| Revision as of 02:21, 4 January 2012 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits →Arbitrary break: I'll close it← 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 reviewers3,577 edits Closing requested move; not moved using Move+ |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
<!--{{ambox|style=border-left: 10px solid #b22222; background: #fee|image=]|text=This page is ''']''' mediation under the guidance of the ] in regards to '''the title of this article'''.<br />If you feel you have something of value to contribute to the discussion, please comment on the ''']''' of the mediation request. Thank you.}}--> |
|
|
{{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}} |
|
|
{{Notice|1=This page has ''']''' under the guidance of the ] in regards to '''the title of this article'''.}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=392117104|to=East China Sea|to_diff=392118220|to_oldid=390322926}} |
|
|
|
{{ITN talk|15 June|2008}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Senkaku Islands|from_oldid=389961837|to=Senkaku Islands dispute|to_diff=389961806|to_oldid=389961263}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=B|importance=High|geography=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|geography=yes|ryukyu=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan |class=B |importance=high }} |
|
{{WikiProject Taiwan|importance=mid }} |
|
{{WikiProject China |class=C |importance=high }} |
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=mid }} |
|
{{WPEASTASIA|class=C|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 = 9 |
|
|
|
|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 |
|
== Use of "refute" == |
|
|
|
|from_oldid2 = 389961837 |
|
|
|to2 = Senkaku Islands dispute |
|
|
|to_diff2 = 389961806 |
|
|
|to_oldid2 = 389961263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
I saw an IP editor and Qwyrxian is opposoing the use of "refute" because what Japanese do does not fit the definition of "refute". i.e. "provide evidence against" or "prove wrong". When I looked up the word in Merriam-Webster, it gives me two definitions "to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous" and "to deny the truth or accuracy of", and the word "deny", which is used to replace "refute", is a synomym. I don't see why it is wrong to use "refute" here. I'm not a native speaker so I'm probably missing something. --] 01:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Perhaps "rebut" is a better word choice. ] (]) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Refideas|free=yes|f1=, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain.}} |
|
:I think the IP editor and Qwyrxian are right at this point. As an encyclopedia emphasizing NPOV, "deny" is more proper and neutral, while "refute" may imply that this article endorses Japan's stance at the issue in question. Using "rebut" is better than using "refute" but not better than using "deny" . Vocabulary.com explains these words with some examples. --] (]) 04:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Old moves|list= |
|
|
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands, result of the debate was not move, 27 July 2007 |
|
::Thank you Lvhis for a reference. Went to Vocaburary.com and read an article , as well as definitions of "refute", "rebut", and "deny". As Japanese refutaion/rebuttal/denial is not conclusive, "rebut" certainly is a better choice. Not sure "deny" is better than "rebut" here. --] 06:12, 10 November 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 |
|
::I agree that "rebut" is a better word than the other options. "Deny" simply suggests Japan has said China is wrong without providing an argument. ] (]) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
# ] Senkaku Islands → Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands or Pinnacle Islands, result of the debate was no consensus, 28 December 2013}} |
|
:::Rebut is a fair compromise for me. ] (]) 04:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
| algo=old(21d) |
|
:::John Smith's, can you give a reference/reliable source that explains "deny" implying to say something wrong or to refuse something exclusively without providing an argument? "Deny" is very neutral here, implying the party who deny something is maybe right or maybe wrong, 50 to 50. No matter if there is some subtle different between "deny" and "rebut", your reverting "deny" back to "refute" was a blatant POV pushing or non-constructive. I don't think we need to bother to change "deny" into "rebut". --] (]) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| archive=Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
| counter=13 |
|
::::Lvhis, it's really not helpful when you frequently reply to my comments with "can you give a reference/source that..." You're the only person objecting to using "rebut" here, so would you accept the compromise? ] (]) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize=100K |
|
:::::John Smith's, if you feel very uncomfortable (or fear) to be asked for providing reference or reliable source to support your argument, the Misplaced Pages may not be the right/good place for you. Again, the word "deny" has been there as a result of edits by 2 editors and good enough per wp's policy, so it is not necessary to bother to change it. --] (]) 18:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
