Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cla68 (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 7 October 2011 (→Now that that's done with...: reason). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is for discussion of the Senkaku Islands article; any discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands should be taken to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you for your cooperation.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Senkaku Islands was copied or moved into East China Sea with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Senkaku Islands was copied or moved into Senkaku Islands dispute with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan: Geography & environment High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:39, January 11, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Geography and environment task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Taiwan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands

A news item involving Senkaku Islands was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 June 2008.

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Congressional Research Service: Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands Dispute: The US Legal Relationship and Obligations, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. ‌

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help: Japan China Taiwan The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Break

Hello. Not that many people will care, but I'm going to find it hard to find the time to use Misplaced Pages for the next several days. If you leave me a message on my talk page and I don't reply, it means I'm not around! Have a great weekend. John Smith's (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You will be greatly missed, my friend. ;-) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's should have posted his personal message on his user talk page, not on here. STSC (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

|}

Checking news sources

As I said, I'm going to try to look at individual news sources and see whether any pattern emerges within a single publisher, to try and figure out if there's some sort of "house style".

The Guardian

This seemed like a good place to start to me, since the UK doesn't have as close of a connection to the dispute as the US or the involved countries do. The Guardian: 17 results when searching for “"Senkaku" source:Guardian”, one of which is an opinion and thus not counted. “"Diaoyu" source:Guardian” search gets 8 hits, of which 1 is opinion, and 6 are duplicated from the Senkaku search. ““Diaoyutai” source:Guardian” search gets 6 hits. 4 refer strictly to the “Diaoyutai State Guesthouse”. One doesn’t mention the islands at all (don’t know why it shows up as a hit); so one remains. Tiaoyu and Tiaoyutai get no results in the Guardian. Thus, there are 19 results overall.

Here’s they are listed in chronological order, including the date, link, location of the article, and the quote showing which name(s) is/are used, and how (collapsed to save page length):

In summary:

• 7 used only Senkaku Islands; 5 of the 7 occur before 2005, with the other 2 in September 2010.
• 11 use some mixture of Diaoyu and Senkaku. Of those:
  • Only 2 use the actual "slashed" name (both from April 2005); both of those use the S/D order
  • 4 mention both names separately, putting Senkaku first
  • 5 mention both names separately, putting Diaoyu first
• 1 uses Diaoyutai in a quotation, then Senkakushima afterward

Thus, I would say that The Guardian never uses just Diaoyu, uses a mixed name a majority of the time (58%), and uses Senkaku alone the rest (36%) of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's some wonderful results. A few things:

1. Diaoyu was misspelled in a few articles.
2. Try "senkaku -diaoyu -diaoyutai source:"CNN" and see if this is a hit . If so, search for "Diaoyu" inside. Let me know if you notice something interesting going on. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

On the first point, do you find any more Guardian articles that use only one of the misspellings and not SI? I saw another article (I think on CNN, maybe NYT) that said something like "Called the Sengaku Islands in Japan". It certainly doesn't make our life easier when journalists add to the misspellings. Maybe we could just say something like "Called SenDiakakuyotai in the region" and be done with it.

On the second point, that's why I didn't want to do any minuses; I knew that the total number would be few enough that I could spot duplicates by hand. I have no idea if it's something CNN is doing that causes the misfind, or if (more likely) it has something to do with Google's algorithms. I'd rather just try as many broad searches as possible and eliminate the problems by hand. That's why I didn't search for "Diaoyutai Islands", knowing I'd get several "State House" results, because with under 50 results total, they're easy to eliminate. Don't know when I'll get the energy up to do another of these hand searches, but I'll try at some point. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to bother with these hand searches, since the onus is really on your side :). To be comprehensive, you should do BBC, CNN, and a few other major news outlet as well. One thing you should keep in mind is that it'd take some extremely significant results to even dent the message from the JSTOR, WorldCat, GS, etc, results and you will not be shown mercy (by me) if you are found cherry-picking :).

Oh by the way, are you going to start a motion in WP:GUIDELINES to make guideline adherence 100% mandatory? I think it is something you should do first if you want to eliminate common sense from being a mandatory ingredient of using guidelines. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BBC and CNN seem good; probably Al Jazeera; some sort of weekly/monthly mag if I can see them, like Time, Newsweek, etc.; I don't recall if the news agencies (AP, Reuters) themselves have searchable databases. Any other suggestions that are relatively accessible would be gladly entertained, as of course, would be someone else doing some of the searching, too. I feel like Penwhale actually did some above, so I'll re-look at that. I promise, no cherry picking, although no promises on when I'll get this done, or if I'll just give up if it's not producing any interesting results (my goal here is looking for news orgs that are consistent; those that aren't are less useful because it's more about individual writer whim, which may in turn be linked to where the reporter is based).

