Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

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

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

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

Seems reasonable to me! HotshotCleaner (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

At least it implies the current name is not in line with Wiki's policies and guidelines. --Lvhis (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV?

	POV (It needs to be changed)	NPOV (no need for change)
Reasons	It is the (romanised) Japanese name for the islands, that is the fact supported by many reliable sources including those from Japanese writers. The ownership of these islands is officially disputed between Japan and Chinese sides (PRC and ROC). The frequency of using Japanese name or using Chinese name in English is not significantly different, or slightly in certain search way, that of using Japanese name is less than that of using Chinese name. The name used in related documents of the United Nations (UN) since the dispute over the islands emerged after 1970s: On December 30, 1996, the name "Diaoyu Islands" was used in a letter in English by the Secretary-General of the United Nations addressing to the permanent representative of the People's Republic of China to the UN; while on February 14, 1997, neither Japanese nor Chinese name of these islands was mentioned in a letter in English by the Secretary-General of the United Nations addressing to the permanent representative of Japan to the UN. (pages 107-108 of this documentary year book) In most circumstances including this Wikipedia project, using which language name represents or implies supporting which party's claim over the disputed islands, i.e. giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view (national POV). Based on Wikipedia's spirit, policies, and guidelines, particularly the WP:NPOV and WP:NCGN, the current Japanese name for this Wikipedia page and its related pages is POV, and it shall be changed. The US-government's use of "Senkaku Islands" appears to be a hold-over from their involvement in the Occupation of Japan, when Japanese naming conventions were adopted wholesale.	The real world dispute has absolutely nothing to do with this question. Our only responsibility per WP:Article titles and WP:NCGN is to determine which name is most commonly used in English. If one name is used significantly more than another, particularly in high quality sources, then that is the English name. If such a name exists, it must be used as the name for the article. Thus, the "NPOV side" is concerned that the very phrasing of this dispute as POV vs. NPOV asks the wrong question. The name "Senkaku Islands" is the name used in every major international English almanac that could be found. Only one almanac even provided a reference to the name Diaoyu Islands. No contemporary encyclopedia has been found which uses any name other than "Senkaku Islands". Google searches (including Web, Scholar, and News) have been spotty, produce different results over time, and are extremely sensitive to the exact search terms and formatting of the search. Thus, they don't really provide useful information about which name is more commonly used in those sources. On average, the numbers were very close to equal, particularly depending on how you count the use of the multiple different "versions" of the Chinese name. The US government (a key source when looking at official English names) uses the term "Senkaku Islands". Major English official nautical charts (US, UK, elsewhere) use "Senkaku Islands" as the official designation. (Note that I have not actually checked this myself, it is a claim put forward by Oda Mari. US chart (please zoom) and UK chart (see page 76)

Notes and Comments, etc.

Initial input and comments

I generated a chat or table as below above for reasons or justifications why the current name/title is POV or NPOV. I have added some reasons for POV side. The space for NPOV reasons currently is blank. It is very welcomed for editors believing the current name/title as NPOV to add their reasons in the given space. Of course the editors believing the current name/title as POV are also very welcomed to add more reasons or modify the reasons I have listed here. But please: editors believing the current name as NPOV can edit NPOV side ONLY, and as the same, editors believing the current name as POV can edit POV side ONLY. By comparing the reasons from both sides, we may be able to gradually reach some consensus or compromise. I am sorry I have currently been very busy in/for my real life and cannot input my thoughts promptly sometimes. --Lvhis (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added some NPOV points. Apologies--I don't know why the NPOV side is suddenly much wider than the POV side. I try to not use tables whenever possible, so I don't know the formatting required to make the two sides balanced. If anyone knows, I'd be obliged. Also, please note my very first point: I am concerned that characterizing this dispute as one of NPOV vs. POV asks the wrong question: WP:Article titles tells us that POV is not the only concern in determining a title, as per, for example, the Boston massacre. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the table witdh issue. --Kusunose 07:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the table width.--Lvhis (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Article titles and its WP:POVTITLE, "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids", the example Boston massacre was given. In this precedent case, the name "Boston massacre" is overwhemingly more commonly used than the name "Boston Riot"; namely, the popular or common usage of Boston massacre surpasses that of "Boston Riot" so significantly that with which its POV can be overridden. In our current case, overall if not cherry-picked, neither "DI" nor "SI" can be asserted as a title/name used more common in English over its rival, respectively. If downplaying POV issue here, one can push using "DI" as hard as other can push using "SI", and there is no way to reach consensus. So for this case the very applicable guideline is WP:NCGN#Multiple local names. --Lvhis (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

More comments and discussions

Stuartyeates (who added the point about the cause for the US gov't using SI), the causes for the US governments choice of using Senkaku Islands are irrelevant. The question is not why is this the name, but simply what is the name. We're not here to argue about what should be the name in English (nor who should own the islands), but rather about what the current, common name is (if there is one). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the question of why is irrelevant to the question of what the widely accepted English name is. The question of why is not irrelevant to other NPOV issues, however. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank Stuartyeates for your input! US-Government was involved in this territory dispute including the name usage, at certain extent, already. --Lvhis (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

1. The "POV" UN point is meaningless. What do two letters indicate? Nothing.
2. What is the "POV" US point based on? John Smith's (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN is the only authority I see mentioned here that hasn't been militarily involved in this situation, as such they're the closest we have to an impartial authority on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN point is extremely misleading. The UN Secretary General only used the term because he was responding specifically to a letter from the Chinese representative. As both of the letters from the UNSG explicitly state that the UN takes no position in the dispute whatsoever, the point means nothing. There is no way that this represents anything whatsoever. Note the Chinese complaint for instance--the Chinese complaint objects to an earlier report because it notes the islands as being 200 miles from China's coast, which implies that Taiwan is not a portion of China--are we to now think that the UNSG is actually implying that it is taking an official position that Taiwan is not part of the PRC? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, the UN point is to see the name usage or frequency of its usage only. As said in "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision#Disputes regarding article titles": "it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, ...". The UN is or may be the most major one of the international organizations. Please do not go too far beyond this. --Lvhis (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And seeing what the UN says is helpful. However, this letter is not an official commentary by the UN; the fact that Kofi Annan used one term in one letter does not in any way represent an official position by the UN. As far as I know, in fact, the UN's official position is that they do not have an official position on either the names or the ownership of the islands. Again, the Chinese letter plus Annan's response w.r.t. the Taiwan issue explicitly show that we cannot somehow take the exact wording in these documents as any sort of representation of any sort of official position. Now, if someone can produce more official UN documents that use the term, that would, in fact, be helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No matter as what you view it from your point, it is a kind of documents of the UN. You can downplay it by whatever you want from your stance. I input it in a very plain way. Again, here we are talking about name usage, so it is only for seeing name usage with this. For other issue you mentioned you can go to page relating to "UN General Assembly Resolution 2758" to talk if you are very interested in it (but I am not now). We should not be distracted by this here. I agree it would be more helpful if we can find more UN documents using name(s) for the islands. Since we were in the Arb case, this is what I have been able to find out online. --Lvhis (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, if you were using it as just one example of many UN references to the islands by a single name, you might have a point. But as Qwyrxian said, it's just a letter. And the Secretary General does not have the authority to speak for the UN on matters like this. Remember when Taiwan applied to join the UN in 2007 and the Secretariat's response was taken to mean that Taiwan part of the PRC? That kicked up a shitstorm, precisely because he doesn't have the authority to do that. John Smith's (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@John Smith's, Those were very formal official letters from SGUN (two persons for different serving term), not just some verbal speech. While you can downplay those upon whatever you want from your stance as I said. And it is welcomed if you can find more UN documents using name(s) for the islands in question. --Lvhis (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I've been waiting for you to edit the factual error The ownership of these islands is officially disputed between Japan and Chinese sides (PRC and ROC). But it seems to me that you have no intention to edit/remove the sentence, and I am posting this. Japan officially says that there is no issue to be resolved. See [1] and [2]. Please remove the factual error. It is inappropriate and unconstructive to discuss something based on a factual error. I think other editors do not want it too. If it is not removed, the table would be nonsense and meaningless, and I think this thread should be abandoned. Oda Mari (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari, first I hope you not mind I relocated your interrogatory and I am making my response here. Regarding that description you questioned, it is not only me who believes it is in line with the fact but not as you said "factual error", also other editors believe so. That Japan's government officially states "no issue to be resolved" is its stance for the international dispute over these islands, opposing the disputes or claims from PR.China and ROC (Taiwan). PR.China government and ROC government also declare their ownership over the islands are "indisputable" [3][4][5][6][7]. If you believe the ownership or sovereignty over these islands does not have official dispute between these parties, so as the current title is of course as NPOV, you can input your such reason into the "NPOV" side. Japan's official stance is Japan's national point of view. If you really believes Japan's official stance is very NPOV applied with WP's policies and guidelines, you can go through WP:AfD to request deletion of the page now under its current name "Senkaku Islands dispute". The reason and logic is so obvious: if no official dispute between these parties, why Wikipedia bothers to have such article? --Lvhis (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I do mind. I didn't say there was no dispute. I just showed you the Japanese government's official statement and pointed out your OR and wrong use of the adverb "officially". You seem not to understand the meaning of "officially". See the definition. [8] [9] [10] PRC and ROC only state that the islands belong to them officially. Japan/PRC/ROC officially protest when something happens. But the official statements on their sovereignty of the islands and official protests cannot be described as a official dispute, other countries see it as a territorial dispute among the three countries though. It's your personal interpretation or OR to say "The ownership of these islands is officially disputed between Japan and Chinese sides (PRC and ROC). Have PRC and ROC officially declared/stated that their country had a territorial dispute with Japan? If not, you cannot use the adverb. Even if they have, you cannot use the adverb as Japan does not say so. You should remove "officially" from the sentence. If you disagree with me, ask any native en speaker who knows politics and diplomacy well or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language about the usage of "officially". Oda Mari (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari, you said you "do mind". Do you mean you do not agree I moved your interrogatory input on 10:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC) from below to this sub-subsection? Do you want to move it back to below? As for the part you challenged, if it indeed was not correct including with OR error, other editors believing the current title is as POV would correct it. But so far no one has changed it. If you are very, very confident on your judgement and on your comprehension of English language, you can do two things as follows: (1) input your such criticism in the "NPOV side"; (2) bring this sentence/description along with your criticism to what you mentioned the place Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. If you prove you are right from there, I will correct it as what the native English speakers suggest. Although I believe you must be, or you should be, familiar with the Japan government's very official statement "The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands" by Japan MOFA, I would still like to link it here for you: [11]. BTW, when mentioning the three parties disputing over these islands, namely Japan, PRC (Mainland China), and ROC(Taiwan), you would be better not to call them three "countries". Otherwise it would be some POV pushing. --Lvhis (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Other comments