::::::You're avoiding the issue. The only editor currently objecting (or not agreeing to) the use of "rebut" is you. Are you going to try to block it being used? ] (]) 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft=5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
Whilst copyediting I had a play with the text. Is this any better? ] (]) 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:Sorry, no. You do not want answer my question about your interpretation on "deny", while instead, asked me question. And this section is talking about "Use of 'refute'". --] (]) 22:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=24 December 2024|destination=Diaoyu Islands|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1265229546#Requested move 24 December 2024}} |
|
== Intention to start RFC == |
|
|
|
|
|
Out of deference to the complex and contentious nature of this debate, I am providing notice that I intend to start an RfC on the name of this article (the outcome of which will necessarily have implications about the use of the POV-title template) in about one week (ideally, some time early on 23 November, GMT). The draft for the RFC question can be found at ]. Other editors are welcome to comment on the wording. The goal is to make it a neutral statement of the problem; all arguments in favor of one name or another belong in the "Arguments in favor of..." sections. In addition, other editors may want to begin preparing their own arguments to be put into those Arguments sections. I have prepared begun drafting one of my own, and expect it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-800 words, though it's still in a very rough state. Finally, please note that I will not be allowing discussions to drag out on the wording of the RfC any more than one week; technically speaking, anyone can put up an RfC at any time, and it doesn't need to be approved by other editors first. I only did so here to allay potential complaints that others "weren't ready" or that the RfC was somehow rigged. |
|
|
|
|
|
In general, RfCs run for about a month. RfCs do not have to be formally closed, but since this case is under discretionary sanctions, I intend to ask an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC once discussion has stopped or has reached a standstill. |
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming a consensus is reached, I sincerely hope that we will be able to put the naming issue behind us, remove the POV-title tag (whatever title is chosen), and move on with our wiki-lives. ] (]) 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:After several discussions there, it is quite clear that a root question regarding the naming issue and some article content is focusing this one: Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the "Japanese name" or "English name"? An RfC directly deals with this should go first, and I have prepared a draft a ]. I am moving on preparing my argument there. For others, it is similar to what you suggested on your draft. --] (]) 23:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::That is completely unnecessary. You can ask that question/put forward an argument on that point when Qwyrxian's RfC goes up. It's not like your RfC would be considered once his is active in any event. Or are you announcing your intent to put yours up first? ] (]) 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Lvhis, I've been waiting for you to answer . But you didn't. Please answer all of my questions in the post at here first. Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 06:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Oda Mari, whether "Senkaku Islands" is the English name or the Japanese name cannot be defined by me or by you, or by any Wikipedian. It is defined or told by Reliable Sources. You are not qualified to disqualify what the author Kimie Hara (原貴美恵) described for the three names, unless you can find other reliable sources disqualify hers. I made my complain on your such comment during the Arbitration . For more debating on whether "SI" is the Japanese name or English name, we can go the RfC I have suggested. --] (]) 00:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the "Japanese name" or "English name"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|disruptively sidelined RfC attempt; closed}} |
|
|
This name is currently used for the Misplaced Pages article about a group of islands in ], whose ownership is disputed. The name/title "Senkaku Islands" currently used for this article and its related articles has also been disputed for quite a long time. The main Romanized Chinese name for the islands is Diaoyu or Diaoyutai. The main Romanized Japanese name for the islands is Senkaku. There is another name, Pinnacle Islands, from English language, though far less frequently used than above mentioned Chinese and Japanese names. Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the Japanese name, or the English name? This is a basic or essential question or dispute for the naming dispute on this article. The question is, per Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which definition on this name is correct. Previous discussions, which have included discussions on relative article's talk pages, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to reach consensus to settle the question. The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, involved parties will present their arguments for the definition of this name. --] (]) 06:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Policies and guidelines=== |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] (in particular, the sections ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Arguments from involved editors=== |
