| Revision as of 05:10, 22 February 2011 editQwyrxian (talk | contribs)57,186 edits →The title of this article sounds quite POV: my summary of why this didn't change before and cannot change now absent a lot of new clear evidence← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:12, 31 December 2024 edit undoCyberdog958 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers3,683 edits Closing requested move; not moved using Move+ |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{notice|1=This talk page is for discussion of the ] article; any discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands should be taken to ]. Thank you for your cooperation.}} |
|
|
|
{{Notice|1=This talk page is for discussion of the ] article; any discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands should be taken to ]. Thank you for your cooperation.}} |
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Notice|1=This page has ''']''' under the guidance of the ] in regards to '''the title of this article'''.}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=392117104|to=East China Sea|to_diff=392118220|to_oldid=390322926}} |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}} |
|
|
|
{{ITN talk|15 June|2008}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=B|importance=High|geography=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan |class=B |importance=high }} |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|geography=yes|ryukyu=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject China |class=B |importance=high }} |
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan|importance=mid }} |
|
{{WPEASTASIA|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{ITN talk|15 June|2008}} |
|
|
|
|author=Pete Hunt |
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
|
|title=China and Japan's Misplaced Pages War |
|
|free=yes |
|
|
|
|org=] |
|
|f1=, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. |
|
|
|
|url=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu?page=full |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|date=2013-02-05 |
|
{{reqphoto|in=Japan|in2=China|in3=Taiwan}} |
|
|
|
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130212053624/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu?page=full |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|archivedate=2013-02-12 |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
|author2=] |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|
|title2=China and Taiwan clash over Misplaced Pages edits |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|
|url2=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49921173 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|
|org2=] |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|
|date2=2019-10-05 |
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|
|
|accessdate2=2019-10-05 |
|
|archive = Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|archiveurl2=https://web.archive.org/web/20191004233045/https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49921173 |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|archivedate2=2019-10-04 |
|
{{Archives| auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3|units=weeks |index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied |
|
|
|from1 = Senkaku Islands |
|
|
|from_oldid1 = 392117104 |
|
|
|to1 = East China Sea |
|
|
|to_diff1 = 392118220 |
|
|
|to_oldid1 = 390322926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|from2 = Senkaku Islands |
|
== PRC didn't exist until 1949 == |
|
|
|
|from_oldid2 = 389961837 |
|
|
|to2 = Senkaku Islands dispute |
|
|
|to_diff2 = 389961806 |
|
|
|to_oldid2 = 389961263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
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." ] (]) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Refideas|free=yes|f1=, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain.}} |
|
:That does make sense, but I'm not personally comfortable negotiating whatever sorts of compromises we usually make on Misplaced Pages to handle the PRC/ROC distinction. Other thoughts? ] (]) 08:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
:Or how about "reverted to Taiwan", given that both the PRC and ROC see the Senkakus being part of Taiwan? ] (]) 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands, result of the debate was not move, 27 July 2007 |
|
::yes, but not quite. more like Taiwan Province, to remove any ambiguity. --]], and ] 04:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands, result of the debate was not move, 24 September 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → ?, result of the debate was not move, 4 January 2012 |
|
== Geographic Table == |
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands or Pinnacle Islands, result of the debate was no consensus, 28 December 2013}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
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 ], ], and ]; on the latter two you have to go to ], etc., but it seems like that kind of info is included. Or are you referring to something else? ] (]) 09:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| algo=old(21d) |
|
:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute#Geography_section_intro_sentences |
|
|
|
| archive=Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive %(counter)d |
|
:http://en.wikipedia.org/Senkaku_Islands_dispute#Geography ] (]) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| counter=13 |
|
::Still being ignored ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 17:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize=100K |
|
:A quick review of other island articles included in ] reveals corollary tables, e.g., |
|
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
:* ], table was initially created by ] , 12 September <u>2010</u> |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft=5 |
|
:* ], table initially created by ] , 5 May <u>2004</u> |
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
:* ], table initially created by ] , 24 May <u>2007</u> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:* ], table initially created by ] , 2 Nov <u>2010</u> |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