I am not interested in this discussion intiated by Lvhis cooperating with a banned user STSC whether "Senkaku Islands" is POV or NPOV. Article title is not determined by whether it is POV or NPOV according to WP:NPOV#Naming, WP:TITLE#Neutrality in article titles, and WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name. However if any of you are interested in this discussion, please continue until you reach to a satisfactory conclusion. I would rather like to discuss the legitimacy of POV-tag. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't get side-tracked. This is the sort of thing that could be used in the RfC in arguing as to whether the tag is justified or not. John Smith's (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, you feel free not to join in this discussion, but your assumption is groundless and close to cross the line of Decorum. This table and discussion is nothing "cooperating with a banned user STSC" at all. Check my comments input above on October 6, October 8, and my sandbox edit. STSC was banned by admin Fut Perf on October 10. This table and discussion was triggered by the above "Straw poll on article title". --Lvhis (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready for an RfC

Given Oda Mari's links to the US and UK nautical charts, I'm pretty much ready to take this to RfC. I see the debate as fairly simple. We have two, generally, different categories of sources:

1. The various Google searches (Web, News, Scholar, and Book). These searches are problematic (the numbers that appear don't actually mean what they seem to mean, and the searches are highly sensitive to minute changes in search query). But, these searches, on average, tend to show approximately equal representation for Senkaku and Diaoyu, with some slightly favoring SI and others slightly favoring DI.
2. Encyclopedias, international almanacs, the US government, and both US and UK official nautical charts all without exception use Senkaku Islands.

Policy/guidelines say our only job is to evaluate what name is in common use in English, assuming there is one. I accept that people may disagree about which of these categories of sources has more merit in determining the name of this article; an RfC should be able to tell us what the community consensus is.

Last time I started an RfC, I got criticized for starting it too fast. Please speak now if you have any objection to starting the RfC; note that I would provide only the tiniest description in that RfC (something like "What should the name of this article be?"), a link to relevant policies/guidelines, and a space for any editor to provide links to prior discussions (I myself would likely link to this thread and the one above it). It's time to move forward, it's time to settle on a community consensus name, and it's time to get that tag off the article (whatever name is chosen). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't object. Just to check, are you RfCing the name or whether the current one is NPOV - or both? John Smith's (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you were quite objective in your point1, but may not be so in your point2 except US and UK nautical charts that you mentioned and Oda Mari provided the links in the "NPOV side" above. As saying "international almanacs ... all without exception use Senkaku Islands", this is wrong. The documentary year book with which I found that "Diaoyu Islands" but no "Senkaku Islands" was used by SG of the UN in his official letter is an international almanac, named "International Organizations and the Law of the Sea: Documentary Yearbook 1996" of "NILOS Documentary Yearbook". It is for collection of related documents from the United Nations system. Therefore, this is a very high, if not the highest, quality of year book or almanac. Another UN document a UN General Assembly document can be found in page 85 of this year book, which mentioned "D" and "S" as follows:"Since the 1970s, China and Japan have continued to dispute sovereignty over a group of five islets and barren rocks, known in Japan as Senkaku and in China as Diaoyu, ..."[12]. And for encyclopedias, I checked Britannica, neither "Senkaku Islands" nor "Diaoyu Islands" can be found [13]. When you asserted "all" Encyclopedias, "all" almanacs, can you list all of them you checked? Please don't do cherry-picking. Don't assert too much more than what you actually did. Bobthefish2 ever gave a search result on Library of Congress, I re-checked it and am sure it is correct:

Library of Congress:

• Diaoyu: 5 results
• Senkaku: 4 results
• Search parameters: 2005 or later, English; (not bothering with Diaoyutai).
• URL: http://catalog.loc.gov/

(note: Bobthefish2 has been topic banned for a year due to "Decorum" issue, but it does not mean that the objective contents he used before cannot be used by us)

So, your point1 can be used by us to reach certain consensus. Your point2 is biased and it asserted too much more than reality and objectivity.

--Lvhis (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are not almanacs. An almanac is a book of maps. Those are various publications by the UN; the first one is trivial in that it's a solitary letter written by a solitary person, not approved by the UN. The latter is a UN document, and you are correct that it mentions both names, and this is evidence of a refusal to choose a name in English, thus is evidence against SI as the name.

For the encyclopedias, my point is that I have asked, over and over and over again, and no one has ever found an encyclopedia that lists Diaoyu as the main entry. If I recall correctly, we did confirm that Encyclopedia uses SI as the main entry; again, I'd have to search through to find it (I think Phoenix7777 found it). I actually asked once at the resource exchange for help...unfortunately, the only person who answered was Penwhale, who essentially stopped any discussion by falsely asserting (in direct contradiction to WP:NCGN) that encyclopedias don't matter here. So, no, I haven't checked all of the encyclopedias, because, sadly, I don't have access to any here in Japan. I wish someone who had access to a good English library would check. On the almanacs, I had time last summer in a US public research university library, and every single almanac that I could find that was published after 2000 either didn't include the islands (they are, after all, pretty small), or used the SI name (and only 1 of 5 even mentioned Diaoyu). A list of the almanacs is somewhere in the archives; I'm short on time, but can pull it out later.

The LoC search does show even use among titles of books that they curate. That is additional evidence for the position against the current name. You are welcome to use that as an argument.

In any event, none of this answers the question of whether or not we are ready for an RfC. We clearly aren't going to reach a consensus amongst ourselves; I (and others) have seen tons of data and arguments, and I am firmly convinced that the current name is the correct one per policies and guidelines (I'm even more convinced after seeing the nautical charts). You and others are firmly convinced of the opposite. All we can do now, as far as I can tell, is ask the community.

Also, @ John Smith's, I'm saying we need an RfC on the name. Winner take all. The decision holds, the tag comes off, the article gets moved (or doesn't), and we stop fighting about this (at least for a good long while). An RfC on the tag doesn't make any sense to me, since it would cover basically the same issues as the article name, and just necessitate a second RfC in a short while anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And what happens if the RfC is inconclusive and the name doesn't change as there's no consensus either way? Does the tag still get removed? John Smith's (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I expect it will be conclusive, just like the last one. But if we get a no consensus result...I don't know. I guess a second RfC about the tag? Or possibly WP:DRN, as we shouldn't really need community consensus on a maintenance tag. My logic behind doing the name first is that dealing with the tag doesn't solve anything either way... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose that we would need a second RfC. I've got no more questions, do you want to start drafting? There's no point wasting more time talking about it. John Smith's (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep getting sidetracked with other things...I will have a draft ready in no less than a week; however, I don't mind if someone else wants to start one instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, when you say "An almanac is a book of maps", you may mean an atlas, not almanac. But this is not a big deal. The core point here is, with the methods recommended in WP:NCGN#Widely_accepted_name which are noted "not listed in any particular order", the overall searching results have shown neither "SI" nor "DI" can be asserted as overwhelmingly common name in English over its rival. Otherwise, you do not need working so hard to make so many tries. Please do not downplay the results that are not favoring "SI" and overplay the results that are favoring "SI". For example, that the use of "DI" in a letter from the SG of the UN when responding to the representative of PR.China to the UN while not use of "SI" in a letter from the SG of the UN when responding to the representative of Japan to the UN is not pure solitary letter by pure solitary person. The SG responded to China then was Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and the SG responded to Japan then was Kofi Annan. If "SI" was really a name for the islands commonly used in English, they would have naturally used it in such official letters. If I want to push, I can say "Diaoyu Islands" is more naturally used in this very major international organization. I did not say that. I went to the resource exchange and reviewed the question and answer you mentioned. It was not Penwhale who answered you. It was LeadSongDog, a native English speaker, answering you. He reminded you the POV issue and suggested an example (or another example) from WP:NCGN#Multiple localnames, the Derry/Londonderry example. As I responded you above [14], the example "Boston massacre" is not appropriate for our current case. As for RfC, before you start it, I think it is necessary to request MedCom to have the pages in mediation recovered or undone-deletion. There are some useful data there for users from community coming to the RfC to review. Also please include the POV/NPOV table above when you draft. It is input by both sides and a kind of summary easily to read to compare. --Lvhis (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@John Smith's, if we have RfC, I hope you be more open. As I said before, if you think the current title as NPOV, you need to give your reasons, not just say "yes". So far you have not contributed any reason in the "NPOV" part above. We need to be reasonable, or to be reasonable person, to reach consensus hopefully. --Lvhis (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked Feezo, and xe said that since arbitration is over, xe has no special authority over the pages; I can't undo the deletion myself, as I'm involved here and taking an admin action in that case is a big no-no. I'm not even sure who to ask...WP:DRV, perhaps? To be honest, I'm willing to simply stipulate your claims--that the results were approximately even, sometimes with an edge for DI, sometimes with an edge for DI, never more than about 10% either way; these are results from Google Scholar, Book, and Web searches; I will personally stipulate that from memory, so long as you are willing to stipulate that we also determined in mediation that those results are practically meaningless because of the way Google handles searches with over a thousand results (i.e., the "number" you get back from a search is different from the actual number of results obtained, and there is no way to actually determine how many "real" results you get)....aw, heck, I'll be helpful. I'll ask User:AGK, who is the current chair of Medcom, what the procedure for you to request undeletion is. I don't particularly care either way if its undeleted.