|
|
;Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name |
|
|
|
|
|
'''1.''' <u>Reliable sources have clearly stated/asserted that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name.</u> The following is just listing part of these reliable sources. A number of them were written by Japanese authors. I avoided using sources from Chinese authors. |
|
|
|
|
|
* <small> A UN General Assembly document page 85, International Organizations and the Law of the Sea: Documentary Yearbook 1996 By Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea. |
|
|
* Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). CNN World. CNN (US). |
|
|
* Hara, Kimie (原貴美恵) (2007). Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system. New York, USA: Routledge, c/o Taylor & Francis. p. 51. ISBN 9780415412087. |
|
|
*Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593. |
|
|
*Kiyoshi Inoue (井上清). Senkaku Letto /Diaoyu Islands The Historical Treatise. (English synopsis ) |
|
|
*], "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996 |
|
|
*Jeff Hays. Facts and Details |
|
|
*Koji Taira. The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands This is an article that originally appeared in "The Ryukyuanist", spring 2004. |
|
|
*Joyman Lee. Published in History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011 |
|
|
*Jesper Schlæger. page 4 of 31 |
|
|
*Peter J Brown. Asia Times Sep 16, 2010</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
'''2.''' <u>The Naming history on this group islands tells that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. </u> Names for this group islands are from three languages, that I have pointed out during the Mediation . Per the order of their generated time, they are Chinese name, English name, and Japanese name. |
|
|
|
|
|
1) '''Chinese name:''' the romanized Chinese name is "Diaoyu Dao Qundao" or "Diaoyutai Lieyu". For English use, they are adapted as "Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyutai Islands". Their original form is 钓鱼岛群岛 or 釣魚台列嶼. The Chiese name used for naming these islands was generated as early as 1403 <ref>Shun Feng Xiang Song (順風相送)/Voyage with the Tail Wind, A Chinese navigation records, is now located in Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK 35 H.</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
2) '''English name:''' In 1843, the British naval battleship "Samarang" surveyed areas around this group islands and gave a name "Pinnacle islands" for them according to how the shape of one of the islands looked like.<ref name="Lohmeyer"></ref><ref>Han-yi Shaw (1999). </ref><ref>Belcher, Edward and Arthur Adams (1848). Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Samarang, During the Years 1843–46: Employed Surveying the Islands of the Eastern Archipelago. London : Reeve, Benham, and Reeve. OCLC 192154</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
3) '''Japanese name:''' Before 1886, at least some Japanese documents used Chinese name for these islands. Since 1886, the Japanese Imperial Naval Records used "Pinnacle Islands" with Japanese ] form (Transliteration). It was until 1900, a Japanese teacher Tsune Kuroiwa (黑岩恆) translated the "Pinnacle Islands" into Japanese "Senkaku Island". Its original form is 尖閣諸島. While the "Senkaku Island" was not yet officially used until 1950s by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. <ref>Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593.</ref><ref name=Lohmeyer>Martin Lohmeyer (2008). </ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
<references/> |
|
|
|
|
|
'''3.''' <u>No reliable sources tell that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name.</u> On the other words, that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name is an unsupportable viewpoint. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Conclusion: '''"Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name as defined by reliable sources, as required by important policies ] and ]. Both Chinese name and Japanese name are local names for this geographic entity per ]. Indeed there is a real or pure English name for this group of islands: "Pinnacle Islands". |
|
|
:--] (]) 06:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
;Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name |
|
|
::Put argument here. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Comments and discussion=== |
|
|
:I request that any uninvolved admin seeing this section sanction Lvhis under the terms of ]. Lvhis knows that this is not a relevant question, that it has nothing to do with article content, and is a clear and deliberate attempt to undermine the RfC I had intended to post today--the one we really need to discuss; that is, the question of what the name of this article should be. Now I cannot actually post that RfC, and we're once again massively delayed in actually reaching a decision on what the title of this article should be. Per ], Lvhis was more than aware of my intent to post my RfC today. |
|
|