No, I'm not going to make such a proposal at guidelines; even policies don't require 100% adherence (that's why IAR is a core policy). However, the onus is always on the people who want to ignore the guideline to explain why it should be ignored. That's why people can't just say "I don't need a source for that, I know it's true, IAR." This is especially the case where such specific ignoring and substituting another set of local guidelines happens to benefit one side in a dispute to the detriment of the other side. And it's even more problematic if you invoke common sense. Otherwise, I could say that since Japan is actually in territorial control of the islands (Japanese ships can go there, Chinese ships are chased out, and while China talks big, they still haven't sent any military escorts), that it is "common sense" that we should use Senkaku Islands (since its both the Japanese name and at a bare minimum a substantial portion of the "English" names). Of course, such an argument would be rejected by the whole community; but one person's "common sense" is another person's "reasoned argument" is another person's "wiki-lawyering" is another person's "POV pushing". Once we come down to an RfC, it's going to be up to those who wish to reject any given aspect of the guideline, or favor one part over another, to argue that, in addition to presenting whatever data we have. Even I will likely have to do that, as I attempt to say "Hey, we've got guidelines, they kind of give us conflicting results, so here's why I think that the balance rests in favor of" whatever I finally propose. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I suppose you've finally accepted that adherence to policies and guidelines is not mandatory. This is a good step forward. The whole problem about what's common sense and what's a reasoned argument is legitimate and I thought we were at this stage until you were all "YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO IGNORE GUIDELINES". If possible, we should now get back to debating which policy applies and which doesn't using... er... common sense and reasoned arguments :). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My point before, and now, has always been that you can't arbitrarily or capriciously ignore guidelines. You can't ignore them simply because it's "common sense". The burden for showing that a given guideline doesn't apply is on the person who wants to ignore it, not the person who wants to enforce it. One might say that our default position is always to follow guidelines, since guidelines are nothing more than codifications of precedent and established consensus. And, as I said, there's no point in you and I hashing out whether or not this guideline (the one that recommends that our first course of action when deciding a common name is to look at encyclopedias published recently) applies, because we're clearly at an impasse. Instead, rather than talking in circles, let's do something productive (like I did yesterday with the Guardian search), and later, when the RfC runs, we can make our arguments and let uninvolved editors decide how the guidelines should be applied in this case. Debate is useful only when there is a possibility for change, and we've both made it fairly clear that, at least on that one small point (use of encyclopedias as arbiters of a common name), neither of us is going to change. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you were working very hard to try to make your stance stand, but I am afraid that this is worthless. In terms of NPOV, even our side has proven that the Chinese name is slightly more used in English than the Japanese name, we are not going to insist on using only Chinese name. The big point you should pay more attention is: please do not use double standards to treat same or similar issues. Specifically here, I hope you can thoroughly and successfully overturn the precedent "Liancourt Rocks" and a wiki guideline "WP:NCGN#Multiple local names" first, no matter how hard you will face the wiki community. --Lvhis (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Qwyrxian has once again labelled my reasons to ignore certain guidelines as arbitrary and capricious without presenting notable supporting arguments. Well, he kind of did actually. I remember him telling me to open up a publishing company to print more maps because I said his sample sizes of almanacs is too small. That's a very tremendously convincing argument that had my jaw dropped right to the floor.

And of course, he wasn't entirely right about his claim about how his stance has always been that one can't arbitrarily or capriciously ignore guidelines, because I do remember him saying:

• Deal with your disagreement with the naming guidelines elsewhere. This line regarding encyclopedias is unambiguous: "If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name." Its no longer my problem that you don't like that guideline.

... which implies he felt any disagreement with the application of a guideline in a specific circumstance should not be dealt with in situ but rather be dealt with through mechanisms that involve a systemic review of the guideline in question. In other words, he really did appear to view adherence to guidelines as mandatory.

I agree with my friend Lvhis that Qwyrxian's efforts are largely futile. Despite his assertions that we aren't doing anything productive, the fact is we've already overturned the fundamental evidence that was used to justify the current status quo of the article name. The logical next step would be to undo the article move to "Senkaku Islands". But since Misplaced Pages lacks an effective content dispute resolution mechanism, we are stuck with at least 5 veto votes.

If Qwyrxian feels the only productive action that can be taken is to help him keep looking for evidence to show that Senkaku Islands is the name of predominant usage, then I am afraid I wouldn't be helping him on that because we've already devoted enough time to show the name-usage is actually roughly equal especially for over the past 6 years.

