Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Sangoku map

A 1785 Japanese map, the Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説) by Hayashi Shihei adopted the Chinese kanji (釣魚臺 Diaoyutai) to annotate the Senkaku Islands, which were painted in the same color as China.

This uses the Unryu Suganuma book as a reference, but across eight pages (89–97). Can someone point me to the correct page where it makes/supports the above statement? Thanks. The citation is much too vague at the moment, and as far as I can see it doesn't support that statement. John Smith's (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I glanced through the HTML version of the maps from the referenced site. I can't read Japanese. You can check the page number yourself: http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru03/ru03_01547/ru03_01547_0004/ru03_01547_0004_p0005.jpg. Please let other editors comment before deleting the reference. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Please re-read my comments. I'm talking about the book reference. John Smith's (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I was hasty in my assumption that you were referring to the Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (三国通覧図説). In this case, I agree that a better reference will be preferable. In fact, do we even need this reference at all to illustrate the point? Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
1. you can see from the map the coloring of each island, very clearly. a magnified picture is found here http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WzN3JMZpmGA/TJoPQofRCgI/AAAAAAAAAyI/o6YfxRSG6Do/s1600/1786%E5%B9%B4%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%BE%80%E7%90%89%E7%90%83%E6%B5%B7%E8%B7%AF%E5%9B%BE2.jpg or here http://www.mahoroba.ne.jp/~tatsumi/dinoue16.html
2. source from, e.g. Kiyoshi Inoue, http://www.mahoroba.ne.jp/~tatsumi/dinoue0.html , 彼はこの傳信録中の琉球三十六島の図と航海図を合作して、三国通覧図説を作成いたしました。このさい三十六島の図に琉球領として記載されていない釣魚台、黄尾嶼などを、機械的に中国領として色分けしています。

would this satisfy you? John Smith? I think what we should try to do here is to provide a balanced view and list of facts, not trying to push POV one way or another. San9663 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest deletion by John Smith as of Oct 9, 2010 4:22 pm EST

Hi John Smith,

I notice that you deleted two citations in a recent edit. While I agree that the second reference deserves to be deleted, I'd like to ask why you deleted the first, which appears to be a reference to a published text dated back to the Ming Dynasty. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's because it was referring to a Wiki source, which as pointed about above is not valid. I was also concerned because there was no indication as to where the text is held (i.e. what institution), what page number it might have been, etc. In this case, given that we're dealing with an old historical source, it might be better to have a secondary source from an academic publication that refers to it. Then it will be easier to go back and check it. Otherwise we're asking interested people to accept either a source that some unknown person reproduced, or hunt for a primary source amongst China's various museums and universities. John Smith's (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Or a scanned version of the text might help. John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Your explanation does not seem acceptable
This is the reference in question:
Title: Liang zhong hai dao zhen jing / [Xiang Da jiao zhu].Imprint: Beijing : Zhonghua shu ju : Xin hua shu dian Beijing fa xing suo fa xing, 2000 reprint edition. Contents: Shun feng xiang song--Zhi nan zheng fa. (順風相送--指南正法). ISBN: ISBN 7-101-02025-9. pp96 and pp253. The full text is available on wikisource.
The page numbers are clearly listed as 96 and 253. An ISBN number is also provided. A search on Google returned dozens of places that have this book. The wikisource in question is simply a free instance of the book (which could be removed if there is reason to believe it is not the original text).
I am inclined to believe you are intentionally trying to commit an act of sabotage, since these details are hard to miss. In addition, you deleted this along with another obviously dubious reference which appears to be an attempt to mask the other deletion. And as with many of your other controversial deletes and reverts, you don't consult with other editors or provide adequate reasoning. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
A few days have passed and I have yet to see a convincing reply coming from you. Considering that you have been active on Wikipedia and had been making edits related to this topic, I'd take this a refusal of reply as a result of lack of valid counter-arguments. It's a pity that reputable editors can make the simple act of adding legitimate content so bothersome. Time to revert your deletion. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Content Copied/Awaiting Removal

I finally got to copying two sections from here to the Senkaku Islands dispute page. That means most of the dispute-related contents here will be removed. There are a few things we might want to think about:

Do we need a separate summary of the dispute? If so, how detailed? The intro has already summarized the gist of it, and to be honest, I'm sick of seeing the actual points of arguments being listed out here.

The Oil drilling dispute section will have to go somewhere else. It's not about the islands at all. It's not an actual event or anything, but an ongoing state of relationship. If you want to, perhaps make a stub article out of it.

Some people thought we should still have a section for historical events. I don't really care as long as it's not about the dispute again. It will probably be quite short and factual. We can add it later.


Scroll up to see my original proposal along with the responses. You might have to search the page archive if it gets archived soon.

DXDanl (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A summary of the dispute is certainly needed here. John Smith's (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I reverted your edits. The copy should be syncronized with deletion. Actually my edit was lost. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Except there is no reason for your to revert the edit. You could have simply added yours now or later.DXDanl (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You didn't respond to my indication. If the copy is not synchronized with deletion, someone will edit this article. If you wish to move the content, please synchronize the copy and deletion. And please copy the newest version.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Copying the content will lose all the edit histories. So please move the article and remove unnecessary content. Please undo them again ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
How do we keep the edit history for this article then?DXDanl (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Please follow the instruction of WP:MOVE. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, Senkaku Islands dispute has edit history, we can not move Senkaku Islands to it. We need to follow these procedures.

  1. Move Senkaku Islands dispute to Senkaku Islands\temp
  2. Ask admin to delete Senkaku Islands dispute.
  3. move Senkaku Islands to Senkaku Islands dispute
  4. delete necessary content of Senkaku Islands
  5. copy/paste necessary content of Senkaku Islands dispute.

So it will take time. Please restore all of your move attempt until move is available. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. See procedures here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DXDanl (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The history section, maybe should stay here? "Supposedly" this should only be a list of facts -- regardless of the disputes associated with it?San9663 (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I also feel the "oil dispute" section should belong to the East China Sea entry. Perhaps a link from here not a whole section San9663 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved Senkaku Islands dispute temp back to [[Senkaku Islands dispute. If you tell me which revisions of Senkaku Islands belong over there I can move them over. But I wouldn't worry too much about doing this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree I'm not sure what Phoenix7777 was trying to do with the "... dispute/temp" page and the "... dispute temp" page. There's no way I know of to automatically keep edit history in both articles. Moving, even by an admin, would replace the current article on the islands themselves with a redirect. There was something written about manually fixing history, but I didn't look into it too much since there are already separate instructions for splitting an article.DXDanl (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on a recent revert of Phoenix7777

On October 10, 2010, you made this revert claiming that the original caption contained information (namely Okinawa was administered by the U.S.) that was not mentioned in the source. But then in your next revert, you added a source said Remin Ribao "criticized the occupation of the Ryukyu Island (or Okinawa Prefecture) by the United States)". If I don't see a reasonable argument from your end, I'd assume this is a sabotage and undo your revert. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it when some editors here make their POV-pushing edits and then refuse to justify themselves. But since this matter is again brought up in a later thread, it's not going to make a differenceBobthefish2 (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Names in lead section

Five different titles in the lead section is far too much. It should be reduced to three (Japanese, most common Chinese and English). Alternative names can be added in the naming section. John Smith's (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Should have (1) English - Pinnacle (2) Japanese - Senkaku (3) PRC /simplified Chinese -Diaoyu or Diaoyutai (4) ROC / traditional Chinese - Tiaoyutai. Begin with English and put variation and original language inside bracket. Current presentation seems ok. San9663 (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I note that while older ROC sources might list "Tiaoyutai", the ROC has adopted pinyin romanisation as of 2009 and so the official romanisation for the islands has changed to Diaoyu / Diaoyutai, i.e. the same as PRC usage. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. I tried to see this from a reader who has no background on the issue coming to wiki to seek information. I guess then we also have to consider that in a significant amount of literatures (esp though before mainland China opened up in 1980s), the names were spelled this way. For the benefits of wiki readers who have no background with the subject or language, and for people who search library/researches, it would be helpful to provide such a spelling? San9663 (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My view tends towards that of John Smith's (surprising, I know) on this - that the lead should not be an exhaustive list but should keep to the most common references - one English name, one Chinese name, and one Japanese name. This is especially because there is a whole "Names" section which explain the origins of and subtle differences between all the different names. The two alternative Japanese formulations, which really just illustrate the different ways to phrase "Islands" in Japanese rather than illustrate substantively different names, is in my view excessive and unnecessarily clutters up the lead sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I also agree. The Taiwanese naming is highly redundant and unnecessary. It's not like the Chinese name of the island is different in Taiwan. However, the choice of traditional or simplified Chinese can be a tough one. I'd personally prefer traditional, but that's because I simply like the traditional characters more. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Simplified is more common though, correct? We should use the most common version in use in the Chinese language. John Smith's (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Or, alternatively, leave all non-English characters to the names section. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Simplified is not used in Taiwan, which is party number 3 within the dispute. (inb4 another long discussion regarding Political status of Taiwan and whether it's significant or not) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I did forget about that. So yes, I guess all 3 languages must be used despite the messiness. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, at least 3 types for the 3 parties. different spellings can be inside bracket.San9663 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why not just leave the two versions of Chinese characters to the Names section? It's misleading to say this has 3 parties. At most, it has 2.5 parties - Japan is one, and mainland China and Taiwan are the other. Officially at least, both governments agree that the islands are a part of Taiwan and thus a part of China. Not that this matters - because both sides use the same romanisation.
Only English, Japanese romanisation (one version) and Chinese romanisation (one version) are strictly required in the lead, maybe with a link to the Names section for those interested in the details. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Move oil dispute section away

1. The description there has nothing to do with the islands

2. Even if there is, this should probably just be a pointer to this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_China_Sea#EEZ_disputes San9663 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Comments Someone willing to perform another split? :D I actually don't agree with leaving even a redirect. The oil drilling dispute is centered around the East Sea in general and the Chunxiao field. They have nothing to do with this article yet in terms of secondary sources. Including them would be synthesis/original research. However, there could be a link under "See also".DXDanl (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
"See also" seems good enough. It seems people are more interested in the 'dispute' and not many return to this page now. :) San9663 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
San9663 -- Yes, it is demonstrable that "not many return to this page now;" however, this puts emphasis on the wrong point. Please let me re-introduce another point-of-view. Recall that DXDanl suggested that an article split can "... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not."

In that slightly re-focused context, I wonder about the possible usefulness of delay? In the phrase "nothing to do with this article yet in terms of secondary sources," I wonder what DXDanl meant by the word "yet"? Should there be a section which identifies the islands as a "proxy"?