:Furthermore, please note that the question asked in this RfC cannot be answered, because it seeks to discuss something that not only is not in the article, but no one has proposed to put in the article. Lvhis is seeking debate not on the contents of the article, but on issues related to the article. |
|
|
:Thus, this request is ], ], and a definite violation of the spirit of the decision handed down in ]. ] (]) 07:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Although it goes without saying, I would also suggest that any uninvolved admin reading this close the RfC immediately for the reasons Qwyrxian gave above. Qwyrxian's RfC can deal with any issues about the appropriate naming of the article. If Lvhis or anyone else wants to ask whether Senkaku Islands is the "Japanese" name, they can do so there. ] (]) 08:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
*It has been over 30 days past since the RfC above unfairly closed with an unreasonable and insolent label "disruptive" by user ] using his admin power granting user ]'s unjustifiable request . At mean time closing the above one, user Fut.Perf. forcibly opened the following RfC or Qwyrxian's RfC. Such tendencious intervence made the situation and atmosphere here was not fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue, and actually resulted in stifling voices from other side, so that none parties from the side opposing Qwyrxian's side took part in that "RfC". The RfC above I started is simple and straightforward on the disputed naming issue to avoid a root question to the naming issue being mixed up with different concepts, and this is why Qwyrxian dared not face it, and dared not debate/answer it. The reason user Fut.Perf. used to close the above RfC is purely and only based on "Assume Bad Faith" that violates "]". Because of this, in this topic user ] has not been neutral anymore.<br /> |
|
|
:The second point I need to raise is that user Fut.Perf. has not been really an uninvolved admin in this topic. As a well known reason, the wiki page ] and its topic is closely related to this topic. Since Dec 1, 2011, User Fut.Perf has participated in the discussion there , and has involved a conflict with an editor in editing some part of the page ] . Although his view point there itself may be correct, he indeed has become an involved editor due to such edit activity. Based on the two reasons above, he apparently cannot play a role as uninvolved and neutral admin in this topic anymore. It is not proper for him to close (or to take part in closing) the "RfC" below.<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
:As stated above, the "RfC" below has run under a situation and atmosphere that is not fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue. Therefore, it should be closed by really uninvolved admin(s), and it would be better closed as "leave the title issue as status quo" for the time being. As a proposed new wp policy or guideline ] is under construction, a real binding RfC could be well and carefully prepared in really fair and justicial manner including being preceded by some non-binding RfC(s). --] (]) 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for comment: Article naming == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is about a group of islands whose ownership is disputed. The Chinese name for the islands is 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿, which is transliterated in a variety of ways, in a variety of ways (mainly Diaoyu and Diaoyutai). The Japanese name for the islands is 尖閣諸島, which is transliterated as Senakaku (Senakaku Shotō, and rarely as Senkaku-guntō or Senkaku-rettō). English sources use a variety of names, though the most common are Senkaku Islands, Diayou Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands. The name Pinnacle Islands is also found in English literature, although far less frequently used than any of the previously mentioned names. The question is, per Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which of these names, if any, is the correct name for this and associated articles (] and ])? Previous discussions, which have included RfC's, discussions on noticeboards, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to settle the issue, though most participants have argued for either "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", "Pinnacle Islands", or a joint name like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, the two "sides" will present their arguments in favor of the current name or an alternative name. |
|
|
:''copied from draft at ]. – ] ] 10:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)'' |
|
|
::If you guys need a closer at the end of this discussion, please drop me a note. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Appreciated. I too would be available (I'm quite uninvolved and only doing some admin-oversight stuff here right now.) If it becomes complicated in the end, we might also get a panel of three closers together, as has been successfully done in a few high-profile naming RfCs. ] ] 13:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} Small note: after consulting with NuclearWarfare to be absolutely certain that I was being neutral and within the bounds of ], I have placed a notice on each of the five WikiProjects listed at the top of this page about this RfC in an attempt to get more comments from more uninvolved readers. ] (]) 04:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