:In context, these do not appear to suggest issues relating to ]. --] (]) 15:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{old move|date=24 December 2024|destination=Diaoyu Islands|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1265229546#Requested move 24 December 2024}} |
|
|
|
|
::Ahhh...Bobthefish2, you're saying you think the table should be removed from ]? 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)? ] (]) 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 ] not listening to others and proceeding to do whatever they wanted. I hope ] 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. ] (]) 05:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I've started a ] on the other talk page. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ]. 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? ] (]) 11:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You can always check the previous threads to see what others say. Again, I don't really care. ] (]) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Responding to the question ] presents in the last sentence of the diff : |
|
|
::::* <u>Question</u>: What logical reason is there for the Chinese names to come first? |
|
|
::::* <u>Answer</u>: In October 2010, ] explained ,<br/> <center><big></big></center> I can only wonder if this is the crux of ]'s argument? In this context, it must be noted that ] redirects to our article on ], which suggests a distinction without a difference? According to ], prior to October 2010 when an explicit talk page thread was created. |
|
|
{{outdent}}Compare threads which considered the subject of "name ordering", e.g., |
|
|
* ]: , , and |
|
|
* ]: |
|
|
* ]: , , and |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Expanding, supporting and emphasizing the core point ] presents in the diff : Yes, the name of this article — ] — is the result of ''']''' supported by ''']''' <u>and</u> redundantly repeated, exhaustive research <s>applying a variant-]</s> <u>and</u> analysis of , etc. ... <u>and</u> extended discussion |
|
|
{{outdent}}Compare threads which considered the subject of "article name", e.g., |
|
|
* ]: , , , , , , and |
|
|
* ]: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and |
|
|
* ]: , , , , , , and |
|
|
* ]: and , |
|
|
* ]: , , , , , , and |
|
|
* ]: , , , , , , and , |
|
|
* ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::In other words, a mere ] conducted among a few active editors who demonstrate ] is not consensus and ]. 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. --] (]) 21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::]. However, I hope you know what's ]. It's one thing to use scientific terms and it's another to apply them aptly. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] when I called a ] on ] edits. In the end, no agreement was reached and I recalled that ] had a similar stance as ]. 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 ] and ] seemed to have taken a (partial or full) wiki-break. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit-warring == |
|
|
|
|
|
I just came across the following 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? :( ] (]) 00:55, 29 January 2011<p> |
|
|
'''<u>ENDORSE</u>''' hopeful <s>comment</s> response by ] . --<small>] 03:26, 29 January 2011</small> ... <u>Follow-up</u>: In the strained context created by ]'s provocation , a constructive next step is to restate and underscore my approval of ] blunt, no-nonsense words above. In fact, <u>] is drained of meaning by ]</u> — which is a ] way of echoing what ] meant when he suggested "''put the spade down and stop digging''" <small>--] (]) 06:24, 30 January 2011 </small> ... <u>More</u>: In response to more poking , please "''stop digging''" --] (]) 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC) </p> |
|
|
: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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (which can be quite fair these days), and some love for Manchester United. |
|
|
::::::Friends? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 . |
|
|
::::::::] (]) 01:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}Alright, lets all just calm down. As I said on ], 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. ] (]) 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've already replied to the above section. What I meant was summarized in the two links. ] (]) 03:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ah, sorry, I thought those were Tenmei's comments. I'll look at the links you provided. ] (]) 04:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== EAST ASIAN language infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
Kusunose, I won't tolerate any POV-mongering such as . a box from the same template appears on the ] 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 ], not here. --]], and ] 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. ] <small>(])</small> 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 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. --]], and ] 16:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
In my opinion, {{tl|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. --] 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. --]], and ] 16:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|] is drained of meaning by ] }} |
|
|
This text is collapsed to avoid distracting from the constructive thread which unfolds below --] (]) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives| auto=yes |search=yes |title=] (]) |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=31|units=days}} |
|
{{outdent}}] is drained of meaning by ] -- see context for ]. |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
* In any Misplaced Pages venue, the phrase <b></b> is provocative in response to a single edit. |
|
|
|
<!-- Please type all comments and discussions below this line. Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. --> |
|
* In any occasion, <b></b> is inflammatory. The use of the verb "]" has no justification on any talk page. |