I will not include the table in the draft. The draft will contain only 4 things: a statement of the question/problem, a list of relevant policies and guidelines, a blank space for each "side" to include their arguments, and a blank space for comments from uninvolved editors. I will, of course, draft my own argument to be placed in that third section, and will likely include some or all of the points I had listed in what you call the "NPOV side"; you're welcome to format your own arguments with your own evidence as you like. I think we should both try to keep the evidence to a reasonable length. I'm not sure what exactly that is, but I know that RfC's that are too long generate less interest. Maybe we should even put our arguments in collapse boxes...we can figure that out later, though.

Finally, think what you want about the UN letterrs, and use them as you wish in your argument; obviously we're not going to convince each other. Also, sorry about misusing "almanac"; you are right that I meant "atlas". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume most of you still have it watchlisted, but, if not, AGK has undeleted Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands. I don't think he deleted the sub pages like the discussion of the proposed rules that we never got around to finishing, but I think the data itself is on the primary talk page. Do with it as you will. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

Right, it's gone a bit quiet here. Given there's no obvious consensus to remove the tag, should we get an RfC going to get outside input? John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, after a bit quiet, you are welcomed to add your reasons why the current title/name is NPOV. --Lvhis (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always in the back of my mind. Maybe we can do it in the same style that some policy RfC's use with positions and supporters (also used in RfC/U): first, we all agree on a question (something very simple, one paragraph or less, like "What should the title of this article (and list the 2 others) be?" Then, we could each write a position statement, including any amount of information or arguments that we want, and we could include a space for signing (like "Users who endorse this position" and a bulleted list). If you don't know what I'm talking about, look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. You can see how individual people provide positions, with whatever evidence they want (though people should keep in mind that evidence that is too long may not be read by participants), then everybody is free to support any number of positions that they prefer. If the end result is unclear, we get a neutral admin to close. Such an should run for 30 days or until useful conversation stops--whichever comes later.

An alternative would be if we all do fall into clear positions, then we could just have each "side" draft a joint position, then just open discussion from that point. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Qwyrxian. An article title is not determined by RfC but is determined by relevant policies. I think John Smith's' intension is to get opinion regarding the POV tag according to his past edit.[15] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And when different people legitimately interpret policies differently, we must come to a consensus to determine which interpretation is correct. Lvhis (and others) think the policy says the name should be Pinnacle Islands. I, you, and others think that policy says that the name should be Senkaku Islands. Since we don't agree, how do you suggest we resolve the issue if not by RfC? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pinnacle Islands? It is out of question. WP:NCGN#Multiple local names says "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine." In the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits are below a hundred at that time (May 2007). See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10#Google Book search. Over 10,000 hits are quite reliable to judge which is predominant, so the description is not applicable here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If I and others use same way as you guys use to interpret the policies and guidelines, "Pinnacle Islands" would not be our choice. It should go "Diaoyu Islands". "Pinnacle Islands" is one of the possibilities as compromised from both sides in respect of the policies and guidelines. --Lvhis (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to argue in favor of Diaoyu islands in the upcoming RfC. Heck, you can make a complex argument, like "Diaoyu first choice, second choice Pinnacle, third choice Ryukyu: the Sequel". As a side note, for anyone else watching, I've made a draft of a possible RfC at User:Qwryxian/SI RFC]; feel free to comment on it if you think I'm somehow misrepresenting the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the 2nd time you used the word "Heck". Are you really unhappy? Or are you now in an unhappy status? If you are, it is better for us to cool down a little bit. --Lvhis (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the Americanism (and the fact that my tone is probably unclear since I'm writing rather than speaking)--"Heck" means, in this context, "Go ahead and do the following, it doesn't matter to me at all:" No unhappiness at all on my part. I'm simply saying that if you want to argue in favor of Diaoyu, you are welcome to, though you're also welcome to argue for some "middle" name (Pinnacle, a hybrid name, or anything else you can think of); it's up to you to persuade people that your choice is the best one given policies, guidelines, and sources. I say it doesn't matter to me because I've already seen the arguments, and I've already decided which name I think is the most correct one per all of our policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a reference or reliable source explaining a use of this word in the same way as you explained? --Lvhis (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to "heck," right? Off the top of my head i have no references. I know my family (who've been speaking English as a first language for at least 3 generations) often use it that way. But, maybe we're out of the norm--wouldn't be the first time :). Apologies if my use of the word was upsetting or made you think I was upset. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use "we" here. I have not been out of the norm. It was you. Our Arbitration took the decorum issue very seriously that Bobthefish2 has been topic panned for this, and you were the one actively pushing such ban. Okay, by now I accept your apologies but hope you realize this can lead to a topic ban. I will move on for the discussion. --Lvhis (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of "refute"

I saw an IP editor and Qwyrxian is opposoing the use of "refute" because what Japanese do does not fit the definition of "refute". i.e. "provide evidence against" or "prove wrong". When I looked up the word in Merriam-Webster, it gives me two definitions "to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous" and "to deny the truth or accuracy of", and the word "deny", which is used to replace "refute", is a synomym. I don't see why it is wrong to use "refute" here. I'm not a native speaker so I'm probably missing something. --Kusunose 01:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "rebut" is a better word choice. Rklawton (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP editor and Qwyrxian are right at this point. As an encyclopedia emphasizing NPOV, "deny" is more proper and neutral, while "refute" may imply that this article endorses Japan's stance at the issue in question. Using "rebut" is better than using "refute" but not better than using "deny" . Vocabulary.com explains these words with some examples. --Lvhis (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Lvhis for a reference. Went to Vocaburary.com and read an article "rebut/refute", as well as definitions of "refute", "rebut", and "deny". As Japanese refutaion/rebuttal/denial is not conclusive, "rebut" certainly is a better choice. Not sure "deny" is better than "rebut" here. --Kusunose 06:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "rebut" is a better word than the other options. "Deny" simply suggests Japan has said China is wrong without providing an argument. John Smith's (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Rebut is a fair compromise for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, can you give a reference/reliable source that explains "deny" implying to say something wrong or to refuse something exclusively without providing an argument? "Deny" is very neutral here, implying the party who deny something is maybe right or maybe wrong, 50 to 50. No matter if there is some subtle different between "deny" and "rebut", your reverting "deny" back to "refute" was a blatant POV pushing or non-constructive. I don't think we need to bother to change "deny" into "rebut". --Lvhis (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, it's really not helpful when you frequently reply to my comments with "can you give a reference/source that..." You're the only person objecting to using "rebut" here, so would you accept the compromise? John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, if you feel very uncomfortable (or fear) to be asked for providing reference or reliable source to support your argument, the Wikipedia may not be the right/good place for you. Again, the word "deny" has been there as a result of edits by 2 editors and good enough per wp's policy, so it is not necessary to bother to change it. --Lvhis (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're avoiding the issue. The only editor currently objecting (or not agreeing to) the use of "rebut" is you. Are you going to try to block it being used? John Smith's (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst copyediting I had a play with the text. Is this any better? John Smith's (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You do not want answer my question about your interpretation on "deny", while instead, asked me question. And this section is talking about "Use of 'refute'". --Lvhis (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Intention to start RFC

Out of deference to the complex and contentious nature of this debate, I am providing notice that I intend to start an RfC on the name of this article (the outcome of which will necessarily have implications about the use of the POV-title template) in about one week (ideally, some time early on 23 November, GMT). The draft for the RFC question can be found at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC. Other editors are welcome to comment on the wording. The goal is to make it a neutral statement of the problem; all arguments in favor of one name or another belong in the "Arguments in favor of..." sections. In addition, other editors may want to begin preparing their own arguments to be put into those Arguments sections. I have prepared begun drafting one of my own, and expect it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-800 words, though it's still in a very rough state. Finally, please note that I will not be allowing discussions to drag out on the wording of the RfC any more than one week; technically speaking, anyone can put up an RfC at any time, and it doesn't need to be approved by other editors first. I only did so here to allay potential complaints that others "weren't ready" or that the RfC was somehow rigged.

In general, RfCs run for about a month. RfCs do not have to be formally closed, but since this case is under discretionary sanctions, I intend to ask an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC once discussion has stopped or has reached a standstill.

Assuming a consensus is reached, I sincerely hope that we will be able to put the naming issue behind us, remove the POV-title tag (whatever title is chosen), and move on with our wiki-lives. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

After several discussions there, it is quite clear that a root question regarding the naming issue and some article content is focusing this one: Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the "Japanese name" or "English name"? An RfC directly deals with this should go first, and I have prepared a draft a User:Lvhis/xI RfC. I am moving on preparing my argument there. For others, it is similar to what you suggested on your draft. --Lvhis (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That is completely unnecessary. You can ask that question/put forward an argument on that point when Qwyrxian's RfC goes up. It's not like your RfC would be considered once his is active in any event. Or are you announcing your intent to put yours up first? John Smith's (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I've been waiting for you to answer this. But you didn't. Please answer all of my questions in the post at here first. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari, whether "Senkaku Islands" is the English name or the Japanese name cannot be defined by me or by you, or by any Wikipedian. It is defined or told by Reliable Sources. You are not qualified to disqualify what the author Kimie Hara (原貴美恵) described for the three names, unless you can find other reliable sources disqualify hers. I made my complain on your such comment during the Arbitration [16]. For more debating on whether "SI" is the Japanese name or English name, we can go the RfC I have suggested. --Lvhis (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the "Japanese name" or "English name"?