===Policies and guidelines=== |
|
|
*] (in particular, the section ]) |
|
|
*] (in particular, the subsection ]) |
|
|
*] (in particular, the sections ] and ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Arguments from involved editors=== |
|
|
====Arguments in favor of "Senkaku Islands"==== |
|
|
::Put argument here. |
|
|
*Per ], The most widely accepted name is ] according to the Google Books hits. |
|
|
**Senkaku Islands |
|
|
**Diaoyu Islands |
|
|
**Diaoyutai Islands |
|
|
::―― ] (]) 10:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*] and ] indicate that we must decide whether or not any one name qualifies as the "common English name" for this place. If there is no common English name, ] states that we must choose the most prevalent one, though in cases where no name is regularly used in English, unusual alternatives are allowed (this led to ] to be named as it is, even though it is rarely used in English). We are given a number of different measurements to look at when making this decisions; the belief of those supporting the SI name is that, while not all of the measurements indicate SI is the common name, the bulk of them do, especially those which are most important. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Various Google searches, including Web, News, and Scholar searches (see the archives here, along with others at ]), have not shown either name to be particularly more prevalent. However, the same searches point out how terribly flawed a tool this for deciding the article name. For example, searching for English web pages containing "Senkaku Islands" produces 208,000 results, while searching for "Senkaku Islands" and excluding "Diaoyu" produces 375,000 results. While some of us have tried exhaustive searches (looking at every single result), even that fails because Google will only provide the first several hundred results, no matter how many they claim to have found in total. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Furthermore, Point 1 of ] tells us to look at other recent English language encyclopedias. The last results I found (see ]) has Britannica not listing either and Columbia Encyclopedia listing only Senkaku Islands. To supplement this, last year I looked at a major US university library, and checked atlases. Every atlas I checked that contained any mention of these islands used the name "Senkaku Islands". 5 out of 5. Only one of those 5 even mentioned "Dioayu Islands", and only in the index (with something like a "See Senkaku Islands" entry). In other words, no one has produced any tertiary source of any type that doesn't prefer Senkaku Islands when it lists the islands at all. That seems like pretty clear agreement to me. Misplaced Pages should not be the only notable tertiary source to use a different name. |
|
|
|
|
|
:With respect to the names used by English speaking governments, both the US and UK governments use Senkaku Islands. Period. The Library of Congress has , and does not have one for Diaoyu/etc. Islands. In the , the term "Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu tai)" is used, showing clear preference even in the article about China itself. Additionally, the official nautical charts of the and both use Senkaku Islands. The official designation for these names among two of the largest and most politically/militarily powerful countries both designate the term to be "Senakaku Islands", strong evidence of the preference for this name. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In past discussions, those who opposed "Senkaku Islands" and supported Pinnacle Islands or some hybrid name (e.g. "Senkaku/Diaoyu"), have tried to argue that ] means that we cannot choose a name which is also used by one "side" in the debate. This is absolutely wrong, and counter to the way Misplaced Pages handles disputed territories. It isn't POV to choose the name that is normally used in English. Some native American groups dispute US control of lands that were there's historical, but that doesn't mean we say that choosing the widely used English name is POV. ] is used not because we are "siding" with the UK in the dispute, but because that's the name used in English. ] is in ], not ]. And, perhaps most importantly, we refer to the ], and name each individual island after the name used in English (like ]). Though the Google evidence is ambiguous, having looked at the evidence overall (especially the nautical charts and tertiary sources), it seems clear enough to me that the English name for these islands is "Senkaku Islands". <small>Above copied from ], and incorporates points from myself and ].</small> ] (]) 10:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*As far as I can tell, only two sovereign nations, Taiwan and the PRC, dispute Japan's ownership of the islands. The rest of the world accepts Japan as the owner and accepts "Senkakau Islands" as the name. If any other government has taken Taiwan's or PRC's side, please state so here and I will stand corrected. ] (]) 08:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*For the record, I agree with Qwryxian's views in that '''Senkaku Islands''' is the best name for the article. ] (]) 11:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Agree with Qwyrxian. "Pinnacle Islands" has no legitimacy at all. It is neither common nor official in English-speaking countries, and using such a name here makes no sense.--] (]) 03:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Arguments in favor of "Diaoyu" or "Diaoyutai Islands"==== |
