that was at odds to what was agreed (or not) on an issue"? Also you were involved in the discussion over the geography table. However, Winston seemed to have lost all interest in this issue for about 4 months. John Smith's (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
In a nut-shell, the state of consensus (or lack of consensus) did not appear to have changed since Winston last visited. There's also no WP policy that states an editor has to be persistently interested in a page in order to contest any changes. What's important is that he follows the rules of WP. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Restart then

Okay, so, it appears that it's quite unclear what had consensus when, and therefore what the "default" state of the article currently is. Fine, whatever, let's move forward, because arguing about who did or didn't edit properly is getting us nowhere towards resolving how the article should be from now. So, personally, I think the current order is correct, because (as I said above), the most common English name for the islands was found to be Senkaku, which is also the Japanese name for the islands. Thus, since Senkaku is the name of the article, it makes sense to me that it is the "primary" name to be used inside the article, and thus it makes sense to me that the Japanese names should be first. Does anyone have a reason why that is incorrect, and there should be a different order?

Article protected

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As people are edit warring here, this article has been protected to prevent this nonsense from continuing. Please discuss your concerns, first, then let me know when you've reached consensus. Edit warring is not acceptable. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither is indefinite full protection of something that is not a high-risk template, though I support temporary full protection; I don't think we should hold you or any of the other admins up with petty requests. Keep in mind that I have not been participating in the latest war or, if the dispute over the language infobox does not count, none of the past ones; indeed I am merely a watcher of this article. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It was done indefinitely because of past experience with this article. It's a POV-magnet, and edit wars happen frequently. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lvhis, 24 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

{{edit protected}} Dear Admin: Please add the template {{POV-title}} on this protected article when the dispute and discussion about the title is ongoing. Several users think the template should be added. Only several hours after it had been added, the previous {{POV-title}} was removed by some users who were not following the wiki policy Wikipedia:POV Cleanup. I think the tag {{POV-title}} shall be removed only when a consensus has been reached or one party walks away as giving up. Thank you! --Lvhis (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the point of that page. It concerns the cleanup of articles by a certain group of Wikipedia editors that are tagged. It isn't policy on the use of tags. John Smith's (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Negative. ORG interpretation.--Lvhis (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Not done for now: Can you please point me to the agreement that this tag is warranted? Or at least name the "several users" who agree with you. It is not clear to me that there is consensus for this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Martin(MSGJ): at least user:STSC and user:Bobthefish2 agreed with me on this tag. Also, the tag mainly tells there exits dispute on certain issue's NPOV, and it is not necessary interpreted as this issue must certainly be POV, whether or not which will be is pending the ongoing discussion. This tag has another name {{NPOV-title}}. Perhaps if I had used this name it would have been less misunderstanding and controversy. The dispute on the title of this article clearly exists here and it resulted in the current full protection. If this tag is denied to add, it is almost equal to saying there is no dispute here. Regards.--Lvhis (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the title POV?