I suppose this short section could remain as an illustrative example. I understand how this can be construed as a valid aspect of our subject, but maintaining non-controversial neutrality is probably beyond my personal writing skills. --Tenmei (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
My comments was meant to explain the fact that Dxdanl's comment received little feedback now. Anyway, Chunxiao is more than 200 nautical miles away from the islands, and it just does not belong to here. The only thing that may be related is perhaps to mention the island is related to the resources in the surrounding seabed, which we have in previous sections already. San9663 (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I have brought up the removal of the oil dispute section before, but we can start anew, since the recent edits to that section have changed things a bit. The main body of the oil dispute itself should not be a part of either this article or the Senkaku dispute article. Are they related in real life? Yes, but 99% of all Wikipedia articles are related to some other article. We make separate articles exactly because we don't want to include multiple topics in one article. Right now, it seems we have a nice intro/summary paragraph in that section, so a link could be created from there. The main body, however, is still the same info as before and should go to a separate article--options include the one on the East Sea dispute or a stub-article. The procedure should be similar to a split, since we don't want to disturb the histories of the established articles. Btw, when I wrote "yet", I simply anticipated that eventually there will be someone who would find some secondary source that ties in Senkaku with other issues; that was all.DXDanl (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of DXDanl in this diff --Tenmei (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Could DXDanl do the clean up removal work? Though the suspension of talk in East Sea may be linked to the recent skipper arrest incidence, there is no direct indication (China neither admitted nor denied the link, and it may just be a general result of suspending all communication as a gesture of protest by China), so even with the recent edit the link is rather weak. But I do not have a strong opinion either way. San9663 (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to do that on Sunday/Monday.DXDanl (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't have time until maybe Thursday. Anyone else, feel free to give it a shot.DXDanl (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no harm leaving it here for a few more days :) San9663 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Done.DXDanl (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and Request for change of name

There has always been controversy as to whether this entry (and the related dispute entry) should be named senkaku or diaoyu or pinnacles, or senkaku/diaoyu or diaoyutai/senkaku, etc. One way to resolve is to rely on some external and neutral verdict. Unfortunately there is no ICJ ruling yet, while many editors here pointed to google.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_590598.html Recently, there is a dispute filed on google earth, and the verdict is not out yet (link above). Can we agree to use whatever name google has finally decided? i.e. if it will drop the "diaoyu" name and call it "senkaku" alone that is what this entry will be named, and if it decides to call it senkaku/diaoyu then this entry should be named so.

None of us knows how google will decide at this moment, so if we could agree on this before the verdict is out, this should be NPOV decision. San9663 (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Possession is nine tenths of the Devil's work. If the Chinese want to name it, they gotta own it first. Hcobb (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No we, cannot rely on Google Earth--their "decision" would be but one part of the puzzle. Nor can we rely on "possession" as Hcobb mentions, since that's not the criteria we use (note that we use Florence as our title for the city, even though Florence's "possessor", Italy, uses Firenze). Wikipedia actually has a very complex policy involved, which you can read at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Note that even if the UN "ruled" on a name (which it doesn't do, but just imagine it did), that wouldn't be enough to satisfy the guideline. We must use the most common name used in English (which can be equal to one of the local names).
Because of the split, I ended up starting a discussion over at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute about this issue. But it makes more sense to discuss that issue here. Here's the discussion so far:
Discussion copied from Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute

Personally, I think both articles should continue to use the name "Senkaku Island". Just as a quick search, Google News pulls up over 1000 hits on "Senkaku Islands," including Japanese, U.S., and international sites. On a number of the non-Japanese sites, the name Senkaku is even used without any mention of the other 2 names "Pinnacle Islands" finds only 32 hits, only 3 of which appear to be about these islands and all of which list Pinnacle Islands after the Japanese and Chinese names. Now, searches like that are only a starting point, but the fact that the results are so lopsided is a good indication of a starting point. The next question would be which name is commonly used in international reference books, like other encyclopedias, academic journals (if their are any), and atlases/maps.

The only reason I can see to change the name would be if a large proportion of the international, English sources regularly used both names, and especially if they used them with a slash between them. In that case, we could say that since the English name is widely held to be disputed, but for Wikipedia we have to choose one name, we'll use the less common but neutral "Pinnacle Islands" name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Google search does not take into the fact that multiple spelling would refer to the same name in its original language, eg, you need to add up the search results for diaoyu/diaoyutai/tiaoyu/tiaoyutai. Nonetheless, I do not understand why one can use Liancourt for one case and not use Pinnacle for the other. I am sure Liancourt turns up in google much less frequently than either Takeshima or Dokdo. If use are going to use Senkaku here, there is no reason not to use Dokdo for the other. San9663 (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the governing guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). The primary question is, is there a widely used English name (note that this doesn't mean it needs to be an English word, and it may be identical to the local word--for example, we use the words Paris and Berlin, even though those aren't "English"). So, we would have to ask whether or not Pinnacle Islands is widely used. We can see that, at least in a Google News search, it is not. Even looking at an archive search, with "Pinnacle Islands" in quotation marks, I only get 15 hits, and all mentions of that follow mention of either Senkaku Islands or Senkaku Islands and some version of the Chinese spelling. So we definitely shouldn't choose Pinnacle Islands as the standard English term, because that term simply isn't used regularly in English (at least in newspapers searched by Google News; I'd like to see some other results from other places as well).
However, as I mentioned above, there is another reason why we might use Pinnacle Islands. If anyone really wants to get into the issue, I recommend reading the entire archive history of Liancourt Rocks. Well, no, I take that back, I don't recommend anyone put themselves through so much pain. But, once upon a time, I did read the whole debate (I wasn't an active editor at the time of the main debate), and the dispute there boiled down to this (in very very brief summary): 1) the islands themselves, were hardly ever mentioned in English, because the truth is that the English speaking world really didn't care very much about the Rocks except to report recent clashes over ownership. 2) In almost all cases that the islands were mentioned, both Dokdo/Tokto (the Korean name) and Takeshima were named, with no particular preference for either. 3) As such, it was shown that there really was no "standard" English name. 4) Edit warring over the name was very aggressive, involved external canvassing, and non-stop (except when protection was applied). As such, it was decided (and consensus still holds) that since there was no standard English name, and choosing either of the local names was bound to continue the edit warring, the English name was chosen as the suboptimal-but-at-least-neutral 3rd option.
So, in this case, here's my summary of the issue for this article:
  1. We need to determine if any of the three names is regularly used in English more than any other, by a substantial enough margin. When doing such an analysis, we need to be careful to "ignore" counts where the article says something like "Senkaku islands, or, as known in Chinese, Diayou", since those give no information either way. We also have to account for alternate spellings in Chinese, but again, if one article says "Diayou/Taiyou/etc.", that's still only 1 mention.
  2. If Pinnacle islands is regularly used more than any other, we should almost certainly choose that name. This matches the precedent for something like Florence, even though the local name is "Firenze".
  3. If either Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu is regularly used more than any other name, by a large, substantial margin, we should probably choose that name. Note that this matches the precedent for Sea of Japan.
  4. If Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu is used more often, but not by a large margin, or if the names are used approximately equally, we should discuss the issue, but probably go with Pinnacle Islands, in keeping with the Liancourt Rocks precedent.
Of course, no matter what we choose, we leave redirects at all of the other names. Furthermore, we make both articles conform internally to the name chosen for the article title (this is mentioned in the above referenced guideline). Does this seem like a good framing of the discussion? Does anyone want to object to the process before we actually start make observations? I would really rather establish a consensus if we can, because the problem is that if we can't, we'll eventually end up at ArbCom (like, say, with the issues surrounding Ireland). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a big deal to me. But it just looks totally strange compared with the Liancout/dokdo/dokto/takeshima entry. It seems you are suggesting the fact that the final compromise of liancourt is just because there were too much edit warring, while the pro-neutral (or non-pro-japan) editors here are too civilized to do that. This seems a weird reason (though a plausible explanation) and sort of look like an unfair wiki phenomenon. San9663 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a little unclear; the edit-warring was actually a result, not the cause, of the underlying problem--no one could establish, definitively, whether Dokdo or Takeshima was more common in English (despite lots of painful arguing about statistical analysis, search terms, etc.). So, either they were actually used about equally in English, or editors were just unable to get a solid "proof" of which one was more common. As a result, it was almost logical for the partisans to continue to push for their own name, because each side had "evidence" that their name was more common. However, the reason why I think we don't need to do that here is that I believe that, in English articles/books/etc., the term actually used is Senkaku Islands, not a mix of the two. However, if someone could show me that that isn't the case, then we could look to alternative approaches. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I believe Diaoyu and Diaoyutai are both quite commonly used in English sites and documents. Try doing a search in major search engines. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The title should not be decided just by a simple "google it". Wikipedia has very detailed guidelines on using the search engines as to what hits are acceptable and what hits are not. I would also point out that across Asia except Japan, the term "Senkaku Islands" is almost unknown but Diaoyutai is instantly recognisable. STSC (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean a simple search; this is why I started with Google News (current and archive) search, and meant it only as a start. We want to know what reliable sources use, not what joe random blogger (who's undoubtedly partisan one way or the other) uses. I'm particularly interested in what English maps and encyclopedias use. As to your (STSC's) comment about "across Asia", I have to issues: 1) How did you determine that one is almost unknown while the other is "instantly recognizable"? Do you have any evidence for that? I don't doubt that you believe it to be true, but, of course, we need actual evidence. 2) When you said "across Asia," did you mean "across Asia in English-language media?" Because, as far as en.wiki is concerned, only the English name matters when choosing the title. This is exactly like how our article on the city in Italy is called Florence, despite the fact that the local (Italian) name is Firenze (which redirects to Florence). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
And when I look at that, I see that you were already aware of this discussion, San9663. In any event, let's continue it here. As far as I'm concerned, the actual evidence I've seen so far implies that Senkaku Islands is the standard English name, and so should be used in the title. I'd like to see evidence from other sides (support either Daioyu or Pinnacle Islands). Also, I'm wondering if anyone has access to some print English language maps, atlases, or encyclopedia sources and could tell us what they use? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the examples.

1) Possession/control. Explain to me why the wiki entry for Liancourt is not Dokto. This example demonstrates that current possession is not the prevailing factor. IF each of you here is willing to post an objection to the Liancourt Discussion page of this same reasoning, I will stop here and believe you are genuine.

2) English sources. Let's look at the news story of MAJOR English media in the past year. Most, if not all, that I have seen listed Diaoyu together with Senkaku side by side. (Chinese or Japanese papers do not count)

WSJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands&action=edit&section=37 "a cluster of islands known as Diaoyutai in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese"

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139 "a group of islands, known as the Senkaku islands in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China" "The Senkaku/Diaoyu issue complicates efforts by Japan and China to resolve a dispute over oil and gas fields in the East China Sea that both claim."

The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/17101152?story_id=17101152&fsrc=rss "The Senkaku/Diaoyu issue complicates efforts by Japan and China to resolve a dispute over oil and gas fields in the East China Sea that both claim."

Arguing for "senkaku" alone is clearly POV. If you can show me that more than 1/3 (I am not even asking for 50%+ or 80%+ for overwhelming majority) of the major English media in the past year have used Senkaku alone without mentioning Diaoyu, I will stop here. I am not arguing to use Diaoyu, becausse that would be POV, too. I am merely saying it should be Senkaky/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku (and i do not mind the ordering) San9663 (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article cannot include a slash--Wikipedia articles have to have a single, unambiguous title per WP:MOS. Furthermore, we couldn't use a slash anyway for technical reasons, because that distinguishes pages from sub-pages. We have to choose the one, single, most used name. If we can't establish either Senkaku or Diaoyu as more common, we should use Pinnacle Islands. As a side note, I whole-heartedly agree that we cannot argue based on "possession" (I'm not even certain its accurate to say Japan possesses the islands in any real sense right now anyway, but that's a discussion for another place). I do see that the 3 you listed above use the joint naming approach. I'll take a look later and see what other sources are doing. I don't believe that we can limit the search to the last year, as that's too short to establish standards; I'd say last 3-5 years would be a better measurement. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this only a matter of weeks ago. It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the "right" answer. Keep the current name and leave it at that. John Smith's (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, John Smith--though only a few weeks ago, that's before I started watching the page. Looking at the results, especially the search results Phoenix provided with over 3 times using Senkaku Islands implies a pretty clear standard in the English language press. Even if a number of the ones using Senkaku Islands also use the Chinese name, that would still leave a large majority using only Senkaku Islands. Alright, I'm done with this debate, unless another user can show a fundamental defect in the previous analysis of both search results and policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So the repsonse is by ignoring the two challenges I wrote earlier? Because you are afraid of facing these reasonable challenges? The previous discussion have not even reached a consensus and it was still extremely controversial. Unless this is settled in a NPOV way, this will only come back from time to time in the future. I am not sure which google site you to search, the convention should be the main English site "google.com", not .jp, not .cn. This is what i found from the main English site.