disruptively sidelined RfC attempt; closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This name is currently used for the Wikipedia article about a group of islands in East Asia, whose ownership is disputed. The name/title "Senkaku Islands" currently used for this article and its related articles has also been disputed for quite a long time. The main Romanized Chinese name for the islands is Diaoyu or Diaoyutai. The main Romanized Japanese name for the islands is Senkaku. There is another name, Pinnacle Islands, from English language, though far less frequently used than above mentioned Chinese and Japanese names. Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the Japanese name, or the English name? This is a basic or essential question or dispute for the naming dispute on this article. The question is, per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which definition on this name is correct. Previous discussions, which have included discussions on relative article's talk pages, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to reach consensus to settle the question. The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, involved parties will present their arguments for the definition of this name. --Lvhis (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Policies and guidelines WP:VERIFY WP:ORIGINAL Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Multiple local names) Arguments from involved editors Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name 1. Reliable sources have clearly stated/asserted that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. The following is just listing part of these reliable sources. A number of them were written by Japanese authors. I avoided using sources from Chinese authors. A UN General Assembly document [17] page 85, International Organizations and the Law of the Sea: Documentary Yearbook 1996 By Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea. Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands". CNN World. CNN (US). Hara, Kimie (原貴美恵) (2007). Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system. New York, USA: Routledge, c/o Taylor & Francis. p. 51. ISBN 9780415412087. Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593. Kiyoshi Inoue (井上清). Senkaku Letto /Diaoyu Islands The Historical Treatise. (English synopsis [18]) Daniel J. Dzurek, "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996 [19] Jeff Hays. "DISPUTE OVER THE SENKAKU ISLANDS (JAPANESE NAME)---DIAOYU ISLANDS (CHINESE NAME)" Facts and Details Koji Taira. The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands [20] This is an article that originally appeared in "The Ryukyuanist", spring 2004. Joyman Lee. Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict Published in History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011 Jesper Schlæger. Senkakuphonia: The East China Sea Dispute page 4 of 31 Peter J Brown. China ire at sea chase signals wider reach Asia Times Sep 16, 2010 2. The Naming history on this group islands tells that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. Names for this group islands are from three languages, that I have pointed out during the Mediation [21]. Per the order of their generated time, they are Chinese name, English name, and Japanese name. 1) Chinese name: the romanized Chinese name is "Diaoyu Dao Qundao" or "Diaoyutai Lieyu". For English use, they are adapted as "Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyutai Islands". Their original form is 钓鱼岛群岛 or 釣魚台列嶼. The Chiese name used for naming these islands was generated as early as 1403 . 2) English name: In 1843, the British naval battleship "Samarang" surveyed areas around this group islands and gave a name "Pinnacle islands" for them according to how the shape of one of the islands looked like. 3) Japanese name: Before 1886, at least some Japanese documents used Chinese name for these islands. Since 1886, the Japanese Imperial Naval Records used "Pinnacle Islands" with Japanese Katakana form (Transliteration). It was until 1900, a Japanese teacher Tsune Kuroiwa (黑岩恆) translated the "Pinnacle Islands" into Japanese "Senkaku Island". Its original form is 尖閣諸島. While the "Senkaku Island" was not yet officially used until 1950s by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. No reliable sources tell that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name. On the other words, that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name is an unsupportable viewpoint. Conclusion: "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name as defined by reliable sources, as required by important policies WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL. Both Chinese name and Japanese name are local names for this geographic entity per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names. Indeed there is a real or pure English name for this group of islands: "Pinnacle Islands". --Lvhis (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name Put argument here. Comments and discussion I request that any uninvolved admin seeing this section sanction Lvhis under the terms of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands#Discretionary sanctions. Lvhis knows that this is not a relevant question, that it has nothing to do with article content, and is a clear and deliberate attempt to undermine the RfC I had intended to post today--the one we really need to discuss; that is, the question of what the name of this article should be. Now I cannot actually post that RfC, and we're once again massively delayed in actually reaching a decision on what the title of this article should be. Per User Talk:Qwyrxian/SI RFC, Lvhis was more than aware of my intent to post my RfC today. Furthermore, please note that the question asked in this RfC cannot be answered, because it seeks to discuss something that not only is not in the article, but no one has proposed to put in the article. Lvhis is seeking debate not on the contents of the article, but on issues related to the article. Thus, this request is excessively bureaucratic, tendentious, and a definite violation of the spirit of the decision handed down in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Although it goes without saying, I would also suggest that any uninvolved admin reading this close the RfC immediately for the reasons Qwyrxian gave above. Qwyrxian's RfC can deal with any issues about the appropriate naming of the article. If Lvhis or anyone else wants to ask whether Senkaku Islands is the "Japanese" name, they can do so there. John Smith's (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• It has been over 30 days past since the RfC above unfairly closed with an unreasonable and insolent label "disruptive" by user Fut.Perf. using his admin power granting user Qwyrxian's unjustifiable request . At mean time closing the above one, user Fut.Perf. forcibly opened the following RfC or Qwyrxian's RfC. Such tendencious intervence made the situation and atmosphere here was not fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue, and actually resulted in stifling voices from other side, so that none parties from the side opposing Qwyrxian's side took part in that "RfC". The RfC above I started is simple and straightforward on the disputed naming issue to avoid a root question to the naming issue being mixed up with different concepts, and this is why Qwyrxian dared not face it, and dared not debate/answer it. The reason user Fut.Perf. used to close the above RfC is purely and only based on "Assume Bad Faith" that violates "WP: Assume Good Faith". Because of this, in this topic user Fut.Perf. has not been neutral anymore.
  

The second point I need to raise is that user Fut.Perf. has not been really an uninvolved admin in this topic. As a well known reason, the wiki page Liancourt Rocks and its topic is closely related to this topic. Since Dec 1, 2011, User Fut.Perf has participated in the discussion there [22][23][24][25][26][27], and has involved a conflict with an editor in editing some part of the page Liancourt Rocks [28][29]. Although his view point there itself may be correct, he indeed has become an involved editor due to such edit activity. Based on the two reasons above, he apparently cannot play a role as uninvolved and neutral admin in this topic anymore. It is not proper for him to close (or to take part in closing) the "RfC" below.

As stated above, the "RfC" below has run under a situation and atmosphere that is not fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue. Therefore, it should be closed by really uninvolved admin(s), and it would be better closed as "leave the title issue as status quo" for the time being. As a proposed new wp policy or guideline Wikipedia:Binding RFCs is under construction, a real binding RfC could be well and carefully prepared in really fair and justicial manner including being preceded by some non-binding RfC(s). --Lvhis (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: Article naming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

For reasons that I imagine are evident to anyone reading the discussion, there is clearly no consensus to title the article as anything but "Senkaku Islands". Furthermore, pursuant to the discretionary sanctions remedy issued by the Arbitration Committee, I am forbidding the initiation of further move requests until 2013. NW (Talk) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

---

This article is about a group of islands whose ownership is disputed. The Chinese name for the islands is 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿, which is transliterated in a variety of ways, in a variety of ways (mainly Diaoyu and Diaoyutai). The Japanese name for the islands is 尖閣諸島, which is transliterated as Senakaku (Senakaku Shotō, and rarely as Senkaku-guntō or Senkaku-rettō). English sources use a variety of names, though the most common are Senkaku Islands, Diayou Islands, or Diaoyutai Islands. The name Pinnacle Islands is also found in English literature, although far less frequently used than any of the previously mentioned names. The question is, per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which of these names, if any, is the correct name for this and associated articles (Senkaku Islands dispute and 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident)? Previous discussions, which have included RfC's, discussions on noticeboards, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to settle the issue, though most participants have argued for either "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", "Pinnacle Islands", or a joint name like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, the two "sides" will present their arguments in favor of the current name or an alternative name.

copied from draft at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If you guys need a closer at the end of this discussion, please drop me a note. NW (Talk) 03:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated. I too would be available (I'm quite uninvolved and only doing some admin-oversight stuff here right now.) If it becomes complicated in the end, we might also get a panel of three closers together, as has been successfully done in a few high-profile naming RfCs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Small note: after consulting with NuclearWarfare to be absolutely certain that I was being neutral and within the bounds of WP:CANVAS, I have placed a notice on each of the five WikiProjects listed at the top of this page about this RfC in an attempt to get more comments from more uninvolved readers. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

• WP:Article titles (in particular, the section Considering title changes)
• WP:NPOV (in particular, the subsection Naming)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and Multiple local names)

Arguments from involved editors

Arguments in favor of "Senkaku Islands"

Put argument here.

• Per WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name, The most widely accepted name is Senkaku Islands according to the Google Books hits.
  • Senkaku Islands 34,400
  • Diaoyu Islands 15,500
  • Diaoyutai Islands 5,850

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• WP:NCGN and WP:Article titles indicate that we must decide whether or not any one name qualifies as the "common English name" for this place. If there is no common English name, WP:NCGN#Multiple local names states that we must choose the most prevalent one, though in cases where no name is regularly used in English, unusual alternatives are allowed (this led to Liancourt Rocks to be named as it is, even though it is rarely used in English). We are given a number of different measurements to look at when making this decisions; the belief of those supporting the SI name is that, while not all of the measurements indicate SI is the common name, the bulk of them do, especially those which are most important.

Various Google searches, including Web, News, and Scholar searches (see the archives here, along with others at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands), have not shown either name to be particularly more prevalent. However, the same searches point out how terribly flawed a tool this for deciding the article name. For example, searching for English web pages containing "Senkaku Islands" produces 208,000 results, while searching for "Senkaku Islands" and excluding "Diaoyu" produces 375,000 results. While some of us have tried exhaustive searches (looking at every single result), even that fails because Google will only provide the first several hundred results, no matter how many they claim to have found in total.

Furthermore, Point 1 of WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name tells us to look at other recent English language encyclopedias. The last results I found (see Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#What does policy say?) has Britannica not listing either and Columbia Encyclopedia listing only Senkaku Islands. To supplement this, last year I looked at a major US university library, and checked atlases. Every atlas I checked that contained any mention of these islands used the name "Senkaku Islands". 5 out of 5. Only one of those 5 even mentioned "Dioayu Islands", and only in the index (with something like a "See Senkaku Islands" entry). In other words, no one has produced any tertiary source of any type that doesn't prefer Senkaku Islands when it lists the islands at all. That seems like pretty clear agreement to me. Wikipedia should not be the only notable tertiary source to use a different name.

With respect to the names used by English speaking governments, both the US and UK governments use Senkaku Islands. Period. The Library of Congress has a subject heading for Senkaku Islands, and does not have one for Diaoyu/etc. Islands. In the Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile on China, the term "Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu tai)" is used, showing clear preference even in the article about China itself. Additionally, the official nautical charts of the United States(please zoom) and the United Kingdom (see page 76) both use Senkaku Islands. The official designation for these names among two of the largest and most politically/militarily powerful countries both designate the term to be "Senakaku Islands", strong evidence of the preference for this name.