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Okay, Lvhis, I'd like to hear your argument why you believe the title is POV. Note, though, that your reason cannot include the fact that the islands themselves are disputed--that fact is explicitly not a factor in the naming of the article per the guidelines. There are many places under disputed ownership in the world (List of territorial disputes has dozens, although the name isn't necessarily different in all of those cases), and for each of those cases, Wikipedia has articles with one and only one title. Per guidelines, names are chosen to reflect the name most commonly used in English. Do you have any evidence other than your own intuition that "Senkaku/Diaoyu" is the commonly used name for the islands in reliable sources? Note, again, per the guidelines, I don't mean sources in which both names are mentioned (i.e., "called Diayou in China, but called Senkaku in Japan"), but, rather, names which the dual name is explicitly used as the islands name? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good argument. If the POV-Title was still on there, I would be happy to discuss this with you. Now, I am not interested in. Because this article and its title now are looked like without dispute on them. Anyway, thanks.--Lvhis (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis, if you're serious that the title is POV you should want to talk about it regardless of whether a tag is there or not. A tag doesn't somehow make the discussion worthwhile. John Smith's (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a feeling that this is bordering on wiki-WP:LAWYERing. In the English language, very few dual names (such as A-B or A/B) are actually used due to its bad form. As a result, articles tend to reference the two names in an equal fashion but without using this kind of conjunction. Before you start referencing the WP policy on naming, I'd remind you once again the dual-name standards you mentioned are almost completely based on your preference - i.e. there are very little standard being set on WP regarding dual-names.
Now, I don't mean to start a debate about naming on every single thread, but I find it baffling that you seem to pretend there is no POV involved after pages of discussions being written. Maybe we really do need a little chat, since it doesn't really make sense to have an editor opposing a proposal of a RfC to take part in writing it - It's almost like filing a half-hearted lawsuit. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Bob, what I find baffling is that you continue to misread the guideline. It says, completely unambiguously, that we may only use a dual name if the dual name is actually the most common English name. It says that explicitly. It even goes further to say that dual names cannot be used to solve POV disputes. The policy is just up a few sections, and it is completely unambiguous in this matter. I don't understand how you can keep saying that this is our preference, or that the guidelines don't set standards, or whatever. Either you simply aren't reading well, or you're lying. I actually believe it's the former rather than the latter, but I seriously don't understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I was on the verge on groveling in front of you and somehow admit I didn't rules correctly... until I've done a little digging.
This is what Naming Conventions on Multiple Local Names look like now and this is what it looked like in October 2010 (I randomly chose that month). Apparently, some Pamela Anderson User:Pmanderson added that little extra bit you were accusing me of not acknowledging. It was done on December 6, 2010 and there were no discussions on "Multiple Local Names" in sight within the article talk page or its recent archives (dating back to 2009).
And of course, when I did a little bit of background check on our friend Pamela. It appears he/she is not an admin after all and has no special privileges in writing the standards of WP. He/she was also recently accused of multiple violations and recipient to several ANI's. Given what I saw, perhaps we can even have our friend User:John Smith's go there and re-write the rules in whatever way we like too.
QED?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs)
Bob, if you want to arbitrarily re-write policy or guidance, I'm the last person you want to ask. I would only comment that a) you don't have to have special privileges to edit such pages, b) the edit was not challenged (as far as I can see) despite the fact it is fairly regularly edited and c) the page is still clear that a double+ name is unsatisfactory because it leads to arguments over which name should be first. If you want to say this leaves the door open to a change in this case, please knock yourself out by opening a new move request or some other official means to resolve the issue. But, please, just do it rather than talk about it. Or don't do it and let us move on from this matter. John Smith's (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, the naming guideline did not disallow the use of dual names until some random guy came in and decided to offer his two cents. And of course, can we even trust the guidelines when people with no special privileges can come in and write practically anything they want.
Furthermore, you should not consider uncontested edits to be automatically acceptable. After all, very few pages in Wikipedia are actually under constant surveillance.
Anyhow, you aren't obliged to take part in this if you aren't interested. But speaking of moving on, I think you should comment on User:Qwyrxian's wrap up about the PD RfC. I think we would very much like to move on from that too. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The page in question is edited fairly regularly. But you either think these things apply or they don't. You can't cherry-pick which parts are valid. If you're unhappy with it, a very simple way to address it would be to start a discussion on the talk page suggesting the section be withdrawn. You could notify the regular editors to the article for good measures. If no one objects after a week or two, you can remove it.
What "wrap up"? John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
My British friend, I am afraid you'd need to read up on what's WP:CHERRY-picking before proceeding. Since you apparently did not understand the problem, I'd remind you that the question is about the credibility of the contents in that particular WP guideline page. Even if it is regularly edited, it doesn't mean all of its contents are correct or up to standards. After all, Senkaku Islands/Senkaku Islands dispute had that very bad Remin Ribao text for a long while before the first complaints showed up. And by the looks of it, some pretty appropriate changes would be made to it soon.
Also, the "wrap up" is here. Well, at least it is an attempt at wrapping up. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, now I get it. See, even though I have problems with your style at times, Bobthefish2, I really did not think that you were just ignoring the written guidelines. Looking back at my contribution list, I'm pretty sure I didn't get involved in this article (and thus, the issue of dual names) until after that change was already made, and thus I only knew the current version. Okay, well, that's all behind us now! So, now that we all know what the guideline is, we can apply it to this article, and I'm pretty sure we agree that the listed exception doesn't apply to these islands. So, does anyone still want to argue for Pinnacle Islands (the only real alternative to Senkaku, as far as I know)? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess a few points didn't strike home:
Anyhow, it appears I might have to file an RfC about this after all... Let's see, some random user changed some parts of a guideline while a long-running dispute remained to be solved. Then the opposition decided to cite this change as some gospel. I don't know, do you think some people can wiki-WP:LAWYER their way out of this? Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, now I have to confess to misreading. I thought you said the wording changed in October. Okay, so, the wording changed in December. Maybe what we need to do is table the discussion here and then go discuss it over on that page's naming conventions? I think we need the "broad" consensus first on whether or not the community feels strongly enough about the issue of dual names. While the general principle of "Silence implies consent" could be said to apply to the guideline, it's fairly recently that it was added, so I certainly feel a little uncomfortable relying upon it as a definitive position. Now, of course, the problem is that I agree with the guideline the way it's written now--note that I agree with this in all cases, not just the case of these islands, because it makes sense to me. I don't like the idea of Wikipedia essentially renaming places because the ownership of a place is disputed. For example, I certainly would not support Kuril Islands being renamed to Kuril/Chishima Islands. As such, I don't really feel comfortable raising the issue. I don't believe you should jump directly to an RfC there, because RfC's are generally reserved for after a dispute, but I do think it would make sense that if you disagree with the guideline the way it's written now, that you raise it on the guideline's talk page. Would you be willing to table the discussion here until we get the guideline hashed out there? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will write something there in the near future.
The Kuril Islands is a very different matter because it is completely controlled by Russia and Japan has renounced all rights to it in the San Francisco Treaty (even though USSR did not sign it). This scenario is as relevant as Falkland Islands, where the British also had complete control over the islands and won a war over it. Unless you have reasonable counterarguments against these two cases, I certainly hope you don't bring them up again (and force me to repeat). Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Bob, you put great store in the San-Fran Treaty. Does this mean, for example, that you regard the "unequal treaties" China signed as being perfectly valid? China says that it was forced to sign them, so they were invalid, and I assume that's one reason Japan still claims the Kuril Islands, as it didn't really have a choice but to sign. John Smith's (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
My friend. Before you proceed further with your denunciation of the San Francisco Treaty, you'd have to be careful about what type of debate you are going to get yourself into. After all, a great many international treaties are signed between victors and losers. This includes the Treaty of Versailles and all the demilitarization rules imposed on Germany and Japan. At the same time, while I am not a Chinese historian, my feeling is that almost all the elements of the unequal treaties imposed on China have since been neutralized through subsequent diplomatic actions - In other words they no longer exist.
Now, if you really do want to get into a debate on international law, I don't think this is the right platform of discussion. Suppose you would like to write an article about the invalidity of the "San Francisco Treaty", you might want to go start a discussion there instead. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Bob, you need to stop putting words in people's mouths. I didn't say it was invalid, I wanted to check that you had a consistent approach to the matter of the "unequal treaties". And you didn't quite answer my question. What if it was the case that they hadn't been "neutralised" through subsequent diplomatic actions? Would the "unequal treaties" still have been valid. John Smith's (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My British friend, you should be careful about pointing fingers at people. Since you appeared to disagree with the fairness of the SF Treaty, I was simply advising you on a possibility to bring the matter to the right place.