Diaoyu: About 3,460,000 results (0.12 seconds)

Senkaku: About 842,000 results (0.19 seconds) San9663 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the point is that Phoenix didn't search Google at all--xe searched Google News and Google Scholar. Plain Google searches actually provide very little use to us, because we want to know what reliable sources are saying, not what blogs and other SPS are saying (since the vast majority of those will be partisans writing for one side or the other from within one or the other of the relevant countries).
In any event, even if you want to use a straight Google search, your results are misleading anyway. First, you must restrict all search results to English only (you can do that at the "Advanced Search" setting), as those are the only results that matter for determining the name on en.wiki (presumably other country's wikis use their own language as well). Next, let's make sure we're searching only for posts about the islands, and not some other meaning for that word. If you search for "Diaoyu" and "islands", you only get 72,200 hits, while "Senkaku" and "Islands" gets 83,000 hits. Alternatively, "Diaoyu" and "Island" gets 66,200 hits, while "Senkaku" and "Island" gets 74,200 hits. Also, just for completeness, if you search for them as a single phrase, "Diaoyu Islands" gets 64,000, while "Senkaku Islands" gets 72,800; "Diaoyu Island" gets 27,600, while "Senkaku Island" gets 2,470. My guess on the last result is that this occurs, if I understand correctly, because China calls the main island "Diaoyu Island", while Japan does not call any one island "Senkaku Island" (i.e., the Japanese results only occur as grammatical errors, while the Chinese results refer to the main island, surrounded by islets). Oh, wait, just one more completeness: "Pinnacle Islands" gets 3590; "Pinnacle Island" 5450, but event small number is actually over-inflated because there appear to be small islands named "Pinnacle Island" in New Zealand, Canada, and the UK.
So, Google hits show a slightly larger number of Senkaku mentions, while Google News shows an overwhelmingly larger number of Senkaku mentions. I still see no compelling reason to change the title to the exceedingly rare "Pinnacle Islands". Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I did I search on a few major search enginers and here are some results:
"Diaoyu" on Google News - 1570 hits
"Senkaku" on Google News - 1710 hits
"Diaoyu" on Yahoo News - 2224 hits
"Senkaku" on Yahoo News - 2367 hits
"Diaoyu" on Bing News - 2230 hits
"Senkaku" on Bing News - 2220 hits
The differences don't appear as overwhelming as you indicated. To be fair, I'd say the article itself should be "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands", but I doubt this is going to come to pass since since some editors will guard the current pro-Japanese tilt with their teeth. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Bob, if you want to start accusing unnamed editors (though we know who you're talking about) of being "pro-Japanese", don't be surprised if you get accused of being "pro-Chinese". You have two choices, either work with other people here and stop accusing them of this and that, or leave the page and find some people you can work with. John Smith's (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a distinction between opposing a trend of fanatic pro-Japanese POV-pushing and being pro-Chinese. Up to now, all of my edits fall into the former category. Even so, my edits still suffer from relentless sabotage by certain editors. In many cases, I'd open up a thread to discuss the rationales behind the changes. But of course, that doesn't always work because some editors like to selectively ignore arguments that don't favour their actions and positions. So you see, it can be quite a chore to work with such uncooperative editors.
Despite you being a reputable editor based on how you presented yourself to Magog the Ogre, I have to respectfully decline considering the options you've presented. My conduct here has been reasonable and there isn't a necessity to assist efforts intended for POV-pushing. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If we take Qwyrxian's results, the difference is not significant. 10-20% more for Senkaku+island vs Diaoyu+island. I agree with Bobthefish2 that the entry should be called senkaku_diaoyu, with senkaku appearing before diaoyu for its small (but statistically insignificant) edge. This should be NPOV for such a disputed item. As you also know, there are variations in how to spell the Chinese names, such as Diaoyutai, and Tiaoyutai, if you are adding these, the results will be even closer. BTW, it seems no one responded to the Liancourt analogy I posted earlier, I would assume we are closed on that topic, and we come to agree that different standard has been applied and the defenders for Actual Control Precedence are not willing to apply the same standard to Liancourt. San9663 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion on name-ordering earlier. I believe someone suggested that names should be ordered alphabetically if in doubt. However, I am not certain that's necessarily the case (someone can go check). At the same time, I'd caution that the small differences in results may fall well into the margin of error. After all, search engines are not necessarily even close to representing the real distribution of term frequencies in authoritative sources. The way the comparisons have been done also ignore the relative importance of the documents retrieved. Obviously, government documents should take precedence over say... People's magazine articles. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

One more note: Calling this Senkaku_Diaoyu helps to reduce the POV accusation on this entry, and makes the whole wiki entry appear more trustworthy to many who also read the 45% of other literature. The name Diaoyu itself, as some of you here noted, are also used by the Japanese for the main island, sort of, as Yudiao/Uotsuri/鱼钓, and the Japanese people over the last century did not feel the need to change the name of that main island/rock. It really makes little impact to the dispute from the Japanese perspective. The Senkaku name only appeared in 1900, which was a few years after Japan incorporated it in 1895. i.e. Even under Japan's control, the name has been used by Japan for a few years for the whole group of islands. San9663 (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Alright, I tried the "google scholar" search. links attached for you to verify.

For all items since 1991

I used "OR" instead of simply adding the results to avoid double counting. Search individually the results = 609+1140+41+140=1930 which would be double-counting. The articles where more than 2 names are cited are 1930-1700=230.


For all items since 2000:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Senkaku+AND+islands&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2000&as_vis=0

So, for google scholar results published since 2000, the numbers are exactly the same, 1270. for publication since 1991, Senkaku has a small edge, (1820-1700)/1820=6.6%

If I use "anytime" period, the difference is 2400 vs 2060, i.e. (2400-2060)/2400==14%, close to qwyrxian's results above, but still not a really significant difference. and you see the time trend of the scholars.

You are welcome to do your own search and post your links here.San9663 (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but a dual name is not an option. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names--it makes the key point that agreeing to use a dual name ultimately just switches the argument to "which one goes first", solving nothing. The guideline explicitly states that we need to make a choice, even if it is by arbitrary criteria (like search results). As much as I hate to say it, if we cannot agree on either Senkaku or Diaoyu, I think we must choose Pinnacle Islands. I don't have the brain power at the moment to look more carefully at the search results, but I'd like to determine why the google scholar/news counts that were done 2 weeks ago should a 3 to 1 dominance for Senkaku, but now they're showing roughly equal numbers--presumably the criteria were set up differently, but I don't know which one is more reliable.
One thing that I just noticed--WP:PLACE recommends using the United States Board on Geographic Names GeoNames search as one indicator, at least for the U.S. name; that database uses Senkaku, with Pinnacle as an alternate, with no mention of Diaoyu. Now, again, please don't think that I'm saying this is definitive--I'd like to know what similar boards in the UK and India (the next two most influential/largest English speaking countries) use, at a minimum. Again, still wondering--anyone have access to paper atlases or encyclopedia? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, this is quite close to your simple google search restricted to English sites. The difference may be, in the previous search, they use "name islands" as a strict criteria, hence ignoring the mention of just the names. For example, an article mentioning "islands of diaoyu" or "diaoyu tai islands" would not show up on the previous search. Even in Phoenix777's search, it was 1420 vs 711+259=970, not 3 times more often as he claimed. :)San9663 (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ad hominem tu quoque --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Right from the start I proposed us to agree to accept a result that none of us could predict (google official verdict), but it was rejected -- if that is what you are referring to. San9663 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, I followed phoenix' link, his first (top) three results. (1) Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Tiao-yu-tai (Senkaku) Islands and the Law of Territorial Acquisition by T Cheng (2) Sovereign rights and territorial space in Sino-Japanese relations: irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands by U Suganuma. (3) The US role in the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands, 1945–1971 by JMF Blanchard. They won't show up in "Diaoyu islands" search, because Cheng spelled Tiao-yu with hyphens and with a "T", and Suganuma and Blanchard had placed Diaoyu ahead of Senkaku (so that you won't find "Diaoyu Islands" together. This is why the results were different. BTW, there are 131 results with the "tiao-yu-tai" spelling, which could make the result of Chinese name more than that of Japanese name. San9663 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Logical fallacy

Post hoc ergo propter hoc — not "a fundamental defect in the previous analysis of both search results and policy."Review threads which developed from here through here.QED. --Tenmei (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies--I have no idea what that meant. Was that saying I committed a logical fallacy by assuming that X followed Y, therefore X caused Y? If so, what are X and Y? I may well have made a logical fallacy, but I don't understand what it is, and would happily like to have the defect pointed out. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- In a discussion thread, active and passive participation is encouraged. The hallmark of your effectiveness is revealed in the way you take in the opinions expressed by others. You only began to stray into a logical fallacy when you began to take in San9663's over-reaching. In this instance, your demonstrated commitment to the principle of collaborative editing led you astray.

San9663's parsed argument here and here and here devolved into a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. It does not present "a fundamental defect in the previous analysis of both search results and policy."

You identified the pivot but you did not recognize it here. On one hand, I guess you should have stopped when you said you were done. On the other hand, thank you. I learned from the process of struggling to understand the mistakes which unfolded next. This became an extended teachable moment.
At one point here, I envisaged Pinnacle Islands as an arguably appropriate name, but no longer. I would be remiss if I were to fail to thank San9663 for the time invested in constructive refutation and counterargument which helped me to learn a difficult lesson. --Tenmei (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what your not-fundamental defect means. (1) the previous searches had technically flaw. (2) the conlusion (3x more) did mot even match the original data. (3) the liancourt analogy was never addressed. There are ample reasons for review and revisit. BTW, are you accusing others of losing a POV? I am happy to change my mind if you can convince me so. I believe the spirit of wiki is to submit to objective reasoning with an open mind, instead of insisting on a POV, any POV.San9663 (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

comment It's obvious that either Japanese or Chinese names for the disputed islands aren't overwhelmingly more common than their counterparts, according to the previous search research on google scholars and google books. However, Wikipedia also states that when there is no consensus reached, it will hardly change anything. This means that even if 55% people agree to change the name with 45% strongly objecting to it, it won't change anything.