In past discussions, those who opposed "Senkaku Islands" and supported Pinnacle Islands or some hybrid name (e.g. "Senkaku/Diaoyu"), have tried to argue that WP:NPOV means that we cannot choose a name which is also used by one "side" in the debate. This is absolutely wrong, and counter to the way Wikipedia handles disputed territories. It isn't POV to choose the name that is normally used in English. Some native American groups dispute US control of lands that were there's historical, but that doesn't mean we say that choosing the widely used English name is POV. Falkland Islands is used not because we are "siding" with the UK in the dispute, but because that's the name used in English. Seoul is in South Korea, not Korea. And, perhaps most importantly, we refer to the Spratly Islands, and name each individual island after the name used in English (like Itu Aba). Though the Google evidence is ambiguous, having looked at the evidence overall (especially the nautical charts and tertiary sources), it seems clear enough to me that the English name for these islands is "Senkaku Islands". Above copied from User Qwyrxian/SI ARG, and incorporates points from myself and User:John Smith's. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, only two sovereign nations, Taiwan and the PRC, dispute Japan's ownership of the islands. The rest of the world accepts Japan as the owner and accepts "Senkakau Islands" as the name. If any other government has taken Taiwan's or PRC's side, please state so here and I will stand corrected. Cla68 (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I agree with Qwryxian's views in that Senkaku Islands is the best name for the article. John Smith's (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Qwyrxian. "Pinnacle Islands" has no legitimacy at all. It is neither common nor official in English-speaking countries, and using such a name here makes no sense.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of "Diaoyu" or "Diaoyutai Islands"

Put argument here.

Arguments in favor of "Pinnacle Islands"

Put argument here.

Arguments in favor of a name other than "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyu Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", or "Pinnacle Islands"

Put argument here.

Note: the main editor currently supporting a name other than Senkaku Islands, User:Lvhis, has implied in this edit on xyr talk page that xe regretfully won't be providing commentary here. Lvhis, if you do choose to comment, simply put strike-out lines around this before adding your argument. In the meanwhile, uninvolved editors may want to look at previous discussions for the arguments surrounding the desire to change the title. A good quick summary can be found at Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV? in the "POV" column of the table. That doesn't incorporate everything, but it will be up to those who actually support this position if they want to do more work to collect their arguments here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Other comments from involved editors

Comments from uninvolved editors

• Senkaku Islands - This is not an easy call. The naming issue is not unique: WP routinely deals with problems like this, most notably in the Gdansk article; see also random multi-name town Vyborg. I've read up on these islands, and read some of the Talk page archives. It is tempting to take a Solomn-like solution and use a dual article name: Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, but that is generally discouraged in WP. I think that dual-name approach is not a bad solution, but until it becomes more widely adopted in WP, we should not use it for this article. The Google stats are important, but I note that the Google Books stats, which indicate that Senkaku Islands is more common, is at odds with Google Web stats, which show that Diaoyu Islands is most common. However, as I look at important English-language sources, it appears that Senkaku Islands is more common in important sources. Another significant factor is that Japan now controls the islands, and has for several decades. For those reasons, Senkaku Islands appears to best meet the WP:NAME criteria. --Noleander (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Web (Everything) Search is known to be quite unreliable not just it is based on unreliable sources. See below:

• Diaoyu 554,000
• Diaoyu Islands 3,770,000
• Diaoyu -Islands 4,520,000

While Google Book Search shows reasonable results:

• Diaoyu 17,600
• Diaoyu Islands 15,300
• Diaoyu -Islands 2,250

―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

I agree that GoogleBooks is superior to GoogleWeb ... I mentioned the GoogleWeb stats only to ensure that more complete data was available. My recommendation is consistent with the GoogleBooks stats. --Noleander (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Like the issue with the Sea of Japan, South China Seas and the dispute about territorial waters, this has more to do with domestic Chinese politics than international opinion. As has been stated elsewhere, the governments navigating the region consider Japan the owner due to history. China may have a legitimate dispute over what lead to the islands returning to Japan but until China claims otherwise, or actually seizes control of the island, the point is moot. Most of the political arguments over this are to serve as a proxy for the larger, more important territorial disputes China has elsewhere. Though there is no doubt China would love to have access to the oil in the region, it is much less likely to make a move here than the other regions that it has identified as a 'core interests'(i.e. would be willing to go to war over) So I do not predict the islands changing hands any time soon. I think getting into argument over popularity is a bit of distraction, if it was a popularity contest China would get to name everything on its border after all... and like many things from Asia words come to us from various different sources. The other reason we tend to use the name preferred by the owners, is that they are the ones who we would need to deal with if treaties or business contracts. And turn to for enforcement of those contracts if needs be. Using a different name than the one recognized by the authority over the island could get your issue thrown out of court. (First time involved in these things, if there is protocol or formatting problems with me reply let me know!)--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons English tends to use to Japanese names for islands and bodies of water in this region, is because they were the ones we were usually negotiating with and forming treaties with. Fairly or not, and that Japan was through which we got a lot of our information on China and the history of this area before the mainland became more opened up. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Pinnacle Islands -- this solves the headache of nationalist feelings, by not using a local name at all. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note, the above IP editor only started editing on 9 December 2011. John Smith's (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But I was editing stuff other than this talk page, alot of things in fact, I did not come to Wikipedia to just lodge an opinion on Senkaku Islands. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I was happy to leave a discrete note in small text. But if you want to discuss it, I'm happy with that.

The fact you edited random articles is irrelevant. It is a fact that you took part in this RfC within a day of starting editing. Editors can draw their own conclusions as to whether this means anything. But if you really didn't come here just to put forward your view on this matter, perhaps you could explain how your editing history on 9 December would logically lead you to take part in this discussion. I don't see the link between Canadian election templates and a group of Japanese controlled islands. Maybe that's just me. John Smith's (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Who knows when the user started to edit, seeing as it is an IP, but does that matter? Unless there's a criteria to be met to comment or am I missing something here (?). Anyway, that note is a reference to the user as an editor (as is the reply to the user), and not to the discussion itself. Thus, I would hardly call that note or comment professional. Maybe just WP:DROP it? Happy editting, Cold Season (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've taken part in "voting" discussions (such as Featured Article Requests), where administrators have highlighted accounts that have started editing recently before they expressed their opinion on the thread in question. John Smith's (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

JS, The IP is from Canada. Most ISPs in Canada use dynamic IPs, meaning that 20 days ago (or whenever he reset his router) he wouldn't have been known as 76.65.128.198, but rather something else. His "edit counter" is the least of anyone's worries. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While I can understand why JS may be worried about the arrival of someone who appears to be a "new" user to such a debate, I think that we can AGF that this is a regular editor on a dynamic IP (for instance, I note that the same IP address commented later on a WikiProject Korea discussion, which may well have been where they saw the discussion). Obviously, should we see a sudden flood of different IP addresses or newly created accounts, we'd have a different concern, but such is not currently the case (and, ultimately, this is more something for the closing admin to analyze). I also think that JS's original tagging was not out of the ordinary. 76, it might help us understand your perspective if you comment on the differences between Liancourt and Senkaku that Oda Mari has explained below. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not raising an objection to the IP expressing his view. I would welcome him responding to Oda Mari's point below. John Smith's (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume I started editing on the 9th, just because this IP address history starts on that date? How would I see this? Well, it's a RFC, it's posted on the RFC listing. Why wouldn't I see this? 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

To expand on my position, the Liancourt Rocks article also doesn't use either nationalistic title, being neither Japanese or Korean, so "Pinnacle Islands" would be analogous. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks is the most commonly used name in English, but Pinnacle Islands is the least commonly used name. United States Board on Geographic Names adopts Liancourt Rocks and Senkaku Shotō. See this, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name. Oda Mari (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

From my personal experience, Takeshima is the most widely used version of the name for Liancourt Rocks. A basic google search shows "liancourt rocks" (150k) +takeshima +island (1.2M) +dokdo +island (500k) that it is also the least used version of the name for that place. I may be missing something with a basic search, but it does appear that Liancourt Rocks is also the least common variant of these three, just as Pinnacle Islands is of the three here. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks was a decision taken to stop fighting between users. It's not policy to use a title like that. So if you're saying "Pinnacle Islands" is an option open to us, sure - we've discussed it previously. And I (plus others) don't see the need to use it here. John Smith's (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I should have written "in English speaking countries". First of all, G search is unreliable.Those results have English pages of kr and ja domains. Japan and South Korea are not en speaking countries and have their own claims over the islets. But it seems to be impossible to exclude them from G search. Can you? I think blogs written by Japanese or Korean in en speaking countries should be excluded too. But it also seems to be impossible. You wrote the results of Dokdo was 500k, but when I clicked those G search results, "dokdo" + "island" was 2,070,000. I don't understand the differences. I tried these. [30], [31], and [32]. But that's not enough.The second results have these irrelevant pages. [33] and [34]. You cannot tell the most commonly used names by G search results. Oda Mari (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I still get 500k for +dokdo +island

Gbooks +dokdo +island (4.4k) +takeshima +island (14k) "liancourt rocks" (3k)

Gscholar "liancourt rocks" (210) +dokdo +island (628) +takeshima +island (2270)

Gnews +takeshima +island (970) +dokdo +island (955) "liancourt rocks" (798)

Anyways, it does seem like "Liancourt Rocks" is least used of the three for that place. As that name was chosen because it was a neutral name for the Wikipedia article, I don't see why we can't apply that precedent here, and use "Pinnacle Islands". 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In any event, Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent (at least, not off of solitary precedents). The question is (as pointed out above) in this case, do the sources clearly support the use of one name more than another in English, and how do the different types of sources effect that analysis? I argue above, of course, that in this case (without worrying at all about LR), the sources clearly point us to Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also most of the sources are likely to use this name as well, because it is a) The one the government of the United States uses and so scholars will want their work linked with the policies memos by references even if they were aware of the Chinese name when they were writing. b) Most of the sources concerning the islands history use that name as well (at least back before the war). c) I do not think we should establish a precedent for modifying articles based on concerted political campaigns. Changing them this way would be a tacit endorsement. Though we could just have two seperate pages like we have for Sea of Japan and the East China Sea :P --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