However, you were right that it was quite an one-sided treaty. After all, the Japanese were in no position to contest the terms after losing its entire army to some failed invasion campaigns in China and Oceania.

As for your "what-if" question, I don't see how it is relevant. If you have a particular example you would like to discuss, then you should present it instead. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I mentioned the Kuril Islands--they were just one of the first places I thought of that are disputed territory. I was just trying to say why I think that the guideline as written now is actually a good guideline, and I believe should be used on this page and any other page about disputed territory, and that was why I was not willing to go raise the issue on the talk page there. Let's all back away from a wholly irrelevant issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Protected b/c Dispute

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

{{editprotected}} Has there been any discussion on if {{pp-dispute}} should be placed on the article? Would it even be appropriate here? – Ajltalk 02:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, given that there's been no discussion here on the issue in over 3 weeks, I think we can probably unlock the article. Anyone still feel the need to edit war? 04:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)
I have alerted the admin who protected the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 N Protected edit declined because there is not (yet) consensus for it. Please make {{editprotected}} requests only after establishing consensus.  Sandstein  12:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh... I would have thought the history of edit warring would have been the proof of consensus that the ("current" state of the) article was in dispute... Oh well. – Ajltalk 15:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, there's a flaw with that logic as well. Using that logic, if I noticed a grammar mistake (i.e. a "s" missing from an obviously plural word), I would have to get consensus to make the change of something that should be a uncontroversial change. – Ajltalk 15:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  Done I've changed the protection template to {{pp-dispute}} as that is why it's been protected. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The title/name of this article sounds quite POV