|
|
] -- These word choices demonstrate intention, not an accidental flare-up.<p>In response to ]'s explanatory opinion , the use of the word "still" is damning – |
|
|
* In this instance, is an impermissible ]. |
|
|
] -- I can only hope that the harm caused by these tactical edits can be mitigated <s>by putting a spotlight on your strategy: This represents a thinly-veiled attempt to establish and solidify a perceptual transformation and ]. This were not emotion-driven mis-steps.</s><small> --] 17:56, 1 February 2011</small> ... 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. --] (]) 19:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Change the name == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<del>The name should be Diaoyu islands. When you use the Japanese name it is not neutral. ] (])</del> 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
:I found that {{tl|Chinese}} page has a link to {{tl|Infobox East Asian}} which addresses my concern about character size. I'm not going to remove it from ] but want to replace it with {{tl|Infobox East Asian}}. Unfortunately, {{tl|Infobox East Asian}} is not as versatile as {{tl|Chinese}} so it cannot be used as a substitute. --] 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: Is the Diaoyu Islands really any more neutral from an international perspective? Ultimately, Japan controls the islands, so imo its easiest to stick with the current name. ] (]) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (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. --]], and ] 16:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::<del>It is more neutral. The islands should be known by their Chinese name. ] (])</del> 15:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The fact that Japan administers the islands is the reason their name is on the article. If that changes in the future, then the name on the article will change to reflect that. --] (]) 16:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ok, according to you if we should use the name used by which ever country administers the island, how about we start with renaming the Paracel islands to Xisha islands. Since you have suggested that we should name islands according to which country administers the island, you can start renaming all the articles of disputed territories to the name used by the countries administering them. |
|
|
::::I agree Senkaku is not neutral, and seems to give connotations that these islands belong to Japan, when this is actually a disputed territory. This should be renamed to something more neutral regardless if it being occupied by Japan or not. ] (]) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The fact that Japan administers the islands is not in dispute. As for disputed territory, that exists all over the world, but there is typically someone that administers it regardless; it is exceptionally rare when there is disputed territory and nobody administers it, like the ]. --] (]) 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::regardless of administration ] prevails always in all matters as it is a core pillar of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This is not only because the actual rulers of the islands, a more important reason is that "Senkaku Islands" has long been the common name for these islands in the English-speaking world, well before China first made its sovereignty claim over them in 1971. In fact, the Chinese government itself officially referred to them as the Senkaku Islands prior to the 1970s. ] (]) 14:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 24 December 2024 == |
|
:::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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As I see ], 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. --] 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...] (]) 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::This entire debate is downright ridiculous because even the ] 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" --]], and ] 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 Misplaced Pages policy, including ] state that while articles have to be consistent internally, we don't need formatting to be consistent across multiple articles. ] (]) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Good point about MOS. We don't have to follow the use of infoboxes in other articles. ] (]) 22:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
== The title of this article sounds quite POV == |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' Consensus to not move the article is present. <small>(])</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 04:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::You are most certainly not going to move the title. 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). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Diaoyu Islands}} – An indicates that "Diaoyu Islands" has superseded "Senkaku Islands" in terms of usage. ] (]) 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. ] (]) 05:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''', looking at the graph more carefully , it's pretty spiky and not currently demonstrative of a long term trend. It's also not clear what type of media is being represented here.The islands still also remain under Japanese sovereignty and control, which also counts against changing the name. ] (]) 02:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' i skeptical regarding the name change, because unless a nominator quoting Chinese media, most media sources whenever in Japan or overseas, still calling it "Senkaku Islands" in respect of Japanese control of islands. ] (]) 03:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' – Current administration of the islands is Japan. --] (]) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''{{snd}}Google Ngrams results are not definitive, but even if they were, the trend is too recent and close. If you adjust the smoothing to 20 and beyond, Senkaku once again overtakes Diaoyu. <big>]]</big> 21:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