|
|
::Put argument here. |
|
|
|
|
|
====Arguments in favor of "Pinnacle Islands"==== |
|
|
::Put argument here. |
|
|
|
|
|
====Arguments in favor of a name other than "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyu Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", or "Pinnacle Islands"==== |
|
|
::Put argument here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives| auto=yes |search=yes |title=] (]) |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=31|units=days}} |
|
::Note: the main editor currently supporting a name other than Senkaku Islands, ], has implied in on xyr talk page that xe regretfully won't be providing commentary here. Lvhis, if you do choose to comment, simply put strike-out lines around this before adding your argument. In the meanwhile, uninvolved editors may want to look at previous discussions for the arguments surrounding the desire to change the title. A good quick summary can be found at ] in the "POV" column of the table. That doesn't incorporate everything, but it will be up to those who actually support this position if they want to do more work to collect their arguments here. ] (]) 11:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
<!-- Please type all comments and discussions below this line. Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Change the name == |
|
====Other comments from involved editors==== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<del>The name should be Diaoyu islands. When you use the Japanese name it is not neutral. ] (])</del> 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
===Comments from uninvolved editors=== |
|
|
|
: 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) |
|
*'''Senkaku Islands''' - This is not an easy call. The naming issue is not unique: WP routinely deals with problems like this, most notably in the ] article; see also random multi-name town ]. I've read up on these islands, and read some of the Talk page archives. It is tempting to take a Solomn-like solution and use a dual article name: Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, but that is generally discouraged in WP. I think that dual-name approach is not a bad solution, but until it becomes more widely adopted in WP, we should not use it for this article. The Google stats are important, but I note that the Google Books stats, which indicate that Senkaku Islands is more common, is at odds with Google Web stats, which show that Diaoyu Islands is most common. However, as I look at important English-language sources, it appears that Senkaku Islands is more common in important sources. Another significant factor is that Japan now controls the islands, and has for several decades. For those reasons, Senkaku Islands appears to best meet the WP:NAME criteria. --] (]) 22:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::<del>It is more neutral. The islands should be known by their Chinese name. ] (])</del> 15:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
::Google Web (Everything) Search is known to be quite unreliable not just it is based on unreliable sources. See below: |
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
::*Diaoyu |
|
|
|
::::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. |
|
::*Diaoyu Islands |
|
|
|
::::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) |
|
::*Diaoyu -Islands |
|
|
|
:::::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 == |
|
::While Google Book Search shows reasonable results: |
|
|
::*Diaoyu |
|
|
::*Diaoyu Islands |
|
|
::*Diaoyu -Islands |
|
|
:::―― ] (]) |
|
|
::::I agree that GoogleBooks is superior to GoogleWeb ... I mentioned the GoogleWeb stats only to ensure that more complete data was available. My recommendation is consistent with the GoogleBooks stats. --] (]) 00:35, 30 November 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 --> |
|
*'''Support''' Like the issue with the Sea of Japan, South China Seas and the dispute about territorial waters, this has more to do with domestic Chinese politics than international opinion. As has been stated elsewhere, the governments navigating the region consider Japan the owner due to history. China may have a legitimate dispute over what lead to the islands returning to Japan but until China claims otherwise, or actually seizes control of the island, the point is moot. Most of the political arguments over this are to serve as a proxy for the larger, more important territorial disputes China has elsewhere. Though there is no doubt China would love to have access to the oil in the region, it is much less likely to make a move here than the other regions that it has identified as a 'core interests'(i.e. would be willing to go to war over) So I do not predict the islands changing hands any time soon. I think getting into argument over popularity is a bit of distraction, if it was a popularity contest China would get to name everything on its border after all... and like many things from Asia words come to us from various different sources. The other reason we tend to use the name preferred by the owners, is that they are the ones who we would need to deal with if treaties or business contracts. And turn to for enforcement of those contracts if needs be. Using a different name than the one recognized by the authority over the island could get your issue thrown out of court. (First time involved in these things, if there is protocol or formatting problems with me reply let me know!)--] (]) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:''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.'' |