76.65.128.198, your analysis is completely wrong. In the case of Liancourt Rocks, the Google Book hits were below a hundred at that time (May 2007) therefore it was quite difficult to determine which was the widely accepted name. See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 10#Google Book search. WP:NCGN#Multiple local names says "...but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine." This case's Google Book hits of 34,000 vs. 15,000 is quite apparent which is widely accepted name. So, the precedent doesn't apply here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Books n-gram evidence [35] shows that in recent years the Chinese name Diaoyu Islands has risen in usage, but I'd go with the Japanese Senkaku Islands as the one that's more enduring and common over time. The Liancourt Rocks is a distant third, and Pinnacle Islands is not in the running. Feel free to try other variations. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break

Hi, I hope everyone had a good Christmas and New Year's Eve. I was wondering, should we consider wrapping this up in a week or so, or does the discussion need a bit longer? I know some people may have been on holiday so I'm happy to give it another couple of weeks. John Smith's (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a message for NuclearWarfare and FPAS to discuss possible closure; NW responded by leaving a message for FPAS, but nothing from FPAS yet. Perhaps I'll bump NW and see if xe's interested in closing alone, or if xe wants to take the issue to WP:AN for another admin's input. Note, of course, that Lvhis's argument about FPAS being involved completely fails to actually understand what WP:INVOLVED says--editing an article about a slightly similar topic does not cross the involved line, nor does taking WP:AE action. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been open for more than 30-days, so I think it's time to close. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and close the discussion, though there isn't that much that isn't obvious to an outside observer. NW (Talk) 02:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Misleading Sections

Specifically citations 7 and 12.

First, the source for citation 7 does not mention Senkaku or its equivalent at all. We have no reason to assume that they are included.

As for citation 12, it explicitly includes the original pronunciation and the Mandarin pronunciation, but not the Japanese pronunciation. The phrasing, as it is, is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DXDanl (talk • contribs) 07:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead (at present time!)

The last sentence of the lead is currently incomprehensible to those not already familiar with the topic (e.g. me!) "The Japanese government has not allowed Ishigaki to develop the islands" - Ishigaki has not been mentioned in the lead so far. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the previous sentence mentions Ishigaki City. Moreover, I think it unlikely that someone sane would view the last sentence first. GotR ^Talk 21:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions

The sanction templates and all the talk page headers, and all use of Senkaku here had their names changed. i found them again under Senkaku. I have notified the editor (User:OYCH1961, User talk:OYCH1961) that this was improper editing. I am new here, and dont know how the sanctions are actually applied, but this was obviously improper.(mercurywoodrose)108.94.0.18 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:119.133.108.121 appears to be Oych1961. they blanked my comment here (since restored by someone else, thank you), and have been otherwise disruptive, at their talk page and at a subpage which is their version of this article, User talk:OYCH1961/Fishing islets, User:OYCH1961/Fishing islets and User talk:119.133.108.121. I havent even edited the article! Oh, i see others are aware of this. good, i hope thats the end of it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Diaoyu is the inherent name. "Senkaku Islands" is a fake or a false from the English name, "Pinnacle Islands" in 1900 when a Japanese hastily translated the English name, "Pinnacle Islands" into a Japanese one, "Senkaku Shotō" without identification from the long used name, "Uotsuri Jima" in Japanese from Chinese name, "Diaoyu".

Arguments:

The first reference to the islands in a book published in English was Edward Belcher's 1848 account of the voyages of HMS Sammarang. Captain Belcher observed that "the names assigned in this region have been too hastily admitted." Belcher reported anchoring off Pinnacle Island in March 1845.

In 1870s and 1880s, the English name Pinnacle Islands was used by the British navy for the rocks adjacent to the largest island Diaoyu Dao (then called Hao-yu-su in the Amoy dialect, 钓鱼屿, "Fishing Island"); Huangwei Yu; and Chiwei Yu. The name "Pinnacle Islands" is used by some as an English-language equivalent to "Diaoyu".

In 1900, a Japanese hastily translated the English name, "Pinnacle Islands" into a Japanese one, "Senkaku Shotō" without identification from the used name, "Uotsuri Jima" or "Fishing Islands" in Chinese, for it was the fact that Japanese knew nothing about the Diaoyu Islands but Belcher's 1848 account, nor was able to tell the differnce between "Senkaku Shotō" and "Uotsuri Jima" in Japanese, nor even landed on the islands until 1900. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OYCH1961 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition to section on 2012 flag-raising incidents

Following this existing sentence

Chinese protestors overturned Japanese-branded cars and smashed windows of Japanese-themed businesses.

add the following:

Xu Wenguang, program director of CCTV 1, drew attention to the contributions that the Japanese had made to the Chinese language and called the protests "cheap means of displaying your intolerance"; in an appeal to their patriotism, he asked the protestors to "strive to help this country gain respect from others."

Cite the following as the reference:

{{cite web| url= http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4138| title=And the greatest Japanese export to China is... | date= August 21, 2012 | work= [[Shanghaiist]] | publisher= [[Language Log]] | first= Victor |last=Mair| authorlink= Victor H. Mair| accessdate=2012-08-24| quote= To all those people calling for the boycott of Japanese products and those using this opportunity to attack the property of your own countrymen. You need to know that the biggest Japanese export to China isn't cars, or television sets or manga. It's language.... If you love this country, then strive to help this country gain respect from others instead of using cheap means of displaying your intolerance.}}

Thanks. 68.165.77.214 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that this should not go into the article. The article already talks too much about the politics, and if we were to start adding commentary on the events, it would get even worse. Should we then quote politicians who talked about the riots about the events related to the island? What about people commenting about those comments? I just think this would lead to bloating. However, I'm willing to continue to discussing it. Note, though, my proposal in the section above, to move all of this section to the dispute article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Some artilce have good explanation for claim by many countires in South China Sea [36] so maybe OK to give "commentary" with reference.220.128.111.224 (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian. If you open the article up to political commentary then every viewpoint would have to be addressed, which would lead to a bloated article. John Smith's (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming of the article

hatting this just to stop discussion per the Arbcom results and later RfC; however, anyone uninvolved is welcome to uncollapse if you think I'm wrong here

I'm certainly no expert on the political status of the Islands, but would using the more neutral "Pinnacle Islands" be more appropriate as opposed to Senkaku/Diaoyutai? LeedsHK16 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) This has been discussed a lot. There have been numerous renaming discussions, but they've all failed. And "neutrality" governs article content, not titles. The most common name in English is what decides what articles are called. E.g. "Bill Clinton", rather than "William Clinton". John Smith's (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) How do you determine "most"? Number of google hits on a search? Number of times a term is used in the media? On both accounts, "Diaoyu Islands" beats out "Senkaku Islands" or "Pinnacle Islands." If what you've said is true, then this article needs to have its title changed.Buryatrider (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Please note: this issue may not be discussed currently. Due to long term tendentious editing on the article, the article participants went to WP:ARBCOM. After a few editors were blocked/banned, we had an RfC to determine the name. The consensus was that Senkaku Islands is the correct name. Based upon the discretionary sanctioning power authorized by the ArbCom case, User:NuclearWarfare stated that the naming issue may not be discussed again until 2013. We literally may not discuss the issue until then. Until that point, I suggest all interested participants review the archives (look in the top right hand side of this talk page) and see why the consensus was to use the current title. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC) By the way, the US, which is officially neutral in the dispute, refers to the islands as the Senkakus. [37] Shii (tock) 07:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC) This is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. Like Japanese language means what most Japanese people speak, Chinese language means what most Chinese people speak, English language, I think, is the language most English people speak, American have no rights to define English.--123.114.203.212 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nixon-Sato Summit in November 21, 1969

It is crucial to understand and to be added to the main article content that Okinawa (including the areas of the latitude of 24°-26° and longitude of 122°-124° of Ryukyu Islands that encompasses Diaoyu Island or Diaoyu Islet) was bilaterally decided to be reverted to Japan by the Joint Communique between US and Japan in 1969. See http://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/docs/19691121.D1E.html (1.164.39.218 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC))

I don't see any mention of Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands in that document. Since it's not there explicitly, we would need a reliable source (and by that, I do not mean a Japanese government/advocacy source) that said that Senkaku was built into that agreement. And, in any event, this would almost certainly belong in Senkaku Islands dispute, not this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be reasonable to add a link of Senkaku Islands dispute to this article because they are geographically inter-related with the governance on the areas of Ryukyu Islands. (114.36.105.100 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Unfortunately, Okinawa or Ryukyu Islands belong together as the Americans defined this geographical context after World War Two and then reverted these islet(s) to Japan, and indisputably caused the Senkaku Islands dispute. (114.36.110.122 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC))

Okinawa or Ryukyu Islands are clearly seperated with Diaoyu/Senkakus Island by Okinawa trough geographically, rather it shares the same marine shelf with Taiwan. And it is never governed by Ryukyu Kingdom historically. So it will be misleading by mixing Diaoyu Islands with Ryukyu Islands, or by saying it's geographically inter-reated.Qqakai (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, guess what, there was a state called Ryūkyū Kingdom that existed till late 19th century. Eventually, the dispute of Senkaku islands will produce the question of the legal status of Ryukyu islands, which is detrimental collectively to the Japanese southward intention in the region, national strategy of China, political slogan of Taiwan and American democracy in Asia. (111.248.245.56 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 3 March 2012

The correct name should be Diaoyu Islands

Bingqilin (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please read the sanctions at the top of the page and the conclusion of the RFC on article naming two sections above. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The islands are owned by a Japanese family. They have been under Japanese (or American) control for well over 100 years. There was little if any Chinese control or occupation before that. There are at least three possible names for the islands. As a matter of course the name used by the occupying power (whether legal or not) should be preferred. So Senkaku must be preferred to Diaoyu. If there is no agreement, I would suggest that the name should be Pinnacle, as that represents neither contesting power, and could be regarded as a neutral name.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"As a matter of course the name used by the occupying power should be preferred"—no, the WP:common name is preferred, as "Xisha Islands" is not used for the Paracels. GotR ^Talk 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are many inconsistencies in Wikipedia titles when it comes to the disputed islands... EX. Liancourt Rocks page - Korea occupies and administers it now but it's not titled as Dokdo(Korean name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrideDefiler (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 August 2012(UTC)