As long as the current title is kept, the discussions on the naming convention will never end and we'll end up in a dead loop. Following the example of Lioncourt islands, I think it's time to request Wikipedia:Arbitration. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration resolves problems concerning editor behaviour. It does not make decisions about things like article titles and/or content. John Smith's (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This entry is badly in need of some really neutral person to be involved, since reasoning seems to be ignored. Let the arbitrator or admin to decide what decision they would make and what they would not. If one has no POV, for me, there is nothing to be afraid of, and I would be happy if I am proved wrong. I also do not mind applying the same set of criteria to other entries (and post there) if asked to. San9663 (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
In reference to Winstonlighter above, I think what you mean is Mediation. To be honest, I think it's too soon for Mediation--I actually don't see massive disagreement. In fact, I would argue we've only just begun to gather the relevant data. Now, Mediation may be necessary in the future, but are we really at some sort of intractable impasse? I did come to this discussion late, but has it been so bad? Personally, my opinion is that we should keep gathering information (internet searches, government sites, international atlases and encyclopedias, etc.). Also, I think it's nice that there hasn't been an edit or move warring over the issue, which to me at least shows that we're still in a talking stage.
In reference to Tenmei above, I think San9663 is hitting on a key point--even though the previous discussion seemed definitive, it looks like there may have been mistakes in the way the search terms were set up. Whenever I have time, I'm going to try to do a bunch of searches to follow up on what's above. At the moment, my feeling is that the two terms are close to equal, which, of course, is the least helpful of results. However, I don't believe, like WinstonLighter said, that it's "obvious that either Japanese or Chinese names for the disputed islands aren't overwhelmingly more common than their counterparts." It's starting to look that way, but it's definitely not obvious to me yet--I think there's more work to be done. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The name convention you suggested sounds reasonable enough. One way you can try to verify my finding/"claim" that the searches done a couple month to a month ago was problematic, is to see how many results you get with ("senkaku" OR "diaoyu"), i.e. entries that contain both words in the same article. I believe more than half of the results from "Senkaku Islands" search also contain the word "diaoyu" or a variation such as "daioyutai" or "Tiaoyutai".San9663 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There are full guidelines on search engine test: WP:SET. I also recall Wikipedia ruling that if consensus cannot be reached on the article's title, the first title named by the creator of the full article should be used. I believe it maybe 'Daioyutai Islands'? STSC (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Liancourt Rocks are named after the only notable event that ever almost happened there. The Senkaku Islands have no such distinction. But we are an English language project and so the primary name used by English speakers needs to apply. The Chinese and Japanese wikistans can have different titles for their pages. Hcobb (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Green shows
  prior search target?
Blue shows
• new search term?
Black shows
  ideal search term?
The graphic at the right was created to illustrate factors affecting trajectory. Does it adequately illustrate the analysis Qwyrxian proposes?
"... San9663 is hitting on a key point--even though the previous discussion seemed definitive, it looks like there may have been mistakes in the way the search terms were set up."
Can this graphic assist us going-foward? --Tenmei (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
How does that graphic help us? I don't understand what an animation about physics has to do with choosing a name for this article.
P.S.: I know I said I'd run more search terms, and really, I will, once I can muster the concentration and time for some (not very interesting) searches. One quick question: I'm having problems with excluding terms on Google searches. For example, when I search for "Diaoyu" and "island", I get (on normal Google, English only) I get 80,400 hits. When I try to exclude "Senkaku" (so my search reads 'Diaoyu island -Senkaku') I actually get more results: 142,000. That doesn't make any sense; any search with a subtracted words should always get the same or fewer hits. What am I doing wrong? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, never mind that, because I just remembered about one of the problems with the Liancourt Rocks searches...it's not enough to just exclude one or the other. It was established (based on some policy somewhere), that we actually need to look at the way the articles use the terms. That is, if an article says "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" or "The Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands)," that counts as a "point" for neither side. However, if the article says, "There has been much debate recently about ownership of the Senkaku Islands. The Senkaku Islands (or, as they are known in Chinese, the Diaoyu Islands)..." then that actually indicates that the English term is Senkaku and Diaoyu is only be included for the Chinese form, thus a "point" for Senkaku. Ugh...I remember that one person did a random sampling of search results to try to determine how often it was used one way or another....ugh. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, i ran into the same problem when i did the search. That is why I tried to compare the results of 2 searches -- not perfect, but close enough. I suspect the reason is google has an algorithm to include "Approximate" results (e.g. mis-spelled words) at the end of the list. If we agree on the fact that google results are page-ranked, sieving down from the top 50 results may be good enough, because the top 10 results should "weight" at least as much as the bottom 100 results. We can apply the % of the top 50 (or top 100) to the 80,400 but that is still a lot of work, and may generate controversy since the count is manual. San9663 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It is timely and relevant to introduce two targeted observations:
  1. "... It's ridiculous [unhelpful] to keep proposing [article name] changes until people come up with the 'right' answer." — John Smith's, see diff
  2. "... [T]he [article name] lead is not the place to try to work out all of the subtle details of the debate. Specifically, the [article name] lead is the place to summarize, in very broad strokes, the topic of the article." "... [T]he lead is not the place to try to work out all of the subtle details of the debate. Specifically, the lead is the place to summarize, in very broad strokes, the topic of the article." — Qwyrxian, see diff
  • Paraphrasing the words and format: [T]he [article name] lead is not the place to try to work out all of the subtle details of the debate. Specifically, the [article name] lead is the place to summarize, in very broad strokes, the topic of the article."
This reasoning informs my guess that this thread is not a constructive investment of time. If not, why not? I will continue to ponder how to contribute effectively in a process of resolving problems like this one. --Tenmei (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My first suggestion if you want to rejoin the conversation is to never, under any circumstances, misrepresent what another editor has said. The use of square brackets [] is done to clarify meaning, not to change it. For example, a common use is to replace a pronoun from a quote that was clear in context but whose meaning is unclear outside of that. But you fundamentally altered what I was saying, without indicating that you were doing so--my original text was discussing the lead section of a totally different article, not the title of this article. The policies and guidelines that underlie leads and article titles are fundamentally different. Please, in the future, never change my words to suit your own argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Credible "Storm in a teacup"?
Qwyrxian -- Your apparent dissatisfaction is now addressed with the more specific alternative text above. From your point of view, is this better? If not, please show me how you would have preferred to see this formatted.

No misrepresentation was intended nor likely to have been perceived. Please note that an hyperlink made it easy to confirm your words in their explicit context.

A quick Google search for "use of brackets in quotes" produces: "Square brackets have more specialized uses, like inserting information into quotes ....", "Brackets, or crotchets, are always used in pairs to mark off material inserted into a quotation which is not part of the original quotation", etc. Compare Google books search for "use of brackets in quotes".

Qwyrxian -- In my experience, brackets simply indicate something added; and the nature or purpose of the added text is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes this is mere clarification; and sometimes the added text is a change. In my experience, strike out simply indicates a word or words to be noted and set aside; and the reasons for the strike-out are also variable depending on context. A quick search for an digitized illustration of "treaty text changes strike out and brackets" produces:
  • Bulletin of the atomic scientists: Volumes 52-53 Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science (Chicago, Ill.), Atomic Scientists of Chicago, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Organization) - 1996 - Snippet view Working groups and expert groups have come and gone, resulting in a revised 97-page "rolling text" that contains all the relevant elements of the treaty — with 1200 pairs of brackets indicating alternate language and/or ideas. ... [italics added]
If necessary, I suppose I can find and upload a sample page which illustrates a usage which I consider conventional and unremarkable.
Summarizing: The important point is this: Your two sentences are crisp, clear and unambiguous. The power or force of the sentences is in the words themselves. --Tenmei (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in further discussing this issue, as it has no relevance to the important question of what to name this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the rare few comical moments in this page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

New Numbers: Indian news articles

As a first test, I decided to try a very specific search, the idea for which was triggered by someone above (or on the other talk page) saying something to the effect of, “Diaoyu is widely known across Asia, while Senkaku is only known in Japan.” Since, of course, only English language results matter, my thought was that I would search (using Google News Search) for English news articles published in India, given that it is the largest English using country in Asia (well, to be accurate, the largest English using country in the world), to try to get a clearer handle on that detail. Here’s my results.

For brevity, D/S = places where the mention is “Diaoyu/Senkaku”; S/D = places where the mention is “Senkaku/Diaoyu”. I'm collapsing the results for ease of use, with a summary following.

Search query: Senkaku Islands location:India ([1])

This yielded 27 results. I excluded the two results I was certain were blogs from my analysis.

  1. [2]: Only Senkaku
  2. Blog
  3. [3]: First paragraph “disputed Senkaku islands”, 4th paragraph, “in the disputed waters near the islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.”
  4. [4]: Both: “protested Wednesday to Google over the use of Diaoyu - the Chinese name of the islands, called Senkaku in Japan”
  5. [5]: Only Senkaku, although this may be an open wiki, so SPS.
  6. [6]: Both, Senkaku first: “A Chinese fishing boat skipper ... said he wants to go to the disputed Senkaku Islands and fish there again, Hong Kong newspapers reported. The Diaoyu (the Chinese name for the islands) belongs to China...”
  7. [7]: Opinion piece. Senkaku first (lead sentence is “However the Senkaku islands crisis is resolved...”); second paragraph S/D
  8. [8]: D/S
  9. [9]: Both, Diaoyu first: “...hoisting signs protesting Japan's claim on what China calls the Diaoyu islands. Japan calls them the Senkaku islands.”
  10. [10]: Senkaku. Diaoyu is mentioned later, but only as a quote of a Chinese newspaper.
  11. Blog
  12. [11]: Senkaku only.
  13. [12]: D/S
  14. [13]: Senkaku only.
  15. [14]: Senkaku only.
  16. [15]: D/S
  17. [16]: Senkaku only
  18. [17]: Both: “islands known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China”
  19. [18]: Senkaku only.
  20. [19]. S/D.
  21. [20] Both: “The chain of uninhabited islands, called Senkaku in Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese...”
  22. [21]: Senkaku only, but this may be a blog/opinion piece
  23. [22]: D/S
  24. [23] Both: “in waters around the disputed Senkaku or Diaoyu islands,”
  25. [24] Both: “known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.”
  26. [25]: Both: “called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.”
  27. [26]: Both:“called the Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan...”
Search query: Diaoyu Islands location:India ([27]).

This returned 17 hits; hits which were already listed above are marked as “Same as #X above, so that I’m not double counting them in my summary later.

  1. [28] Both, emphasizing Diaoyu: “Diaoyu islands, also called Senkaku by Japan in East China Sea.”
  2. [29] Both, emphasis on Diaoyu, “Diaoyu Islands which was also called Senkaku islands by Japan”
  3. [30]: Both, but strongly emphasizing Diaoyu: “near Diaoyu Islands (known as Senkaku in Japan)”
  4. [31]. Diaoyu only, although an indirect quote of a Chinese minister, “In her statement Jiang said Diaoyu Islands have been China's inherent territory since ancient times.”
  5. Same as #9 above.
  6. Same as #7 above.
  7. Same as #4 above.
  8. Same as #8 above.
  9. [32]. Labeled as “Analysis”, and sloppy writing style, this may not count as reliable. “Senkaki” [sic] first, followed by Diaoyu: “What Kan knows as the Senkaki islands is Diaoyu to Wen.”
  10. Same as #13 above.
  11. Same as #17 above.
  12. Same as #10 above.
  13. Same as #27 above.
  14. Same as #23 above.
  15. Same as #25 above.

Whew....okay, what does that tell us:

29 Distinct Sites from the two searches.

8 mention Senkaku only, although 3 of those may be SPS. 4 mention both, but put an emphasis on Senkaku

1 mentions Diaoyu only 3 mention both, but put an emphasis on Diaoyu

13 Mention both, approximately equally (6 put Diaoyu first, with 3 of those being D/S; while 7 put Senkaku first, with 1 of those being S/D)

So, we see a disparity of opinions. Approximately 41% mention Senkaku only or put extra emphasis on Senkaku, approximately 45% mention both about equally, and about 14% mention Diaoyu only.

For completeness, I checked “Diaoyutai,” “Tiaoyi”, and “Tiaoyutai”, and got a few hits, but all of them are represented in one of the lists above. Pinnacle Islands gets only 1 hit, and that’s a blog listed above.

Now, this is obviously an extremely limited search, but doing it and compiling the results took over an hour. I would love to do more, although I’m going to have to find some more efficient way to do it. I’ll consider random sampling; and if I do it again, I’ll record only results, not this long detailed list with all of the individual sites written out.