Latest comment: 13 years ago63 comments9 people in discussion

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

Previous attempts were made to change the name to "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" and they've basically gone nowhere. I'd advise you to read all previous discussion on naming dispute to get a feel of what's going on. If you want to help, you are welcomed to post your input and research. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I just realized the long discussion history on this and reviewed some of those roughly. The disputes on this sounded focusing on "number" results from Google. As my thought, the bottom line here is: the islands are disputed ones, no matter from the viewpoint of history and realistic facts, or from the viewpoint of wp:source. Therefore, the current title or name "Senkaku Islands" is a POV one, and the dual one "Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands" or vice versa is NPOV one. Wikipedia is welcomed worldwide by its NPOV, the one of its five "pillars". Actually, outcomes (numbers) of Google search results on different disputed names of the Islands are all big enough already. If one only plays search numbers of Google search while ignores the huge facts of the dispute on the Islands name, it would make Wikipedia at least somewhat lose its reputation on this article and its related articles.--Lvhis (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think your suggestion could set a dangerous precedent. Take the example of the Spratley Islands - should that be moved to "Xinsha/Spratley Islands" plus whatever they are called by the Thais and other claimants? I think that the title should be based not on Google hits but rather on what the majority of maps say, which I believe is "Senkaku Islands". ► Philg88 ◄ talk 02:00, Wednesday February 23, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any dangerous precedent associated. It's a pretty unique case of diplomatic nightmare (and in my opinion, a set-up by the U.S. to inflame Sino-Japanese long-term relationships). Since most countries gave a wide berth to taking an official position in such a dispute, it's obvious that this is not at all similar to Falkland Islands. But anyhow, sovereignty discussions is a whole different matter, so I will stop at this.
As for your other point, there's little reason to give maps more importance over say... articles from major news media. For the more scientifically-inclined among us, it is well-known that it's not hard at all difficult to manipulate presentation/sampling of data to argue in any direction possible. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • I am not going to re-elaborate my disagreements with User:Qwyrxian's methods (i.e. statistical significance of results, sampling, etc). But if someone's going to attack the problem again, then it'd be a good idea to do it at a linguistic stand point. It's too bad we don't have any linguists among us. I've only taken two grad courses in computational linguistics, so I only have a very basic idea of what kind of sampling methods are reasonable. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have gave my two pennies in the reply to user:Bobthefish2 as above. Because POV in the title/name of this article is so obvious, and violates one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, I believe this is a case of so called "extremely limited exceptions" to use dual name. Some search results you (User:Qwyrxian) mentioned above supported my point. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This makes sense realistically, but if you've read the previous discussions, you'd notice others like myself have tried this and more. If you are in fact very interested in helping us out with this matter, you should read through this and this thread carefully.
Lvhis, if you look at the policy, it actually says that we have to balance out NPOV with other issues, specifically the need for all articles to have one and only one name. Furthermore, past disputes have shown that all changing to a dual name does doesn't actually solve the NPOV issue, because people just end up arguing that the ordering of the names is NPOV. And finally, the name isn't really NPOV if that is the name used most often in reliable sources, especially those of encyclopedic level. For example, consider, Florence; by looking just at POV, isn't it a violation of NPOV to call it Florence when everyone who lives there call it Firenze? Or, if you want to look at disputed places, isn't it POV to call them the Kuril Islands, when Japan disputes ownership of them and calls them the Chishima Islands? And this doesn't even get into places that are disputed where every town in the area also has a disputed name. This is why WP:PLACE exists, because we have to choose what to call things; otherwise, every single disputed place would have to have a dual title. What about all of the cities in Tibet, or Ireland? Our goal is to choose the most common English name; right now, that looks like Senkaku Islands. If there is ever a time in the future where the actual, commonly used name is "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" (which I actually think there may be, if the trend among some newspapers carries over into the academic fields), then that would be the correct name for this article. At the moment, though, it dos not appear to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
(ecx2)As to whether or not this qualifies for an exception, note that neither Kuril Islands nor Sea of Japan qualify for such an exception, and those are nearly as equally disputed. In fact, as far as I know, the only ones that do are a small set of cities, somewhere in Europe (it's in the WT:PLACE archives), where the government itself actually recognizes the dual names. The only other alternative, as I say, is to choose "Pinnacle Islands", which I was considering until I found unanimous support for Senkaku Islands among almanacs.
If you do want to pursue a name change, my feeling is that you'll have to try another RfC, and present new arguments and/or data that haven't been presented before. The last RfC was pretty recent though, so it may not be looked upon too favorably. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Qwyrxian, wall of text doesn't help. If he's interested in helping, he will read up the threads I listed. Within, it contains everything you just said above. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, the last RfC lacked a lot of depth. If you looked at the paragraphs pro and anti, they were ~ 2 sentences each. If my memory serves, our actual discussions on various aspects of the matter spanned many pages. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry...you're right. Perhaps the thing I agree with more than anything else that you said about me in that discussion on that noticeboard is that this naming issue is a hot button issue with me, and I definitely got carried away. Lhvis' initial comment to me sounded like xe was minutes away from moving the article, so I freaked out. I really need to learn to relax a bit sometimes. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