I second this notion that the name Pinnacle Island be used. Or better yet, a mix alphabetic/numerical code be given to any/all disputed lands/islands on wikipedia. Also, inconsistencies in Wikipedia titles must be addressed. In most articles regarding East/Southeast Asian topics, where there is a Japanese equivalent/comparison, the Japanese names always takes precedent, and the actual original article is then later merged with it under the Japanese name. I don't wish to come across as anti-japanese, as this is most likely of a historic reason, as the west was first exposed to East/Southeast Asian culture through the interaction with the Japanese, but it needs not to be on wikipedia.Gw2005 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a historically problem of WW2 when Japanese occupied many unlawful land of mainland, and returned by US as a politicall exchanging properties.Qqakai (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Owner name spelling

I changed the spelling of the owner's name to reflect the one used in the article from BBC, but now I noticed that the original spelling was taken from a Japanese paper in English. So maybe they know better? Does someone know which source is better? --Dia^ (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The owner is Kunioki/國起. Hiroyuki/弘行 is Kunioki's brother. Hiroyuki was the owner of Minamikojima and Kitakojima until 2002. [38] Oda Mari (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Purchase of islands

I would suggest that the Japanese government buying the islands has not "nationalized its control". It is merely purchasing them from the Kurihara family.203.184.41.226 (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Asian Characters in Opening Paragraph

I don't know who owns these islands and to be honest I don't really care. What I do know is that because of the number of different character sets in the paragraph it took me about 6 attempts to read the first 4 lines. Interesting and informative though this detail is, couldn't everything in brackets be moved into the infobox for the sake of clarity?

Answer: Without those characters, it is impossible to discern the tones of the Chinese transliteration. They are necessary to even know how to pronounce the name of the Diaoyu islands (referred to in the article title as Senkaku, which is incorrect and illegal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.114.102 (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I really think Wade-Giles is unnecessary. I mean, no political entity or organisation has used Wade-Giles since the 1950s. Both mainland China and Taiwan, in addition to various UN departments, and various NGOs use Hanyu Pinyin. The Wade-Giles in the lede takes up a large chunk of space, and it really isn't helping readers at all. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Wade-Giles isn't used at all anymore, and its use on Wikipedia baffles me. Chinese characters and pinyin are sufficient. However, the characters and pinyin definitely need to remain, to make the pronunciation clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.114.102 (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wade-Giles were added quite recently by this edit. It should be removed.　According to the WP:UEIA, "a non-Latin alphabet ... should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration" and "If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph". So the non-Latin alphabets and pinyins should be included. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the Wade-Giles. If the pinyins are incorrect, please correct them. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Incidents

There should be a reference to the Chunxiao gas field, the discovery of which has caused the recent flare-up of territorial disputes. Ownership of the Gas Field could potentially make the nation trillions of dollars.

Does anyone else think that the 2012 incidents section is too long, violating WP:UNDUE? Should this be moved, perhaps, to Senkaku Islands dispute? The events don't really have anything to do with the islands themselves--rather, it seems more about the political problems around ownership. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian. Also, 2010 collision incident should be moved to Senkaku Islands dispute. As there are already duplicated descriptions in both article, They can be simply deleted from this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I could live with a sentence in the "Dispute over island ownership" section that said something like, "Since 2010, there have been a number of incidents related to the islands that have caused significant diplomatic tensions between the parties, including the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident and the 2012 Senkaku flag raising incidents." Note that the latter would probably point to a section on the dispute article, not to an independent article (since I don't think the events are notable enough individually to be an article, and I don't think we'd be justified in linking them per WP:OR). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Political problems around ownership" would seem intrinsic to the topic itself. If the Dutch were still maintaining a claim on Manhattan, wouldn't that be part of the Manhattan entry? -WikiSkeptic (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not if we had a separate article entitled Manhattan ownership; in that case, the dispute information belongs at the other article. Just like here. The idea is that since the topic is quite large, it made sense to split off the political dispute from the more "factual" geographic claims that appear here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, I would support merger of both the articles regarding the ongoing dispute. A summary of the article should be left on this article, and the dispute article should be considered a subarticle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree that the territorial dispute material should be moved to the Senkaku Islands dispute article while this article should be about the geography. --Nug (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Incident sections should be merged into the dispute article as this is a geography article. Oda Mari (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Agree the incidents should be summarized here though; maybe have two "Main article:"s under Dispute over island ownership header. The article itself cannot be merged, it's very long. --Sigmundur (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Agree moving the current events out of the article to the Senkaku Islands dispute is probably appropriate. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion has been going on for a while, and there seems to be a fairly solid consensus in favor of removal, I'll remove the two sections once the full protection is over. The dispute article already contains much of the same info, so I don't think there's anything new to merge. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012

As I already said, we are literally not allowed to discuss a title change on this article until 2013. Anyone continuing to do so can be blocked under the Arbcom sanctions described at the top of the page.

The naming of the article is Biased, for disputed topic. it should be addressed as both Diaoyu Island and Senkaku. Conanwwww (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Not done: It's clear that there is a longstanding dispute over the title of the article. It's not clear how this title was decided on, but it will take more than a suggestion of bias in the naming to get a change. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Not only was it a long process (multiple RfCs, mediation, and eventually an Arbcom case), as a result of said Arbcom case and the ruling of a neutral admin, we may not discuss the title of the article until 2013. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC) The title is biased. It needs to be changed right now. If I changed the title of the Hawaii article to "Japanese Hawaii", it would be changed right back. However, the Japanese seem to be allowed to unilaterally decide the name of these islands on Wikipedia. There is obviously some sort of payoff going on to have the Wikipedia administrators make that decision. It isn't an option. The title needs to change right now. It is blatantly offensive, racist and provocative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.114.102 (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Not going to happen for the reasons already given. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I think the title should be changed to the English name. The English name is not disputed by either party and cannot be "wrong". Every referenced content should be allowed and non-reference content should expressed in a neutral way that does not offend anyone. I always thought Wikipedia was neutral. But looking at the way the disputes are settled by a committee (no guarantee for qualification) and certain authors who have more power than others, I start to think Wikipedia is just another subjective biased half knowledge portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habahaba1234 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

User 107.6.114.84

I reported the user's conduct to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal attack by 107.6.114.84. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on Island Name History

The Name of Senkaku Island is a direct translation from its english name Pinnacle island. Senkaku referring to the pinnacle of a church (the way japanese understood the vocabulary).

The main island, Uotsuri-jima for japanese, Uotsuri is literally means "fishing", Jima means Island. Diaoyu Dao for chinese, Diaoyu literally means "fishing", Dao means island.

The Japanese do agree on the name "fishing island" (Uotsuri-jima/Diaoyu Dao), but they used the japanese translation of "Pinnacle Islands" to name the whole island group. While the Chinese use Diaoyu Qun Dao, for the whole island group, Qun means "group"

Diaoyu Dao /Uotsuri-jima (fishing island): from 15th century ~ current

The Pinnacle Island: 1845~

Senkaku island: a direct translation of the Pinnacle island 1970~ current — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.185.199 (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for The current coordinates are 25.766667,123.516667 but the location is in the sea, North-east of the actual island

It seems more accurate to use the following: 25,7449, 123,474

—Claudev8 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the current coordinates (25°44′41.49″N 123°28′29.79″E) is correct. It is on the center of Uotsuri-jima. I confirmed it by GeoHack[39] and Google Earth.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And 25° 44′ 41.49″ N, 123° 28′ 29.79″ E is decimally 25.744858, 123.474942. --Kusunose 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2012

name = Diaoyu Islands 24.37.66.154 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per previous discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Once protection is lifted, I would like to add this source to the "History" section to provide more information on the Kurihara family who owned the islands since the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the article

This article could be improved and expanded.

1. The "Early History" section does not really explain what is the earliest documentation from the point of view of Japan. It seems to only list the views of China and Europe.

2. ""On 11 September 2012, the Japanese government nationalized its control over Minamikojima, Kitakojima, and Uotsuri islands"."

The spelling is inconsistent with the previous standard which uses hyphenation.

3. I would have liked to line up the "One islet of the group – Uotsuri" photo with the paragraph that starts with "In 1870s and 1880s, the English name Pinnacle Islands" but the article is protected so I cannot do it.

ICE77 (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

The name of the islands is wrong! It must be Diaoyu Islands as it was so called since many centuries ago. The content was written by some people who want to make it appear as if the islands are really owned by the Japanese, then China is just "claiming" it.

Therefore I sincerely request to edit the content for the sake of rectifying the wrong info.

Thank you!

Henry Wong Ph.D Hong Kong hwong0309@yahoo.com.hk

112.200.176.220 (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If you read the notices at the top of this page, you will note that this article is currently under sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Under these sanctions, attempts to rename or discuss renaming this article are prohibited until 2013. Users who violate the terms of these sanctions are liable to be blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal Request on September 20, 2012

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is very biased and misleading. A lot of statements are not based on historic evidence. As an attorney, I suggest the removal of this article to avoid further conflicts, disputes and liabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.36.13 (talk • contribs) Please note that making legal threats will result in you being blocked per WP:NLT. Furthermore, you didn't actually say what's wrong with the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC) This article should be temporarily removed before it becomes more neutral. If you read the article rating, the low scores is a strong suggestion of its low quality. Furthermore, I think Qwyrxian should not admin this page as his position is clearly biased towards Japan if you read all his comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Please don't take kind advice as legal threat. Doing so only shows the administrator of the page is biased.

Edit request on 20 September 2012

Isn't "Japanese workers at a bonito fisheries processing plant on Uotsuri-jima sometime around 1910" grammatically wrong? Shouldn't it be "Japanese workers at a bonito fishery processing plant on Uotsuri-jima sometime around 1910"? Andrarias (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Andrarias (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but have changed it as you suggest — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I want to request an edit of this part:

After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4] Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan) following the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in 1971.