If I could somehow say that these results are representative of the whole, then I’d say we have the proper name right now, because, in articles that do emphasize or use only 1 name, Senkaku has a much larger share (3 times as many), and the only alternative (Pinnacle Islands) gets no reliable results. I’m not ready to say that yet, but I do think the results are...interesting?Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you efforts. But I wouldn't use India as the typical English speaking country (fine as an illustration of your methodology). As large as its population is more than half of them do not really speak English and still a significant number of illiterates. I think the wiki recommendation you (or others?) recommended, to use google scholar, sound fine to me, and acceptable/advocated by many people here. Since google results are arranged by page-rank and citation-rank. I think restricting to the top results should be fine (can start with top 50, then go further down if there is still controversy). Thre is one comment on your methodology though. Yours works if one is arguing to choose either Diaoyu or Senkaku - simple majority. But for the case of "no one is prevalent" or "compromise on a neutral one", the 45% is the majority. In addition, the overlaps represents vote for both names. i.e., Senkaku=45+41=96%, Diaoyu=45+14=59%. 96:59 should be the ratio to look at. And I think your search should really include the various difference spellings of D(T)iaoyu(tai) -- see my previous search of time trend. San9663 (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not discounting India as a source. I am just trying to say India's weight is not to be taken as its population. e.g. Times of India has a circulation of 3.4m/day, as the largest newspaper in English, but only slightly higher than that of the Sun in UK's 3m/day (see wikilink of Times of India). Not sure how that weight turns out in your sampling though (in your sample counting a blog may carry the same weight as the Times of India). Google's ranking would solve this problem and the problem of different English source from India to Canada to Singapore, approximately. San9663 (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
One potential problem for your analysis above (for discussion only, I am not sure how to resolve this -- but supports the rationale of relying on google scholar instead of google news): your 1 and 33 both come from IBN. One is a direct copy from Kyodo (so it mentions Senkaku only), 33 quotes China's MoFA (so Diaoyu only). Neither of these represent Indian reporter's writing, though arguable the reporter in 33 did some paraphrasing and wrote the report herself. San9663 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Google Scholar usually won't lead itself to this type of analysis. This is because most Google Scholar articles are behind a paywall--all I can actually look at is the abstract. So that means I have no way to actually look at the articles to determine whether or not it uses both names (and if so, how often); even if I could, none of us here has the time necessary to scan many through the entire text of journal articles.
On the alternate spelling, at the very end of my post I noted that I did check for all of those, and found no additional results (that's probably because these were recent search results rather than Archive).
As for your different math...well, I can understand where you're coming from, but the problem is that the more I look at this, the more obvious it becomes to me that Pinnacle Islands is not an acceptable alternative. Except for very old texts, the term simply isn't used in English. It almost never shows up except as the third choice in a list. This is different than the Liancourt Rocks example, where there were a reasonable number of somewhat current results using that term. I wish there were a 4th alternative...the only one I can think of is to use the Sea of Japan compromise, which you can read at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea), which basically says that the article title is Sea of Japan, all international and Japan only articles use Sea of Japan, and all Japanese-Korean articles as well as South Korean only articles use Sea of Japan (East Sea). And, in that case, East Sea is only used once in each article. This was based on a vote from 2005, here. I have no idea how such a vote on this issue would turn out....I'm really just rambling, trying to think of something else....Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
For google scholar, i think you can see the abstract (which is practical enough) and also judge based on the two lines displayed in search results. We can establish a rule that you ignore those you cannot decide based on the few lines that were revealed -- after all, we are only doing sampling, and for articles which don't have the names in the Abstracts they probably are not about these islands and should carry less weight anyway. In fact, if the same article turns up in both searches, you will be able to see the two lines to compare how it treats each of the names. Makes sense? San9663 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on the comparison with Liancourt rock? I did a simple search restricted to "english", Dokdo has 750k results (not counting variations in spelling), Liancourt rocks has 11.8k, some 1.6%. "pinnacle islands" (as one word) has 3,580 results, "senkaku islands" 77,700 =>5%. (i tried without the quoation and pinnacle+islands have 1.77M results)San9663 (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
In South East Asia, "Diaoyutai Islands" is very often referred just as "Diaoyutai" or "Diaoyu". I used the Philippines Google(www.google.com.ph) in English to search these terms excluding Diaoyu Castle and any guesthouse or hotel (e.g., Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, Diaoyutai Hotel). I also searched "Senkaku" without the "Islands".
Search: diaoyutai OR diaoyu -diaoyu-castle -guesthouse -hotel
Hits: 2,110,000
Search: senkaku
Hits: 895,000
STSC (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That has been discussed already. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I tried to demonstrate that "Diaoyutai" appeared more common in South East Asia. STSC (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwyxian, you have not taken into account of impact factor. If Times magazine names one thing A and 13 newspapers in Singapore names another thing B, then how would you opine on that? If we are to desperately skew the analysis and stretch logic, one can also say all Chinese-based English media strongly favour 'diaoyu' and that since China consists of 1/4 of the world's population, this should be weighed very favourably towards the Chinese end of the argument. I think, by now, it is obvious that both names deserve to be considered equal in weight. Unless there is a personal preference on your part to keep fighting this observation, then I'd suggest to just do the reasonable thing and agree that the article should have a dual-name. It's that simple. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
@STSC: using NOT (minus) actually messes up Google searches--as I pointed out above "Diaoyu Islands -Senkaku" gets more results than "Diaoyu Islands" by itself.
@BobtheFish2: Apparently you missed it above, but the article naming guidelines explicitly and unambiguously state that we can't use dual names--it isn't an option. The simple reason is that all we'll end up doing is arguing whether it should be "Diaoyu-Senkaku" or "Senkaku-Diaoyu"--same argument, different terminology. And, no, it's not obvious to me they should be treated equally--I see lots of evidence that Senkaku is used more commonly in English than Diaoyu. However, I'm still willing to be convinced...and, unfortunately, it sounds like you're saying you already have all of the evidence you need, despite the fact that we haven't collected the key evidence yet (which requires actually looking at sources like I did above, not just running searches). If that's the case--if you or others have already made up your mind without the evidence required by the guidelines, then I guess me looking for the evidence is useless, and we should just jump to an RfC. Is that what you're saying? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
@BobtheFish2 again: And I can't believe I let you distract me...you say China is 1/4 of the world population...but for purposes of this discussion, well over 90% of those people are absolutely irrelevant--because they don't speak English. Naming guidelines are clear--we only care about the names that are used in English language sources, not about local names (as I've said again and again, consider Florence vs. Firenze, where the WP article is Florence despite the native name being Firenze). And no, we don't give "weight" to TIME over 13 writers in Singapore--we measure how the terms are commonly used in English. That's. It. That is the only consideration here. If Senkaku is used significantly more commonly than Diaoyu, we use Senkaku as the title. End of question. If they are used around equally (what exactly counts as around equally is of course debatable), then we find a compromise (which is probably Pinnacle Island...ugh). And anyway, how could I possibly measure impact rating anyways? These aren't academic journals where I can measure that...how do I decide if Happyville Times has more impact than Happyville Tribune? How do I measure the impact factor of a major national U.S. magazine versus a U.K. magazine? It cannot be done. We have to focus on the rules, here.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh gosh. Since you know what's an "impact factor", I'd assume you are an academic or even a scientist. So, as a scientist or researcher, how valid do you think the overall research quality is for this topic? I'd say what's been done is a crude approximation at best especially when we heavily rely on output of search engines. While Google is a very fine search tool, it is heavily biased and redundant. If it is such a fine representation of the English language/usage, linguists would not still have favoured the Brown corpus or Washington Times databank for their research. At the same time, Google will be missing a great deal of publicly available documents for a number of reasons. So should we really use it given this problem? I'd say yes because that's the easiest way of making some form of analysis given the fact that we aren't being paid to do this. But I seriously doubt anything but a qualitative analysis is appropriate given the amount of noise that can be involved.
The Chinese media example I used is simply to demonstrate how one can simply make the results they wanted to show by using some very biased form of reasoning and evidence. Even though you don't know how to weight the individual sources, it doesn't mean they do not have some form of informational weights in reality or that they should not be weighted. While the results of general Google search is not considered useful by some because they don't like blogs, personal webpages, chat boards, etc, this heuristic is ultimately based on your opinion that they don't matter as much as news items in terms of representing general English usage of the two names. But of course by skewing the analysis towards news items only, we also got rid of important sources such as books, journal articles, and government documents. Now, let's assume we get a good approximation from doing news search on major search engines. The results I already posted showed a very close number of hits. So really, I don't know what else you wanted. It seems to me you are just going to keep digging up numbers and re-fitting your data until it finally shows something you wanted to see. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, after reading the naming guideline, I don't really see why dual names don't solve anything. While the order of names can be debatable, it is still a much more preferable and fair solution compared to just using one. I mean, it's just common sense... Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course you can know the difference in weight, if you care to, we all know how to distinguish NYT from my osbcure blog. Google solved that problem over 10 years ago. It used page-rank -- articles rank higher if more people read (link to) it. They also apply the same principle in Google Scholar, ranking with citation. your can follow the link in the wiki entry of "page rank" to know more. Brin/Page's original research is pretty easy to understand. This also solves your problem of having to count everyone -- counting the top 50 is enough. Please give a shot you will know why people use google to search. You can install "google toolbar" to your browser, it will show the "page rank" of the website when you read it. The indian articles you found mostly have 1 or 2 score in the pagerank. i.e. not many links to these websites and news articles are short lived and have lower rank. The pagerank of this wiki entry is 5. (The scales are sort of logarithmic, I think). Wikipedia.com the main site is 8. Makes sense? This is why google is used by so many people.San9663 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well, that makes sense to me, somewhat; the problem is that page rank is also tied to recency: more recently changed/updated pages, I believe, get higher ranks. So my thought was to take say the first 500 or so on each search, and use random.org to randomly pick 50 articles out of each. That's nowhere near enough to be a real statistical sample, but I'm hoping it will be enough for our goals. Oh, and a followup to what you said before--your points on Scholar don't make sense to me. For one, we actually don't want only articles that focus on this issue (because, by definition, all of those are going to use both names). We also want article where someone mentions the islands once in passing. Say, an article on erosion on micro-islands--what that person calls the island is key to knowing what the regular, common use among scholars is--and that's our goal. As a side note, I'll either be getting to this work tonight, or I won't be able to touch it for 4-5 days...04:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
We can set the criteria of, e.g. taking only those with pagerank higher than 5 (or 6 or 4). Yes, the google methodology is also evolving. But isn't your news search even more tied to recency? IMO recency is not an unreasonable measure for "most/often used". e.g. Let's take an extreme case of ignoring recency, back in 120 years ago in 1880 there was only one name. Regarding scholar or other sites, I did not have strong opinion on G-scholar, this was suggested by other editors (and proposed before), the rationale being, precise that the obscure blog and personal page issues. Your suggestion seems fine, but with a randomizer the results are not repeatable and may attract controversy, and it still places equal weight on the Times and The Times of Smallville. I still think taking those ranked higher may be a better approach. San9663 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