  • I reviewed more of the history of the naming discussion or dispute on this article, and the wp:NPOV, wp:PLACE, and wp:TITLE, and the messages above from all you three users. My feeling is as follows:
  1. Clearly the current name/title of this article is POV one. Bobthefish2 and John Smith's said this frankly already. Or at least, it is a hot disputed one, as Qwyrxian expressed. The extent how hot this dispute can be told by the mountain like discussion history record.
  2. No consensus on this has been reached yet. That the current title can stay here is due to no consensus as said by user Winstonlighter on 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC) "It's obvious that either Japanese or Chinese names for the disputed islands aren't overwhelmingly more common than their counterparts, according to the previous search research on google scholars and google books. However, Wikipedia also states that when there is no consensus reached, it will hardly change anything." But hardly change anything does not mean the POV problem has been solved.
  3. The case of naming this title is not a clear-cut one as mentioned in wp:PLACE, and wp:TITLE, if one insists on using single name. I strongly feel this is the case of "extremely limited exceptions" to use dual name.
  4. Some examples or precedents above: Florence/Firenze - does not work because the margin between using Florence and using Firenze is larger than the one between using Diaoyu/Senkaku, and Florence is more English one; Falklands/Malvinas, similar to the case of Florence/Firenze and Falkland is even more English one, that happen to be generated and used by UK. Kuril/Chishima is a bit comparable, but I think we still need deal with these case by case.
  5. To reflect NPOV of wiki's important policy, I believe for the time being we can put the template {{POV-title}} on the top. It serves two functions here: a) warn readers and editors this title is not a consensus NPOV one, and tell them the wiki does not take side on the naming dispute; b) encourage them to participate in the discussion. This template should stay there till a consensus can be reached including the article can be peacefully moved or peacefully stayed.
Thank all of you. --Lvhis (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
done with adding the template {{POV-title}}.--Lvhis (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I highly doubt consensus will be reached given my experience with this page. If you want to score a breakthrough, you'd need to provide some pretty convincing analysis and evidence that makes logical and statistical sense. For reference, you can also read some of my old arguments in that RfC I gave you (which were mostly being ignored). Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Question for Lvhis: Can you please explain where you don't see consensus for the current name? I just looked back at the most recent RfC, and I do see consensus for the current name. The only objections I see are 1) Bobthefish2, 2) San9663, who was objecting only at the beginning, and more to the process of data gathering, as I saw, and 3) Jiang, who wasn't objecting to the name but instead claiming that the search results were wrong (which we determined were because he used Google searches incorrectly). Several previously uninvolved editors commented that the name as it stands is the correct English name (note, that is what we are looking for--not the "neutral" name, but the name that is most commonly used in English). Note that consensus does not mean a majority, but it also doesn't mean 100% agreement. Maybe I, because of my strong opinion on this subject, am seeing consensus where it did not actually exist, so that's why I'd like to hear why you think there wasn't consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I remember writing a section about how that RfC was set up in a way to favour a certain outcome. If my memory serves, the RfC was submitted before I had a chance to summarize the term frequency data we found. The introductory text was very short given the high dimensionality of our problem. It also omitted much of the issues we were discussing. If we look past my additions (which occurred after much of the voting took place), your part of the introduction had almost nothing useful. It is as if you summarized the 1000-page American Health Care Bill in 1 paragraph and asked people to vote on it.
Looking back into our old discussions, it does appear to me that this "naming-issue" evokes some very strong emotions from you. For example, phrases like "compromise is considered a failure" seem to suggest you've already made up your mind about the issue regardless of evidence (something you angrily accused me of committing multiple times). Since you tend to be a responsible editor, it's important for you to know whether or not your objectivity is compromised. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I vaguely recall that "compromise is considered a failure" comment, but I don't remember the exact context. Thus, I'm not sure what I meant at that moment, but I think I can clarify what I think that phrase means now. Wikipedia does not strive for compromise, it strives for consensus. So, for example, we should never have a case where 2 editors say "Since we can't agree, let's just put in both (POV/quotations/sentences/whatever)." Regarding this specific issue, we can't "compromise" on the name; instead, we must, if we can, pick the name that is most commonly used in English. If we were to choose Senkaku/Diaoyu, it should only be because that is the actual name used in English sources, not because one side thinks it should Senkaku and the other side thinks it should be Diaoyu and thus we compromise on a mixed name. In other words, consider the mixed name not as a POV compromise, but as one of 5 possible names for the article: Senkaku, Diaoyu, Diaoyutai, Senkaku/Diaoyu, or Pinncale. Now, if sources did show that the mixed name was the most common, I would accept that, and move on. But that's not what the sources show. At best, they show an uneasy mix between S alone, Diaoyu alone, and S/D together. Unfortunately, accurately measuring that mix is nearly impossible given that it would require a hand count, which I tried to do but even found that to be giving me wacky results. To me, the almanac and (minimal) encyclopedia evidence completely sealed the deal, but, of course, if presented with other evidence, I would change my opinion.