|
: One of the reasons English tends to use to Japanese names for islands and bodies of water in this region, is because they were the ones we were usually negotiating with and forming treaties with. Fairly or not, and that Japan was through which we got a lot of our information on China and the history of this area before the mainland became more opened up. --] (]) 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Pinnacle Islands''' -- this solves the headache of nationalist feelings, by not using a local name at all. ] (]) 06:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Note, the above IP editor only started editing on 9 December 2011. ] (]) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::But I was editing stuff other than this talk page, alot of things in fact, I did not come to Misplaced Pages to just lodge an opinion on Senkaku Islands. ] (]) 22:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hey, I was happy to leave a discrete note in small text. But if you want to discuss it, I'm happy with that. |
|
|
:::The fact you edited random articles is irrelevant. It is a fact that you took part in this RfC within a day of starting editing. Editors can draw their own conclusions as to whether this means anything. But if you really didn't come here just to put forward your view on this matter, perhaps you could explain how your editing history on 9 December would logically lead you to take part in this discussion. I don't see the link between Canadian election templates and a group of Japanese controlled islands. Maybe that's just me. ] (]) 00:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Who knows when the user started to edit, seeing as it is an IP, but does that matter? Unless there's a criteria to be met to comment or am I missing something here (?). Anyway, that note is a reference to the user as an editor (as is the reply to the user), and not to the discussion itself. Thus, I would hardly call that note or comment professional. Maybe just ] it? Happy editting, ] (]) 01:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I've taken part in "voting" discussions (such as Featured Article Requests), where administrators have highlighted accounts that have started editing recently before they expressed their opinion on the thread in question. ] (]) 10:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::JS, . Most ISPs in Canada use dynamic IPs, meaning that 20 days ago (or whenever he reset his router) he wouldn't have been known as 76.65.128.198, but rather something else. His "edit counter" is the least of anyone's worries. --] | <small>—] ] ]</small> 13:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::While I can understand why JS may be worried about the arrival of someone who appears to be a "new" user to such a debate, I think that we can AGF that this is a regular editor on a dynamic IP <strike>(for instance, I note that the same IP address commented later on a WikiProject Korea discussion, which may well have been where they saw the discussion).</strike> Obviously, should we see a sudden flood of different IP addresses or newly created accounts, we'd have a different concern, but such is not currently the case (and, ultimately, this is more something for the closing admin to analyze). I also think that JS's original tagging was not out of the ordinary. 76, it might help us understand your perspective if you comment on the differences between Liancourt and Senkaku that Oda Mari has explained below. ] (]) 14:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'm not raising an objection to the IP expressing his view. I would welcome him responding to Oda Mari's point below. ] (]) 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Why do you assume I started editing on the 9th, just because this IP address history starts on that date? How would I see this? Well, it's a RFC, it's posted on the RFC listing. Why wouldn't I see this? ] (]) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:To expand on my position, the ] article also doesn't use either nationalistic title, being neither Japanese or Korean, so "Pinnacle Islands" would be analogous. ] (]) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Liancourt Rocks is the most commonly used name in English, but Pinnacle Islands is the least commonly used name. ] adopts Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Shotō. See , ], and ]. ] <small>(])</small> 08:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::From my personal experience, Takeshima is the most widely used version of the name for Liancourt Rocks. A basic google search shows (150k) (1.2M) (500k) that it is also the least used version of the name for that place. I may be missing something with a basic search, but it does appear that Liancourt Rocks is also the least common variant of these three, just as Pinnacle Islands is of the three here. ] (]) 07:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Liancourt Rocks was a decision taken to stop fighting between