New Searches

Alright, well, I'm not tied to any one approach. I'll just use the first 100 links that Google pulls up that have a page rank of 5 or higher, unless there aren't many with that high a rank, then I'll have adjust later. I'll start with Google News Archive (sorted by Relevance), then do regular Google (English Only), then Google Scholar, as I have time. I will search the following terms: (Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu) AND islands; Senkaku and Islands, and "Pinnacle Islands". I will sort into at least the following categories, although I may have to deal with special cases (in each case following read "Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai or Tiaoyu" each time I say "Diaoyu": Only Senkaku, Both but clear emphasis on Senkaku (example: article starts w/Senkaku, and only mentions Diaoyu, as an aside), equal (any version of Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa, or listing both names in a way that it's clear that the author is not picking one or the other), Both but a clear emphasis on Diaoyu, Diaoyu only. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just encountered one problem: news sites aren't usually pageranked. So, I'll just have to go by "relevance," working my way down. Also, I forgot to mention how I'll handle sites that show up on more than one search: in that case, I will count that site only once, but I will search one deeper on each list (I have to do it on each list, otherwise it biases the study in favor of the second search). Off to start now.... Qwyrxian (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And to clarify--if one and only one is used in the title, that automatically counts as being on the "primarily in favor of that side" category. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And for the news search, blogs will be ignored. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I should just leave this open and not keep saving my changes. I mean, blogs that don't meet WP:RS standards will be ignored; if it's a reliable newspaper, and it's a "blog," and it seems to meet the exception carved out in WP:RS for that type of blog, I'll count it. Obviously, there's lots of value judgements in this whole process; I really am trying to be as "neutral" as possible, though. Qwyrxian (talk)
As I'm going through, I'm also making a count of the number of sources that are from Japanese newspapers/magazines, and the number from Chinese/Taiwanese magazines, as my feeling is that neither of these count; others may disagree though, so what I'll do is include them in the counts, but we can subtract them as necessary (it's pretty clear that Japanese sites always favor or use Senkaku exclusively, and vice versa). As I do more, this may actually be a significant problem; I'm at 38 counted sites right now, 26 of which were from Japanese newspapers and 2 from Chinese newspapers...I'll definitely go past 100 to try to get more "neutral" sources. Once I hit 100, I'll start only counting non-JP/CN sources...
In cases where the site is just a copy of another one ([33]), I'm ignoring it, and going one deeper. Of course, I may well end up double counting stories that are essentially repeats but not clearly so, but at least I can cut out a little duplication.
And, of course, articles that are explicitly Opinion articles don't count. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And, now, a major, unexplained stumbling point. When I do "Senkaku AND Islands" in Google News, the first page of results says "Shows results 1-10 of about 823." Then, as I get up to about page 10, it says "Showing results 91-100 of about 929." Then it goes back down to about 850, then, suddenly, on page 18, it says "Showing results 171-172 of 172." What? And there's no more pages?! At this point, I have 109 data points, but of those 53 need to be subtracted as belonging to newspapers of either Japan or China. I'm at a loss--I have no idea what Google News search is doing. Either I'm not setting some parameter right, or it's just screwy. I'm going to quit for tonight; maybe I'll think of something I'm missing tomorrow (or someone else will point it out for me), but otherwise I'm not sure how to proceed. I guess I can always switch back to just Google searches...I don't know.... Qwyrxian (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
In one of my replies to you, I did advise you to read up on how a search engine actually works. Of course, the actual algorithm that Google follows is a top secret, but its general behaviour is quite well-known. While I do appreciate your efforts in trying to count these things by hand, I somewhat doubt it is a good way to go since that relies on how a search engine ranks the pages and as far as I know, this is far from a solved problem in the area of information retrieval. Then there's of course other approximation methods that Google uses which causes the fluctuations you are seeing right now. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All sounds reasonable. You may want to set the #results/page to be 50 and see what happens. For news results, I expect there are a lot of repetition, e.g. the same AP or Kyodo news pieces would appear in several dozen newspapers (probably explains the phenomenon you saw). That is why I think google scholar or google books are better. San9663 (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) My hypothesis is, google does not really consolidate all the results in first search (i.e. same source articles). But as you move down the pages, some of the pages are consolidated and the total number of results become less and less. Hypothesis only. (the other reason may be it checks the publication dates in more details as you move down the list, and excludes those outside the date range) For web page searches, the number seem to be more consistent. San9663 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is in fact the grouping that effected it. So Google News may not be effective. It's true that counting by hand is very tedious and can produce no info worth having. But the reason (I think) someone has to do it is that otherwise the numbers are useless (as opposed to being marginally useful after the counting). That's because there is, in terms of determinign the "standard English name" a very large difference between a situation where most articles say, for example "Senkaku/Diaoyu" in every place in the article, and a case where most articles say "Senkaku (also known as Diaoyu in China)" once with only Senkaku the rest of the time. The first is an argument for a compromise name; the second is an argument for Senkaku. A simple search doesn't disambiguate these two different results. If I recall (it's been a while since I read the archive", part of the Liancourt Rocks compromise arose out of the fact that many people were convinced that in most English articles, both names appeared, with no preference for either one. I wonder if their search may have been easier, though; I believe it is only very recently that Japanese newspapers started regularly putting up English versions of their site for free. Also, now that I think about it, I believe that they were using plain Google searches.
Well, I'm going to put down the news searches for now, and figure out where to go next. I had a few ideas while I was falling asleep, maybe one of them will pan out. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Inoue

For inspiration on the title, just listen to a leading historian Section name changed--Tenmei (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Proceeding from the Japanese people stand of opposition to militarism, one should reject the name Senkaku Islands, which was adopted by Japanese Militarism after seizing them from China. Use the only correct name in history, namely, the Tiaoyu (Diaoyutai) Islands"
- Kiyoshi Inoue (former professor at History department, Kyoto University, Japan)
STSC (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This comment refers to a self-published online essay here and here by Kiyoshi Inoue. There was no discernable connection with a published citation.

Relying on WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources, I removed it from the "External links" section of our article. For the same reasons, STSC's suggestion can only be construed as unpersuasive at this time. --Tenmei (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the source myself, but if it is just a self-published essay of own opinions, then it's not something one should use. In fact, we should try to limit the amount of non-government opinions unless they raise some decent logical inference. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not an opinion. It's a conclusion based on academic finding in Diaoyutai history. STSC (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Professor Kiyoshi Inoue had written a whole book on the subject. Other people referring to his finding on their websites is not Kiyoshi's "self-published online essay". And I'm not introducing any encyclopedic material to publish.STSC (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Responding to STSC -- No, these comments are unhelpful. In other words, no sentence moves us foward in the context established by WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable source.

Please reconsider a core concept: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

A good question is this: What sorts of information is likely to help readers' assess the credibility and significance of Kiyoshi Inoue's controversial opinions and scholarly writing?

The answers to such questions could inform edits to the stub article about Kiyoshi Inoue. Please note that I created this stub as a constructive response to this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there any free text available for that book? If so, maybe a Japanese editor can take a look at it? Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Does the book say the exact same thing? If it is of the same level of reliability as the Japanese books cited, then I will change my opinion. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe Professor Kiyoshi had said that in his book. By the way, this is just a Talk page that does not have any encyclopedic content to publish. STSC (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're not trying to introduce encyclopedic material, you're soap boxing. We don't make decisions about article titles based on real world issues--we follow Wikipedia guidelines. If we didn't follow guidelines (which are based in the frequency of various names appearing in English sources), then this whole talk page would just be "No, China is Better!" "No, I support Taiwan!" "Only a revisionist would disagree with Japan!" No one here should be supporting one name over the other because they agree with real-world arguments like Kiyoshi's--or, to say that more accurately, no one should be using such reasons as arguments to support one name or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It depends on what kind of opinion. If Kiyoshi's book backs his opinion with sound logic, it perhaps deserve a mention... i.e. "Some Japanese historians, however, believe so and so because...". I've seen this kind of content in history articles. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

：I don't think the opinion of one scholar (even from prestigious institutes such as Kyoto University or Harvard) is enough for our judgement. However, Tenmei needs to restore these links, and do not remove them before discussion here ends. The articles are on hosted sites. The links point to hosted sites because the origins are behind paywall/offline. (1) yes. the english translation is faithful. you can compare with the Japanese (2) The japanese site are original quotes. you can choose some of the quotes in scholarly publications to compare -- there are plenty of citation to Inoue's research in Google Scholar for you to compare quotes. San9663 (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to San9663 -- No, these comments are unhelpful. In the context your words create, please consider my response to STSC above.

In other words, there was nothing "wrong" in deleting this external link. Any issues are clarified by comparing the deleted link from 2005 here with the full bibliographic reference source citation added in 2010 here. The difference is apples and oranges.

This is a trivial edit, which makes it a good subject for closer inspection.
Unhelpful words, unsuccessful format

Please re-visit these few sentences:

If this helps avoid problems in the future, good. If not, this is another lesson learned the hard way. We'll see.

Perhaps this will lead to edits in the stub created about Kiyoshi Inoue?

This diff can be collapsed by anyone at any time. --Tenmei (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the links to the original articles (books). I don't know how wiki treat this, but I guess links to books as related readings are fine, the summary are in the hosted sites. (link to both for readers to verify themselves?) original in japanese, chinese translation. This is arguably the single most important reference where scholars from both sides debate on (just look at the citation of the top results form google scholar). There is no reason to leave it out in the reference list. I re-did the link in the reference section, please see if that works. San9663 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Responding to San9663 -- Yes, good. --Tenmei (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Tenmei, it seems you put a lot of efforts into fixing the links. Appreciate that. One question, I found some of the GIS links seem to be pointing ar the wrong location (i.e. wrong coordinate). Also, maybe we should add google maps (it also has a terrain version for altitude) because it is in English and easier to read for most readers (we can keep the Japanese GIS to provide more choices) San9663 (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What does policy say?

Bobthefish2 and I have been having a discussion about this on my talk page, and as I was in the middle of replying to him about what policy says on the matter, when I realized I need to bring it here. I think some people (although not everyone) are laboring under misconceptions about what we need to consider as we debate a potential name change.

The first policy to look at is WP:Article titles. This policy states that when considering an article title, we need to meet 5 principle criteria: Recognition, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. Note that "neutrality" is not a principal criteria (although it does matter, and I'll discuss that in a minute). Later, the policy goes on to state (I've quoted this before), "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. " That's why myself and others have felt it do be useful to do this confusing and contradictory searches--to determine what the name most commonly used is, if there is one.

Under the section for Considering title changes", the policy states, "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." That is, as we consider what to name the article, we absolutely do not and cannot care about who actually does/can/should own the Senkaku Islands. We must care only about what the name most commonly used is (i.e., what is most natural and recognizable to speakers of English reading/writing at an encyclopedic level). It says further, "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." As far as I can tell, this article title has been stable since at least 2004, when it was moved from "Senkaku Islands and Diaoyutai Islands"; prior to that it was something else, although I can't figure out what, and we're really talking about a time long before current policies were in place anyway. Now, I'm not saying that this means the article title shouldn't change, but, if it does, it has to be because a new title meets the criteria better than the old title does. Finally, the last section of that policy section states, "While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Thus, we cannot create a new name from whole cloth--we must choose something from the sources.

Next, lets turn to WP:NPOV, and the specific section about neutrality in article titles (first section of WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality). Fist, about the issue of the name itself implying bias: "In some cases the choice of name used to refer to something can given an appearance of bias. While more neutral terms are generally considered preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."
Thus, again, we don't care if naming it Senkaku biases people towards a Japanese point of view if we agree that the name is "widely used" (again, the searches). Note that the next paragraph has something that very clearly applies: "The above applies in particular to names used as article titles. Note that article titles which combine alternative names are discouraged. Do not use titles like Derry/Londonderry, Aluminium/Aluminum or Flat Earth (Round Earth)," or, in our case "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands." Instead, we are instructed to give alternative names due prominence in the article, and to make all appropriate redirects.