Part of what concerns me is that I just don't understand what we need to do to put this issue behind us (at least for a few years, until sources change). Re-raising this issue every few months takes a lot of effort and pain, and never gets us anywhere other than where we are right now (a majority, but not totality, of editors support the current name). What do we need to do to end this discussion and say, "Not everyone agrees, but this is the best we have for right now"? Note that I'm not trying to shut this discussion down, but to figure out what steps you (Bobthefish2, Lhvis, etc.) think we need to take that ensure we are moving forward and not just spinning around in circles, repeating the same discussions over and over again. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It may help if you and User:Lhvis have a private initial discussion on the relevant angles of the problem first. This will give a general scope of the problem (which we did not adequately provide). It may also be convenient to leave the word usage matters to a bit later since it is rather complicated to resolve. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Per Bobthefish2's doubt and question, I strikethroughed "consensus" somewhere in my note above.--Lvhis (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Answer to Qwyrxian's question regarding last RfC: the last RfC is just a part of long record of this naming dispute. Neither can it be taken as a final conclusion on this dispute nor can it solve the POV problem for the current title. The only consensus, if we can call it consensus, is that there has exited drastic dispute on this article's naming. So putting that template on the top may be a relative realistic way we can do for now, and also a compromising way from me. I personally believe the dual name D/S or S/D would be the best in terms of NPOV. A lot of evidence listed by editors/users involved in this dispute has been there already, and the key problem is how to interpret them. --Lvhis (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes. The problem is that we can't agree what the English version of the name is.
Also, as far as the tag...well, I don't really mind it being there, as I can see the justification for it (even though NPOV isn't the only policy we have to follow with regards to article naming). It is a little sad to think of it staying up indefinitely, but at least I understand the complaint. I wish I could figure out how we could get a firm, strong consensus like Sea of Japan or Spratly Islands (that is, one written directly into the guidelines). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: I was just re-reading WP:PLACE, and found a relevant point regarding dual names. It explicitly says "There are occasional exceptions, such as Biel/Bienne, when the double name is the overwhelmingly most common name in English (in this case, it has become most common because it is official and customary in Switzerland; the usage does not appear to be controversial). This should not be done to settle a dispute between national or linguistic points of view; it should only be done when the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place." That means, as I've said before, that this article doesn't meet the exemption, because even though many news articles do use both names, they do so by listing them separately, not by actually writing them as Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku. Since English-speakers don't "call the place" the dual name, it's not an acceptable name for this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, WP doesn't have a standard for dual name usage. Biel/Bienne's case is certainly convenient, but I've not seen anything about them being the limiting conditions. In the end, it's just a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. But again, we've been through this before. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, what? The quote that you're responding to right here is about dual names, taken from the guideline (i.e., standard) on naming articles about geographic places. It explicitly says not to use dual names except in cases where "the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place." I don't understand how you can say that there is no standard. I hate to sound like the wikilawyer you think of me as, but the guideline is very clear here: unless we can establish that the dual name is the commonly used English name, it cannot be the title of this page. I know, I know, you may be thinking of WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. However, my stance, not just here but everywhere on WP (after my first few months editing) is that local groups (our group of editors here) should not override site-wide guidelines and policies (which is written right into WP:Consensus). Oda Mari, I'm pretty sure that Bob is right that inserting new comments in the middle is acceptable so long as it's done to show the thread of an argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Philg88. As far as I know, Nautical charts published in en speaking countries, namely Australia, UK, and USA, use "Senkaku Shoto" and this is en WP. I don't think the article title is POV. I'll remove the template. If you disagree with me, please provide RS that the en charts use a different name or the article title is not NPOV. Oda Mari (talk)
Hi please face the fact here: within around 26 hous the discussion here has pile up such long in size. Please see here and here. Please do not remove that template, thanks.--Lvhis (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The linked pages are not RS. The first one is a blog. Kristof's wife is a Chinese American. He said "So which country has a better claim to the islands? My feeling is that it’s China, although the answer isn’t clearcut." in September. Looking at the map, not a naurtical chart, on the second link, it says "Senkaku Shoto". Furthermore, both links treat the dispute. It is natural they mention the both names. Oda Mari (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
@Bobthefish2, when you post your new comment, please do not insert it between past comments. Instead post it on the bottom of the thread. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Negative. There is little reason to post it at the bottom of the thread when I was addressing a specific post. It is also common practice. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, User:Lvhis, don't let this revert discourage you. You have no doubt just experienced your rite of passage in this page. For your benefit, you should read up on WP:RS to get an idea on what's a reliable source. Since User:Oda Mari asked for an WP:RS, you can simply search for something from CNN, CBC, BBC, scholarly journal, etc, that supports your position (if any exist). Enjoy. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little uncomfortable with Oda Mari's revert of the tag. I was figuring that the tag could stay for a while, while we tried, once again, to hash out the name. I'm loathe to revert Oda Mari to re-add the tag, though, because I'm afraid that that will practically guarantee full protection of the article. Ugh... Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, I don't want to have to debate the name every time a new editor makes a complaint. The discussion is, for now, closed. We should focus on other things. John Smith's (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a wise choice. If the page is locked, then we might have to waste some time dealing with an ANI about User:Bobthefish2 baiting hapless editors into edit-wars to get pages protected.
Jokes aside, we might not necessarily have an immediate need of bringing out the issue again. If User:Lvhis turns out to be not that interested in going through with this in the end, then maybe we can simply devote our energy on other more immediate matters. Given the amount of work involved, I am probably not going to do this unless I know there are others who are interested in helping. On the other hand, if he is actually quite serious and devoted into dealing with this matter, then that's a different story. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I fully support Lvhis' solution to preserve Wikipedia's neutrality while there's ongoing disagreement on the current title.STSC (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