One thing he should consider, though, is whether or not he is developing a battleground mentality s.t. he can't emotionally afford a loss over this dispute. I am not sure if it's just me, but I feel he is losing his sense of objectivity quite rapidly, as evidenced by his circular discussion approach, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, and very very obscure use of logic. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could do what we are always supposed to do: follow the dispute resolution process. We already had an RfC say that the current article title is correct; you rejected that RfC on procedural grounds. Fine, I've moved on. Since then, we have done productive things--I didn't mean to imply that our work since Novemeber isn't productive; rather, I meant that you and I continuing to argue about how to apply the guidelines would be unproductive. So, as far as I can tell, since mediation failed, the only step we can take is to take our new data and new arguments to a new RfC. Since, if I remember correctly, the problem with the previous RfC is that we didn't all have time to gather our information/arguments, this time, I think we should take time to do so. The only alternative that I know of is Arbcom, based on the fact that part of the reason that progress hasn't been made is due to poor behavior by several different editors. The likely result of such a case (were it accepted) would be, sanctions on the article (1RR, uninvolved admins can block or topic ban users who aren't civil, are tendentious, or who edit war, etc.); it may also involve one or more editors being topic banned or even blocked by ArbCom. The mere failure of mediation is, in fact, sufficient to result in a trip to ArbCom. Does anyone else here think that arbitration is a better route than preparing for an RfC? Not that we technically need agreement--any individual may open an Arbcom case at any time (it's not like mediation where we all have to consent or the mediation stops). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't know. ArbCom does not appear to care about content dispute, so going there likely means you want to bring up a case of user conduct - and I have a have a pretty decent guess on what will be brought up as the main issue. Aside from ArbCom, every other venue is likely a waste of time because Misplaced Pages apparently works by consensus and we already know there will be 5 guaranteed votes for status quo regardless of evidence presented. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Which 5 users would that be? John Smith's (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! I was afraid you'd be caught up in those terrible riots in London. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Which 5 users were you talking about? John Smith's (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the harm in trying for ArbCom? Will it really hurt to ask them to think about it? – AJL 09:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, when you talked about sanctions, or block, or ban, the more important or key point here is how to enforce it. The BRD cycle restriction set for that page sounds very good and worked quite well at beginning. But what happened later? If any one uses double standards as you use, no sanctions, ban, or block measures can work well. --Lvhis (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lhis -- Please review the graphic illustration at the right. In the current state of development of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute, there is nothing from which to conjure up a cause for indignation or offense. For further clarification, see User talk:Magog the Ogre#Senkaku Islands.

Your edits appear to be limited to an exclusive BRD subject. You have made this explicit:

"... the main point ... is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011

In contrast, the only proximal edits which appear to have inspired this veiled complaint are at Senkaku Islands dispute; and those edits are scrupulous in avoidance. Are you complaining on this page about something to with edits on another page? If so, please compare Citation-supported introduction paragraphs#Restoring.

Are you unwilling or unable to point to a narrowly-focused concern or problem having to do with a specific sentence or inline citation support? --Tenmei (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tenmei, you were supposed to be blocked as what Elen of the Roads's clear opinion here. You'd be better to keep more quiet now. --Lvhis (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested name: Islands at 25°44′N 123°30′E—25°57′N 123°42′E

By removing both the Japanese and Chinese names and resorting to coordinates we can avoid preferring one over the other. The coordinates were chosen based on the red box on the map. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

10/10, I laughed. 哈哈哈哈哈 ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that that's done with...

Since the Arbitration case is now over, we are obviously free to move forward with our previous discussions. To be honest, I'm not ready to do that yet, but probably will be next week. But maybe the first step is to ask what the first step is? In other words, what do we want to do next? Discuss the issue more amongst ourselves? Gather yet more data? Move right ahead with an RfC, RM or some other community process? I'm pretty open to any suggestion, myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked that the page protection be lifted. There are a couple of cn tags in the history section that are not necessary. There has been some media attention to the ownership conflict lately because it has been a topic of discussion in the Taiwanese presidential elections. Once the article is unlocked, we can start adding that stuff to it. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's the issue of the NPOV tags (on both articles) and deciding whether we can remove them or how we can come to that position. John Smith's (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I say, just let the tags stay up through whatever "final" method we use to determine the titles. I think we've got a lot more eyes on the article now, so I think that if we now get a good consensus (ideally, with more people than just the group that's been debating this forever), that at that point the tags can come down and will need to stay down. I also think that there's enough people here, some of whom are likely to start actively discussing it soon, that we can legitimately say that some people think the titles are POV, thus fulfilling the requirements of the tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The POV tags are there because there are editors who believe that the current name, which is the one used by the government which has controlled the islands for the last 116 years, is POV? We probably should, then, take a quick straw poll right now to see what the current status of opinion is: Cla68 (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be better for all parties to cool down for a while, then we can calmly discuss the most disputable issue, the name issue. As for the tag, it should be removed only when the final consensus or compromise is reached to determine the "NPOV" title. The tag is mainly shown there is ongoing dispute, or the ongoing dispute has not been solved. Cla68 judged that as long as the name is the one used by the government which has controlled the disputed geographic entity, the name will not be POV. Following this, the Liancourt Rocks should have been named as Dokdo in this Misplaced Pages because the extent of control by Korean government over it is much stronger than that of control by Japanese government over the Diaoyu/Senkaky/Pinacle islands (e.g. Korea has inhabitants residing on Liancourt Rocks, while both Chinese and Japanese fishers cannot effectively fish in the water around the Diaoyu/Senkaky/Pinacle islands). It is not a good idea to take a quick straw poll now regarding if the current title is an acceptably NPOV one. We need calm discussion to reach consensus or compromise, rather than just do this straw poll. I won't go in this poll. --Lvhis (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, a quick straw poll can help determine if a consensus currently exists. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on article title

Is the current title of this article, Senkaku Islands, an acceptably NPOV title? (Vote yes or no below):

• Yes. John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Japan-related articles
• High-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• B-Class Taiwan articles
• High-importance Taiwan articles
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Unassessed Islands articles
• WikiProject Islands articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Japan
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in China
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Taiwan