Finally, we turn to the last relevant policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). When I read that I realize I was wrong to waste my time on Google News. If we look to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name, we see that the do not recommend News searches, instead saying we focus on Google Scholar and Google Books. First, though, we're supposed to look at encyclopedias; they name 3 specifically: Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta. It says that if these encyclopedias agree, then the name is decided, and that's the widely used name. I just checked: EB doesn't have any of the three, CE has an entry only for Senkaku Islands (mentioning Diaoyu and Pinnacle in the last line), and Encarta isn't free to access anymore--does anyone have that? Anyway, after that, there's a lot of other criteria which we can/should use: consult standard histories, consult news sources (individually or via Lexis Nexis), and ask for a Requested Move. Lastly, this policy again reiterates that we cannot choose to use both names: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive." Now, this is a somewhat "softer" (that is, "recommend," not a requirement), but combined with other prior info, it seems to me that S/D or D/S is now off the list. We do still have the option of choosing Pinnacle Islands, as per the line that reads, "In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted rather than select either the Korean or Japanese name for the feature." Personally, I hate that name, because I haven't seen a single contemporary source that uses that name in any situation other than "and sometimes known in English as Pinnacle Islands", but, given no other option, I will accept it.

What a wall of text. Here's the summary of the summary:

  1. Policy says neutrality has to be balanced by clarity.
  2. Policy says we base our decision not on what is "morally or politically right," but only based on what name is widely used.
  3. Policy says we really really really shouldn't use Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa.
  4. Policy gives us a number of steps we can take to determine the widely used name.

Thus, we have to continue with the searches. We have to look carefully at the results, although, if we're stuck, we can rely on just the numbers. We have to check other sources (encyclopedias and histories). On the last point, I have to reiterate that I need help--I do not have access to English language print sources, so ideally someone who does can thumb through a few and tell us what they say. And they tell us that no matter what our results find, since this is a controversial move, we have to go through a full WP:Requested moves process eventually in any regard.

I know this is a lot to take in, but I realized after talking with BtF2, that at least he seemed to be making arguments not based in policy (although I may have misunderstood him), and I feel like other may have been too. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember replying to this as well. What you cited is a guideline that is a set of recommendations. While it suggested against using a dual name, it did not forbid such a practice. One needs to be aware of that the guidelines in place cannot account for every possible circumstance and it should be up to the editors involved to decide the best course of action in cases like this. While it is tempting for experienced editors to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines at all times, it is also necessary for them to realize that one can go a long way by simply using common sense.
I think, by now, most people involved (including myself) want this issue to be wrapped up. Since we can't reach an agreement, then perhaps we should ask for another mediation. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
After reading the policies and guidelines, mediation won't help. Instead we should just go to a Requested Move. That's because in the case of contentious article title, we are required (and this is not a suggestion) to seek external points of view. So we can mediate ourselves to death, but no matter what agreement we came to, we'd still be bound to seek a wider community consensus. You're right that common sense is useful; the problem is that my common sense (based on all of the data we've gathered so far) that we should not change the article's name (although, as I said before, more data may change my mind). My hunch is that you disagree. Personally, I have no idea how we can possibly go to a requested move when we don't have most of the basic, fundamental pieces of information we are supposed to gather per those policies. It's one thing to IAR and start moving; it's another to ignore multiple different policies which themselves are well-founded and based on common sense. Consequently, common sense doesn't get us as far as you think.
For me, the best evidence so far to shift the name is CNN and the Wall Street Journal. For me, the best evidence so far to keep the name is Columbia Encyclopedia and the U.S. State Department. I see the Google searches and general news articles as thus far inconclusive. I do not see overwhelming evidence that warrants us switching from one controversial name to another controversial name (or to Pinnacle, the unused name). I can think of half a dozen things that could either sway me towards switching, or that could solidify my opposition to moving. I would like to think that other people are similarly unsure right now, given how much we don't know. Why move the article now, when it's been stable for 6 years, only to finish the research, and find out we have to move it back? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You should not forget why this name is controversial in the first place. The solution that several of us proposed actually reduces the level of controversy involved. It's not necessarily a perfect solution, but still better than what we have now.
As to why we should move the article after its 6 years of stable history? Well, you should look in the archives. This is one of the most frequently protested issue over this page's history. You should read up on the original rationale of the move and see if they are convincing to you. The fact that you said "only to finish the research and find out we have to move it back" somewhat raises my attention. It appears you already know what your results will look like. I certainly hope it's not because the results have been pre-determined. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Qwxyxian, have you clicked into the Columbia's link (free dictionary is "free", which is what I could find), it copies word by word what is written on wiki. so columbia is a circular argument. I mentioned earlier, and you quoted above, google scholar should be an acceptable method. But you seem to have a strong opinion against it, even after finding it on the wiki policy. If we all reject the policy because our personal liking or dislike, there is really no need to consult policy, don't you think so? San9663 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
A temporary solution, and less controversial, I would suggest, is to clearly state that the "Title itself is controversial and under debate, and link it to the discussion page", in the first line of the lead. This will give us much time to discuss and reach some consensu. San9663 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding S/D, D/S. Yes, the policy just 'recommend' and there is really nothing to prevent us from using this. Given that some 45% of your earlier research used either S/D or D/S, it does provide us with a practice solution. I know you are worried about a subsequent debate on whether S should precede D or vice verse, but that could be determined simply by google scholar, and we can worry about that later. I, for one, have no objection to either S/D or D/S, it is better than the existing title given the search results we have so far. Regarding Pinnacle, I still do not think it is too far from Liancourt. Liancourt was just as obscure before that wiki debate became widely reported -- you can search the news reports before 2005 to verify. San9663 (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the Columbia Encyclopedia entry. San9663, your link is a mirror page of WP. Take a good look at the bottom of the page. It says "This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - ...". Oda Mari (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
So that's indeed circular. Thanks, Oda Mari. Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Mine's not circular, because that's not the place I looked it up. I took this from the Answers.com linking to Columbia Encyclopedia. You can see the search result here; there's a link midpage that has the article itself, which is not a mirror of our site. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

On Google Scholar, I was wrong to reject it before. It is definitely one of the places we have to look. I will look again at your results above as well as take a look myself. Obviously, time permitting.

Finally, the fact the article history is full of requests is irrelevant. Sea of Japan gets a request to change the name every few weeks, and it used to be many more. The last time we took a straw poll, within 24 hours, it was 15 to 1 against changing the name. I bet if you check Derry/Londonderry articles, you'll see lots of controversy, but a decision was made to stop the constant changing...just because people ask all the time to remove pictures of sexual images on Wikipedia doesn't mean we're going to change WP:CENSORED. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I should've checked the link myself but I got lazy.
The abundance of requests is not a direct reason to make changes, but it is still an indicator of the amount of disagreements that exist. But of course, that's assuming how rational these requests are. Conversely, one can also say the same about the lack of requests or the presence of consensus (which is something you have conditional misgivings for too). Since we can go on like this forever, it's probably best to leave it at that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Also, I forgot to mention before that I haven't pre-judged the results (my comment about having to switch back); I'm just saying that since we don't know the results, it's pre-mature to make a move. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I took a look at the Google Scholar results; I focused mostly on the "2000 or later," as that seems fairest (the farther back we go, the more Senkaku only results we get, but that probably says more about the relative ascendancy of China in international academics than it does about the actual English usage." One nice thing about Google Scholar is that "minus"/NOT searches do work, unlike in Google or Google News. Here's my results:
  • Senkaku Islands = 1270
  • (Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu) AND Islands = 1270
  • Senkaku Islands -Diaoyu -Diaoyutai -Tiaoyutai -Tiaoyu = 434 (Note that at least 17 are non English (mostly Korean and Japanese))
  • Islands Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu -Senkaku = 441 (Note that at least 32 are non English (mostly Chinese))
  • Senkaku Islands Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu = 837
The basic searches match what San9663 found above; some of the detailed searches give us more info. Essentially, what we see is that about just over 25% of the articles use only Senkaku, just over 25% use only one or more of the Chinese names, and just under 50% use both. This seems to add support to the notion of using a compromise name. Furthermore, scanning through those articles seems to show (without counting, just my guess-timation, if we need counting I could conceivably do it), that most of the "neutral" articles (the ones about biology, or geology, or about the legal issues but from an international perspective) use the "slash" name, with no particular consistency as to the order or the choice of Chinese name, while most of the nationalistic articles and books are the ones that tend to focus on only their countries own name. Again, this part was not an actual count, and I was only going by what I can see in the search results.
Thus, I personally believe/agree that the Google Scholar results lend credence to the idea that we need a compromise name. So...Google Scholar pushes us (in my opinion, again), towards a compromise name, Google News (in my opinion) towards Senkaku, and I/we still need more info from encyclopedias and the like. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say Google news is a strong advocate for Senkaku. After all, both names have close amount of counts. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear--that was based on my detailed look at the results, which showed to me that while many times both names are used, there was a large proportion who either used only Senkaku Islands or used Diaoyu as a secondary name. I wouldn't necessarily use the term "strong support", though. But, yes, I freely admit that both are (like all things), a matter of interpretation.
My feeling, at this point, if I/we can't find more of the evidence that policy directs us to find in the next week or so, then we could comfortably move to an Request for Comment; I think an RfC is more appropriate than an RM because even if we agree the name should change, I don't think we've agreed (or even can agree), on what the new name should be. Of course, anyone else is welcome to start an RfC at any time, but I personally am not ready to do so without trying a little more to get more evidence.
As a side note, searching Google Scholar for articles that only use Pinnacle Islands (none of the others) since 2000 produces 5 results, 2 or 3 of which are about some other Pinnacle Islands. The complete failure to use that term makes me very reluctant to support it...but not 100% unwilling. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Pinnacle Islands is probably not a good idea.
I don't think RfC will do anything at the moment. Since you are actively researching this, it wouldn't hurt to wait a while for you to get what you are looking for. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute matrix or wikitable

This What does policy say? sub-section demonstrates a structural flaw in the conventionally useful discussion format. In sequential diffs, the participants are "talking past each other", are they not? The participants in the thread proceed at cross purposes. There is a mismatch. In other words, the English phrase is like the Chinese idiomatic expression "chicken talking to a duck" (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講).

The careful analysis with which Qwyrxian began this sub-section has been met with no direct response. The cells in this "dispute matrix" or wikitable are a new opportunity to resolve that missed opportunity. The matrix also provides a way for San9663 and Bobthefish2 to invite engagement with issues which are perceived as "unaddressed"? The blue permanent link excerpts in the table below and the text above are are connected with the initially posted diff for emphasis, and to ensure that the context is explicit.

Talking past each other (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講)
San9663 Bobthefish2 Qwyrxian|
Affirmation?
Concurrence?
Refutation?
Counterargument?

  San9663 does not
  acknowledge Qwyrxian's
  analysis? 		Agreement?
Dispute?

  Bobthefish2 does not
  acknowledge Qwyrxian's
  analysis? 		WP:Article titles
If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."

1. Policy says neutrality has to be balanced by clarity.
2. Policy says we base our decision not on what is "morally or politically right," but only based on what name is widely used.
3. Policy says we really really really shouldn't use Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa.
4. Policy gives us a number of steps we can take to determine the widely used name.

Thus, we have to continue with the searches.