STSC, please do not reinsert the tag. All editors are alerted to the objection, and there has been detailed, recent discussion about what title the article should have. The tag should not be used simply because some people are still not satisfied with the article title. Someone will always be unhappy, so should the tag always be there? Clearly not. John Smith's (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I assume the article will be fully protected by the time I wake up tomorrow morning. Unless, maybe, both sides stop. It doesn't even really matter which version the article stays in as long as we are talking and not reverting... Qwyrxian (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, John Smith's, you and your gang just cannot provide any valid reason to remove the tag, can you? STSC (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
STSC, that is not a helpful comment. Tagging articles are designed to raise awareness for discussions, not lodge an official protest. If you look at the NPOV page you will see that it states that articles should be tagged only as a last resort. We can't be at the "last resort" stage if we're aware of the situation and discussing it. John Smith's (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You should be careful about what you say, User:STSC. Assuming bad faith is a very bad thing in WP and can give people an excuse to report you for being unWP:CIVIL or having WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Bob, your sarcasm really does you no favours. You didn't learn anything from the discussion on Wikiquette alerts, did you? John Smith's (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Not much. But let's see... I did learn that you are a person who finds fault in a lot of things. I also learned that a combination of diff's and wiki-lawyering can be quite useful for smearing or character assassination. Then additionally, I was made aware of a few things about User:Qwyrxian.
Anyhow, the Wikiquette did open up some nice opportunities that were previously unavailable. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply to those who like to remove the tag {{POV-title}}: The dispute here and its long history have enough reason to have this tag put on. If you ask RS, it is easily found out from the dispute history, as I said all of evidence has been listed out but the problem is how to interpret them. The POV tag is not only for editors, it is for wiki and its READERS too. Go back my starting point: please respect wikipedia's reputation. If you leave such obvious POV title/name without this POV tag, it will make a lot of readers distrust this article at their first glance at the title. I prefer moving this article under a dual name and believe I can find automatically get supporters, but I respect those editors holding opposing opinion. So keep that tag on is the best way we can do for now.--Lvhis (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Lvhis, as I pointed out on your talk page, you haven't said why you want the tag on the article. It isn't a means of registering a protest, it is to seek attention to a problem. The NPOV dispute page makes it clear that you should use a tag as a last resort, i.e. if you can't get attention without it.
You should not look for supporters, that would be canvassing. You have to raise the issue in an impartial way. It's clear that you're not getting traction here. You might want to try putting arguments forward here for a bit longer, but if not I suggest you try other venues. The first one would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, as then you will get specific feedback on whether it is POV/NPOV to have a title like this if ownership of the islands is disputed. You could subsequently try raising a proposal on Wikipedia:Requested moves to try to formally move the page. Separately you can leave a message on Wikipedia talk:Article titles to ask if there are any other good venues for discussion.
I wouldn't mind you putting the tag on so much if I thought this would settle the matter once and for all. But it won't. You're not the first editor to want the article's name changed and you won't be the last. But the simple fact of the matter is that when a subject is heavily disputed some people will always be unhappy. So if we followed the logic that whilst there is a dispute over something the article must always be tagged, every article like this would forever have an NPOV tag on it. That's not what the tags are for. John Smith's (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
John Smith's， the tag is not for "protest" at all. Please do not misunderstand or misinterpret this. Please review what I have said in itme 1 through 5 of my note on 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC) above and the one just beyond yours above. This does be an almost last resort, at least for now. When I said "I can find supporters" I mean I can get supporters automatically. Anyway, instead of moving the page under a dual title, no matter through me or through requesting Wikipedia:Requested moves, I, maybe plus others shown by recent edit history, believe the realistic way or last resort is keeping that tag on.--Lvhis (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Lvhis, I'm not following you. What is having the tag on the article going to achieve? John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a {{POV}} tag (albeit a slightly different one) before and User:John Smith's the one who removed it. Somehow, I managed to miss it, but then the page was flooded with edits and it's not something I noticed. But to provide a fair argument, the act of moving sovereignty dispute materials to a sub-page does not necessarily remove POV content. Anyhow, there are 4 editors who thought the tag should stay. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
For John Smith's again, please review the point 5 of my note on 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC) and my note on 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC) again. Wikipedia is a free Encyclopedia, and it is not only for registered editors/users. It is also for readers. Keeping that POV-Title tag on this article will achieve a point keeping Wikipedia standing for its NPOV as far as it can under current difficult situation over the hot dispute on the title/name. Otherwise, I can just simply move the whole pages of this article as I said at my very beginning.--Lvhis (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I think more accurately, User:Lvhis is saying there is an unresolved POV-issue.Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