users. It's not policy to use a title like that. So if you're saying "Pinnacle Islands" is an option open to us, sure - we've discussed it previously. And I (plus others) don't see the need to use it here. ] (]) 08:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oops. I should have written "in English speaking countries". First of all, G search is unreliable.Those results have English pages of kr and ja domains. Japan and South Korea are not en speaking countries and have their own claims over the islets. But it seems to be impossible to exclude them from G search. Can you? I think blogs written by Japanese or Korean in en speaking countries should be excluded too. But it also seems to be impossible. You wrote the results of Dokdo was 500k, but when I clicked those G search results, "dokdo" + "island" was 2,070,000. I don't understand the differences. I tried these. , , and . But that's not enough.The second results have these irrelevant pages. and . You cannot tell the most commonly used names by G search results. ] <small>(])</small> 09:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I still get 500k for ''+dokdo +island'' |
|
|
::::Gbooks (4.4k) (14k) (3k) |
|
|
::::Gscholar (210) (628) (2270) |
|
|
::::Gnews (970) (955) (798) |
|
|
::::Anyways, it does seem like "Liancourt Rocks" is least used of the three for that place. As that name was chosen because it was a neutral name for the Misplaced Pages article, I don't see why we can't apply that precedent here, and use "Pinnacle Islands". ] (]) 07:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::In any event, Misplaced Pages doesn't work on precedent (at least, not off of solitary precedents). The question is (as pointed out above) in this case, do the sources clearly support the use of one name more than another in English, and how do the different types of sources effect that analysis? I argue above, of course, that in this case (without worrying at all about LR), the sources clearly point us to Senkaku Islands. ] (]) 07:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Agreed. Also most of the sources are likely to use this name as well, because it is a) The one the government of the United States uses and so scholars will want their work linked with the policies memos by references even if they were aware of the Chinese name when they were writing. b) Most of the sources concerning the islands history use that name as well (at least back before the war). c) I do not think we should establish a precedent for modifying articles based on concerted political campaigns. Changing them this way would be a tacit endorsement. Though we could just have two seperate pages like we have for Sea of Japan and the East China Sea :P --] (]) 08:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::76.65.128.198, your analysis is completely wrong. In the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits were below a hundred at that time (May 2007) therefore it was quite difficult to determine which was the widely accepted name. See ]. ] says "''...but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.''" This case's Google Book hits of 34,000 vs. 15,000 is quite apparent which is widely accepted name. So, the precedent doesn't apply here. ―― ] (]) 08:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Books n-gram evidence''' shows that in recent years the Chinese name Diaoyu Islands has risen in usage, but I'd go with the Japanese '''Senkaku Islands''' as the one that's more enduring and common over time. The Liancourt Rocks is a distant third, and Pinnacle Islands is not in the running. Feel free to try other variations. ] (]) 03:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
===Arbitrary break=== |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Diaoyu Islands}} – An indicates that "Diaoyu Islands" has superseded "Senkaku Islands" in terms of usage. ] (]) 02:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Hi, I hope everyone had a good Christmas and New Year's Eve. I was wondering, should we consider wrapping this up in a week or so, or does the discussion need a bit longer? I know some people may have been on holiday so I'm happy to give it another couple of weeks. ] (]) 15:52, 2 January 2012 (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) |
|
:I left a message for NuclearWarfare and FPAS to discuss possible closure; NW responded by leaving a message for FPAS, but nothing from FPAS yet. Perhaps I'll bump NW and see if xe's interested in closing alone, or if xe wants to take the issue to ] for another admin's input. Note, of course, that Lvhis's argument about FPAS being involved completely fails to actually understand what ] says--editing an article about a slightly similar topic does not cross the involved line, nor does taking ] action. ] (]) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (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) |
|
::It has been open for more than 30-days, so I think it's time to close. ] (]) 01:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' – Current administration of the islands is Japan. --] (]) 03:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I'll go ahead and close the discussion, though there isn't that much that isn't obvious to an outside observer. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:21, 4 January 2012 (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> |