An unaddressed issue? WP:Article titles
WP:NPOV
An unaddressed issue? WP:Article titles
WP:NPOV
I mentioned earlier, and you quoted above, google scholar should be an acceptable method. But you seem to have a strong opinion against it, even after finding it on the wiki policy. If we all reject the policy because our personal liking or dislike, there is really no need to consult policy, don't you think so? The fact that you said "only to finish the research and find out we have to move it back" somewhat raises my attention. It appears you already know what your results will look like. I certainly hope it's not because the results have been pre-determined. Contradiction is implicit
"You should not forget why this name is controversial in the first place. The solution that several of us proposed actually reduces the level of controversy involved. It's not necessarily a perfect solution, but still better than what we have now." Contradiction is implicit
Other?
While I focus on a few points by Qwyrxian, it was because I have no clear objection to those I did not respond.

Among many other lessons learned the hard way, this thread relies on a rhetorical premise. In the Logical fallacy sub-section above, it appeared to me that Qwyrxian was persuaded by San9663 et al. that a close-at-hand problem needed to be taken care of before anything else. This first-things-first now seems to have arrived at the anticipated impasse; and Qwyrxian prudently recognizes that the solution to the article name "problem" should include what we are committing ourselves to over the long haul. In other words,

"It is altogether too easy to let the burden of the immediate problem obliterate other considerations from your thinking and to jump at what promises to be a quick fix. What often happens is that you have not achieved a long-range success but only converted one difficulty into another perhaps less obvious but no less onerous one." -- Robert Byrne. "Pastimes; Chess," New York Times. December 24, 1989.

We need to be wary of the shortsighted quick fix which can lead to worse problems.

Does this wikitable format help to focus attention on specific points of dispute? If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the way you've added in your own interpretation of our argument. What makes you think Qwyrxian has implicitly contradicted my statements? I certainly do not see it that happening. And no, we have not been 雞同鴨講, at least not yet. However, I think this can be a means to avoid repeating myself on the same issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 -- Yes, this wikitable is a constructive step in a forward-looking direction. The cell structure is not inherently flawed, even if you construe a wrong "interpretation" -- which is precisely why I created it.
  • Please note that no words have been modified.
  • Please observe that the elements of a complex discussion are only located in a cell matrix structure. Feel free to re-position any part of this table.
At a minimum, this wikitable does clarify how this short thread is perceived.
Actions speak louder than words = Contradiction is implicit
The record at Revision history of Talk:Senkaku Islands and Revision history of Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute support one and only one conclusion: Thank you, Qwyrxian. The sum of Qwyrxian's keystrokes and the accumulated list of Qwyrxian's diffs comprise noteworthy action in our context.
I construe one sentence as rhetorical: "What makes you think Qwyrxian has implicitly contradicted my statements?" This is not a line of argument you want to initiate because it only leads to WP:NPA. Imitating Qwyrxian here, I have no interest in further discussing this issue, as it has no relevance to the important question of what to name this article.
If there is an unaddressed issue, add it in the wikitable. If there is some other problem with this structure of the matrix, explain that problem and propose an alternative.--Tenmei (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you to read this before accusing me of WP:NPA. I might give this table a try in the future. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Bobthefish2 -- There was no accusation. The term is confrontational. Mine is a responsive analysis which does not shrink away from what is difficult. My words acknowledge the potential consequences of words I did not write. Due consideration and thought was given to "a line of argument" which anticipates reasonably predictable consequences. That said -- it is temperate, diplomatic, and practical for me to mimic Qwyrxian's somewhat hortatory model here; and I decline further discussion of this issue because it has no relevance to the important question of what to name this article.--Tenmei (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
An edit summary in a tangentially relevant article here reminds me that the function of talk page discussions is to enhance consensus-building. --Tenmei (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Tenmei, as far as I am concerned we are gettting closer at a compromise and something that we could agree to (or some principle(s) that we can agree to) after every round of iteration. I don't think we are talking about different stuff. While I focus on a few points by Qwyrxian, it was because I have no clear objection to those I did not respond. I have concurred to Qwyrxian's suggestions many times, and if there is respectful disagreement, we made the effort try to find some common ground so that we can re-start the conversation. This is what I think, I can't speak for them. But I believe (hope) this is also what the other 2 parties would agree. Tenmei, we hope you can join the discussion by putting on something easier to comprehend for us, and I would prefer your own argument regarding the solution of the dispute, rather than the process, or speculating on what we have agreed on and what we don't. San9663 (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It's much preferable to having him to interpret what we had or had not agreed on. I am going to refrain from commenting on the issue until Qwyrxian is done with his research. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
San9663 -- One sentence is counter intuitive and counterproductive.
While I focus on a few points by Qwyrxian, it was because I have no clear objection to those I did not respond.
The "dispute matrix" or wikitable provides a structure for addressing the problem created by this sentence and by other sentences like it. --Tenmei (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Maps not in English

San9663 points out a problem here.

Questions remain unanswered about the hyperlinks which are part of the chart in the "Geography" section.

Unhelpful words, unsuccessful format

The verifying citations include embedded links which show maps in Japanese and Chinese. These are problematic for a number of reasons. As an alternative or as a supplement, Google maps may not be preferred in our context, but I don't know of a better option.[1]

At present, the islands can be located using either Chinese[2] or Japanese[3] names. A better option would be consistent with WP:Use English; but I don't have any specific proposals.

  • Diaoyu Dao (釣魚島)
  • Uotsuri Jima (魚釣島)[4]
  • Huangwei Yu (黃尾嶼)
  • Kuba Jima (久場島)[5]
  • Chiwei Yu (赤尾嶼)
  • Taishō Jima (大正島)[6]
  • Nan Xiaodao(南小島)
  • Minami Kojima (南小島)[7]
  • Bei Xiaodao(北小島)
  • Kita Kojima (北小島)[8]
  • Da Bei Xiaodao (大北小島/北岩)
  • Okino Kitaiwa (沖ノ北岩)[9]
  • Da Nan Xiaodao (大南小島/南岩)
  • Okino Minami-iwa (沖ノ南岩)[10]
  • Fei Jiao Yan(飛礁岩/飛岩)
  • Tobise (飛瀬)[11]
  1. ^ Shih Hsiu-chuan. "Taiwan’s Diaoyutai claim omitted by Google online map," Taipei Times. October 16, 2010; summary — Google reportedly turned down a Japanese request to leave out the islands’ Chinese name, but has left out their Taiwanese name
  2. ^ Google maps, Daioyu Islands
  3. ^ Google maps, Senkaku Islands
  4. ^ Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI), 魚釣島 (Uotsuri Jima).
  5. ^ GSI, 久場島 (Kuba Jima).
  6. ^ GSI, 大正島 (Taishō Jima).
  7. ^ Google Maps, 南小島 (Minami Kojima)
  8. ^ Google Maps, 北小島 (Kita Kojima); GSI, 北小島 (Kita Kojima).
  9. ^ GSI, 沖ノ北岩 (Okino Kitaiwa).
  10. ^ GSI, 沖ノ南岩 (Okino Minami-iwa).
  11. ^ GSI, 飛瀬 (Tobise).

This thread is only a small first step towards resolving a few related issues in a relatively non-controversial aspect of our subject. --Tenmei (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is likely the longitude/latitude coordinates for the GIS links were wrong. Some were actually correct and quite precise. Google map also takes these coordinates. Google map also has a "link to" function (upper right corner) which gives you the link. e.g. this links to the peak in the main island. So perhaps we just have to enter the coordinates, fine tune it a bit, and do the link. I also suggest we use "maps.google.com" instead of the .cn or .jp subsites. San9663 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is a bug in the "GSI" site. e.g. for Huangwei/Kubashima, I checked the Geohack link, which links through to google map with the same coordinate and it was correct.San9663 (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Which links have problems and which links are good? 222.166.181.245 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

One trivial aspect of this issue is easily resolved here. The citations with embedded links to Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI) and/or to Google maps are re-positioned in the "Japanese names" column. This edit diminishes the scope and value of these citations and links. As it is now configured, they verify only the shape of the island and the kanji version of the island name. Is this agreeable?

If it is deemed desirable, a set of Chinese maps can be associated with the cells in the "Chinese names" column?

If it is preferred, the cells in the "Coordinates" column can be populated with data from any source other than Geohack?

Does this represent a tentative, short-term plan which a consensus can accept? --Tenmei (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the fact that GSI is a Japanese site. It is only geographical information, not politics. The problem here is that the links were incorrect. I know google map coordinate is not precise. When I clicked into the GSI links, many points to the middle of the ocean, with a label Ishigaki somewhere in the corner of the map. I have to zoom out to see that it the label, Kubashima, Ishigaki. This is like showing a Maui map pointing to the ocean 10 miles away from island in question, with the label of Hawaii and you have to zoom out and move the map to see the island of Maui. (The confusion arises also because even in the Japanese perspective there are the island of ishigaki and the city of ishigaki -- I thought it referred to the Ishigaki Island at first but only later found that it was the latter) I am tempted to think the GSI data is more accurate than that of google map. Maybe you can do some 3rd site research and correct (/fine-tune) the coordinates if that is the case. I think if you can pinpoint the coordinate then the problem could be solved (that may mean slightly different coordinates between GSI and Geohack, as you suggested) San9663 (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick poll of involved users

Before taking this to the wider community with an RfC/RM (which we will certainly have to do eventually, as this will be contentious no matter what consensus we come to "locally"), I'd like a quick poll of what the involved editors believe the name of the article should be, given all of the searches, analysis, policy discussion, etc., that we've had so far. Senkaku Islands? Diaoyu Islands? Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands? Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands? Pinncale Islands? Something else? I certainly won't hold anyone to their response here (i.e., you can change later in the face of more evidence/arguments), but I am interested to see what you would do, assuming you were unilaterally making the decision (although, please try to decide based on the guidelines, not just "Name X because obviously Country Y owns the islands.")Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it is easier to poll opinion if there is a 2 option choice. i.e. only 2 to choose from. So let's first do the poll of Existing Title (Senkaku) vs a neutral title (Senkaku/Diaoyu). It will be less contentious to put Senkaku first for now. We can leave the issue of S/D vs D/S for later.San9663 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
But others might prefer Pinnacle, for instance. The numerical results aren't really important, I'm just trying to get an idea if people think a switch is appropriate, and, if they do, what they think the appropriate English name is. Please note that if we do this, we're not going to do this in steps--that just results in increasing potential edit warring, not decreasing it. Also note that warring over the order is the explicit reason why guidelines recommend against dual names. If an RFC can't agree on the order, then we can't do the move to that (and will have to stay with Senkaku or go to Pinnacle). 04:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Pinnacle or whatever also fine. I personally have no objection to Pinnacle either. But if there are more than 2 options to vote, once needs to be careful about how the research comparison is done (like what we have discussed before...do we count S vs D? or S+S/D+D/S vs D+S/D+D/S? and also in the voting...do we ask people to rank preference, or do we do a "vote out by elimination" (as in Olympic host city votes? sometimes, e.g., the choices are not mutually exclusive. IMHO, to resolve the dispute, and minimize future controversies, the more practical approach is to first vote or a choice between a "POV" (either Senkaku or Diaoyu) names vs a "Neutral name" (pinncle or S/D or D/s), then decide which name in the group it should be. Only 2 steps. San9663 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. The results of the vote are only out of my curiosity, to see what sort of local consensus we have. No decision of this type should be made on voting--per everything else on WP, it should be by consensus. Voting should only be a very last resort. And, in any event, no matter what we vote or decide here, this has to go before a wider community via WP:RfC or WP:RM anyway, so the vote is doubly irrelevant. The only real relevance of the vote would be that if we do have a fairly strong/stable consensus, then we could go straight to a WP:RM, but if we don't, we should probably start with a WP:RfC with wide canvassing (of the acceptable, neutral type, like at Wikiprojects). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ok, that sounds good as well. would be ideal if RfC can result in some consensus. San9663 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands/Archive_5&oldid=1137179801"