That's fine; then we need to start discussing again (as much as I don't see the point). Also, there needs to be a point at which we move on. In other words, if we're going to have this discussion again, we need new information, new evidence, new arguments. I can accept that there are still things to say on this topic; for instance, we still haven't identified what term is used in regular, recent, paper encyclopedias (one of the tests recommended in the guidelines). But simply saying "this isn't over yet", at some point, becomes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Maybe we're not there yet, but we're pretty darn close. So; I believe the tag can stay if and only if we are going to discuss the issue further. Do an RfC, a RM, make a mediation request, even just start a regular discussion in a new section with new points. But the choice is not "move the article or accept the tag." It's "work towards consensus on whether or not this article title is POV and/or should be changed." Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not very nice to assume WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when a number of us have provided good reasons on why the previous RfC's (including the one you put up) had major issues. Anyway, I will let you guys take the lead if this matter is to be brought up again. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Re Qwyrxian: I am afraid it is not proper for you to cite WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for here the current situation. The very appropriate or fit wp policy for this case is here Wikipedia:POV Cleanup. The current single title is a POV one, or alternatively, if the title is "Diaoyu Islands" it is also a POV one. No consensus has been reached now, and the dispute has not been solved. Therefore, the tag POV-Title should be there. Those users removing the tag have violated this POV Cleanup policy. Another option is: move the pages under "Diaoyu Islands" and keep the POV-Title tag on the top. Let me finish here with the content of the tag: "The neutrality of this article's title, subject matter, and/or the title's implications, is disputed. This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints or other implications of the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Someones interpret this tag in an ORG way. That is wrong. Whether a new RfC and so on is needed immediately or soon after the tag on is not a determinant for whether this tag should be there.--Lvhis (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Except for the fact that maintenance tags may be removed if there is no discussion on the talk page to support their continued place on the article. You cannot just leave the tag and then walk away from the article. We are challenging your addition of the tag. We say that there is no POV issue here, because the article title accurately reflects the most common name of the islands as used in high quality sources. If the title does that, it's not a POV title. I'm trying to say that if you (or someone else who wants the tag there) is willing to discuss the title, and work to determine whether or not the title is POV, then the tag can be there; I'd even recommend protecting the article to keep the tag in place while we (once again) sort this out. But I would expect a serious discussion, and a discussion that involves something new. I accept Bobthefish2's criticsm that the previous RfC "had major issues". I don't agree, but that's obviously because I wrote it and it got the result that I believe is correct per policy/guidelines. Because I seemingly never tire of this, I can handle going once more around the block on whether or not the title matches our title guidelines. Adding a title and then intentionally refusing to discuss the issue is simply not acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to ask a few things: What high quality sources are you referring to? How comprehensive is your analysis? What were the dates of those sources? Unless I somehow have memory issues, I believe ample evidence were provide to you that many high throughout analyses did not support your this clear majority you were talking about.
Also, if you are unable to acknowledge some of the concerns that were brought up regarding the matter, then I believe we might have some problems here. Maybe I should go through exactly why that RfC was bad? Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Can we break this off in a new section? I just want to separate out the "discussion about what the title should be" from the "discussion about whether the article should have a POV tag." Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Just deal with the POV first. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The edit-dispute on putting POV-Title template was not worsen yet, while suddenly this article has been fully protected. I still want to clarify some points with Qwyrxian.
  1. "You cannot just leave the tag and then walk away from the article."--This is an assumption which is against WP:AGF. You should only say this AFTER the POV-Title tag has stayed there for QUITE A WHILE, but neither BEFORE, nor it was JUST added on and astonishingly was removed only within several hours. Also, all users/editors for wiki are volunteers, some of them are quite busy in their real life, some may not be that busy and can put a lot of time devoting here. Please be little bit more patient, and this is also asked by wiki's civil policy.
  2. You and someones say "that there is no POV issue here" and use this as a reason to object that POV tag. This is totally wrong. Why? Because in all instances where a POV tag is used, one party there said there is no POV issue in that way and the other party said there IS POV issue in that way, that is the exact circumstance where a POV template shall be applied for. When a part of an article has been exist there, the editors who wrote it and their supporters of course think no POV issue there, while other editors and users with different views of course think there does be POV issue there. If the dispute cannot be solved quickly or very soon, then a POV template can be used. This is a very good point of Wikipedia, a Free Encyclopedia. If your such reason or logic can stand, Wikipedia shall not need any POV templates at all! Please review the Wikipedia:POV Cleanup again.
  3. Should "Whether the article should have a POV tag" be a new section? I do not think so. I think my first 2 points above have been quite clear to state why I don't think so. The POV tag ought not to be a problem at beginning. Unfortunately, the article has been locked without that tag reflecting the fact that there is an unsolved dispute on the title. Actually, when I saw Bobthefish2's earliest note after mine before I saw yours on the day 1 of this section, I stopped my initial attempt moving the pages, to learn the dispute history and to start discussing.
--Lvhis (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


---

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

I believe that some of the "formations" are of sufficient size to be called islands. John Smith's (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This is very POV. Look at the Liancourt Rocks article, which doesn't use Dokdo, or Takeshima, despite Korean de-jure control over the islands. It should be called the Pinnacle Islands, and Diaoyutai and Senkaku should be redirected to Pinnacle islands, just like Dokdo/Takeshima is redirected to Liancourt islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands/Archive_7&oldid=1136379749"