The sentence is correct, but it is also a little bit misleading. The PRC and ROC didn´t begin to claim the islands, because of the oil reserves, but because both governments thought that the US would give these islands to the PRC or ROC till 1971. They began to claim it at the end of 1971, when Japan made it public that Japan and the US regard the Senkaku Islands as Japan´s territory (Okinawa Reversion Treaty).

I would prefer to change it into this:

They are located roughly due east of Mainland China, northeast of Taiwan, west of Okinawa Island, and north of the southwestern end of the Ryukyu Islands. In 1968 it was discovered that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands.

After the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in December 1971 with the Okinawa Reversion Treaty Japan's sovereignty claims over the islands has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan).

Thank you very much. Mr.Helfer (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable change to me; unless there are objections when I log in tomorrow, I'll put it in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The proposed change is an unsourced original research. Both China never expected the return of the islands. On the contrary, there are several evidences that both China regarded the islands as Japanese territory.　(See Japan's position section of this article.) There was no objection from both China about the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, the US trusteeship of the islands and the reversion of the islands to Japan. The above timeline is incorrect.

• 1966 CCOP of ECAFE began a survey of mineral resources in East China Sea.
• Mar. 1969 Newsweek reported the possibility of one trillion dollar worth oil reserve in East China Sea.
• Nov. 21, 1969 Joint Communique regarding the return of Okinawa was released.
• Dec. 29, 1970 PRC's first objection to US company's oil survey operation which had been conducted for the past several months.
• Feb. 23, 1971 Taiwan's first claim over the islands objecting the exploration of the continental shelf.
• Jun. 17, 1971 Okinawa reversion treaty was signed.
• Dec. 30, 1971 PPC's official claim over the islands.

Source pp.9-12

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

At first I was going to say that both the present and the suggested change are wrong...I was worried that the current version is WP:SYNTHESIS. But if you look at the quote in the reference (which appears to be from a neutral third party, though I'm less certain on this point), that author himself explicitly makes the "oil is found, which is what then started China into making claims" argument. However, if Mr. Helfer has references that support his proposed version, then presumably we could include both (although the complexity may be such that the point needs to move out of the lead and into the body). But without new sources, and the clarity of the current source, I think the current version is most accurate. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the quote is a part of claims of Japan. There are reliable sources which say the discovery of oil reserve triggered the sovereignty claim of both China.[40][41]

You can search further by the key word Senkaku Islands ECAFE 1968.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I held off; figured if someone knew more they'd bring it up. Anyways, I'm interested to hear from Mr.Helfer what, if any, sources he might have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view it looks like a claim-game of both sides. I came to this article after reading a BBC summary (http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict). In the summary it was stated :

"But Beijing says Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek did not raise the issue, even when the Diaoyu islands were named in the later Okinawa reversion deal, because he depended on the US for support."

Further it looks like that the US were aware that the situation of the islands wasn´t clear. (http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict):

"Although US occupation authorities in Okinawa administered the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands from 1945 until 1972 and used them as a training base, the US government did not see the transfer to Japan of the right of administration over the islands as equivalent to the transfer of sovereignty, which it insisted was a matter to be resolved by the relevant parties. Realising that such an ambiguity existed, the Okinawa Legislative Assembly, still under US control at the time, passed a resolution in August 1970 which declared the islands to be part of Japan and its claims were backed up by the then foreign minister Aichi Kiichi in the National Diet. In the meantime Taiwan issued an official protest, followed before the end of the year by similar complaints voiced by official Chinese media."

Too be honest I am not able to conduct, which side is right at the moment and therefore would ask for some support regarding this matter. Mr.Helfer (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your source written by a Chinese student[42] impressed me how it distorted the fact for promoting Chinese position.

1. The description "the US government did not see the transfer to Japan of the right of administration over the islands as equivalent to the transfer of sovereignty, which it insisted was a matter to be resolved by the relevant parties." is completely false because the US government never wonder to which country Senkaku Islands should be returned.
2. The resolution was declared in the midst of an oil war in the area. "the continental shelf exploitation license given by Taiwan to the U.S. Pacific Gulf Corporation in July,1970, which include the Senkaku islets within the concession area and conflicted with the area applied for by the Japanese Oil Corporation"[43] In protest against the Taiwan's exploration, Okinawa Legislative Assembly passed a resolution called "Resolution on the territorial defense of Senkaku Islands" not "Realising that such an ambiguity existed".
3. Aichi Kiichi answered "The Japanese sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands is not a shadow of doubt. This is not a matter to discuss or negotiate with other country". It is the same answer that current Prime Minister and Foreign Minister expressed. There is no implication behind the answer like "Realising that such an ambiguity existed".

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

He is a Graduate history student, who studied at Yale and was funded by the Japan Foundation. Should I critizize the use of a South-Korean autor, too? Nationalities really shouldn´t matter in this case. I am not even sure, whether Lee is British with Chinese descendants or a Chinese after all.

1. The current standpoint of the US is that China, Taiwan and Japan should resolve their problems peacefully. Even now the US-American government don´t say, who is the owner of the islands. And like your own timetable says: The US knew that Taiwan wanted the islands.

1. That´s a good part. We should try to work it into this or the Senkaku Island´s dispute article.

1. Of course the Japanese government say this. The ambiguity was about the fact that the Taiwanese officials claimed the opposite. Mr.Helfer (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Helfer, you wrote The PRC and ROC didn't begin to claim the islands, because of the oil reserves, but because both governments thought that the US would give these islands to the PRC or ROC till 1971. What made both governments thought that the US would give these islands to the PRC or ROC till 1971? I'd like to know what are the grounds of the idea with reliable sources. Oda Mari (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than this. Till the oil discovery the PRC, ROC and Japan weren´t really aware about their potential claims on these islands. After the discovery the three countries began to make questions regarding its sovereignity. If the islands were part of the Middle Kingdom before, the islands would have been automatically transferred to China (PRC or ROC) by the US.

Read part "3.4.10. Domestic confusions about the islands ownership" and "3.5. The Year 1969 – The Oil Discovery (http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf):

and

"Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war."

(http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/#more-11688) Mr.Helfer (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to argue furthermore? Your proposed text was already proved to be wrong. The dispute began before "the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in December [sic] 1971 with the Okinawa Reversion Treaty" as described in the above timeline. All the disputes in 1970 are related to the oil exploration in the area as described in my source[44] and yours[45]. The fact is that the oil discovery triggered the dispute and the reversion of the islands to Japan fueled the dispute.

P.S. Please don't cite an article written by a typical pro-China scholar Han-yi Shaw along with an article written by a Chinese student in this discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit that the conflict began earlier. Sorry for that, Phoenix7777, I was confused by a chronology format of another article. However I still propose a change, because the current one implies that the PRC and ROC are only concerned about the oil, while this conflict is more about national and historical pride. Can we change it into this?

After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4] the sovereignty over them has been disputed by Japan, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan).

(The administration transfer is already mentioned with "The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972, when the islands reverted to Japanese control under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty between the United States and Japan.[5]")

P.S.: Han-yi Shaw seems to be a good enough source for a New York Times journalist. Why do you think we shouldn´t use him? And how do you know that Joyman Lee is a Chinese? He is cited by Reuters and was published by historytoday. Of course we can work without them and use other sources. I am just curious. After all we use Japanese and Western authors, too. Mr.Helfer (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Han-yi Shaw seems to be a good enough source for WP.That NYT journalist, Nicholas D. Kristof, is known as pro-China one. Possibly because his wife is Chinese. He wrote "So which country has a better claim to the islands? My feeling is that it’s China, although the answer isn’t clearcut." in his blog in 2010. [46] He also wrote "In reality, of course, there is zero chance that the U.S. will honor its treaty obligation over a few barren rocks. " He was totally wrong. I don't think he is a good journalist. See also this. Consulate-General of Japan in New York protested against the content of his Sept.10 blog and the refutation was appeared on NYT. Oda Mari (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas D. Kristof has the Pulitzer price. Does the journalist have to bear the Nobelprize before we can regard him as good? Why is he a "known" pro-Chinese journalist? You are clearly biased in this case, Oda Mari. However it doesn´t matter whether we use Han-yi Shaw or not. The other source is reasonable enough for the proposed change. 89.204.139.177 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion. He and NYT were criticized in a book entitled "Japan Made in USA/Laughed at Japanese: Strange Japanese Described by The New York Times" (1998). See [47] and [48] (translation). Pulitzer prize winners are not necessarily neutral. Oda Mari (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If we follow your logic, nobody is necessarily neutral. Even you have to admit that this is a real minority view regarding the neutrality of the NYT and Kristof. Problably we can even find some books about the "real objectives" of 9/11.89.204.138.209 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

on the islands

Kogo Tatsushiro only constructed one bonito processing plant on the islands. It was constructed "on one of the islands". Not "on the islands". The correct sentence would be "Kogo Tatsuhiro constructs a bonito processing plant on one of the island in 1923 (or whenever)". Eregli bob (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 22 September 2012

the geography section has some significant errors in listed distances to the islands as well as who controls islands nearby. the distance data purports to link to documentation, (footnote 32) but instead links to the wikipedia page of the organization that is supposed to have put out the numbers, the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Resolution.

When i investigated the figures, they seem to be wrong in various ways.

When i measured the distance from the closest island in the cluster via google maps, it showed the closest distance as only 141km distance to the closet japanese island i could find, Hatoma Island (JP), which is located just north of the coast of Inamote Island. The figure currently indicated in the article for distance to Ishigashi Island says it is 170km, but this is clearly incorrect- a measurement of that shows it as 146km to the closest point. In fact, there seems to be no evidence or documentation listed to support the 170km figure.

in addition, the island of Pengjia seems to be controlled by Taiwan, rather than PRC, as is currently erroneously indicated in the article. There is an article from last decade in the Taiwan Times discussing the Taiwanese lighthouse keeper, and one recent one from sept 5th 2012 in the Taiwan times indicating that President Ma of taiwan it about to visit his constituents on Pengjia islet. the above article also confirms that the listed distance of 140km to Pengjia island is correct, though it should probably be listed as territory of Taiwan, not PRC, since Taiwan seem to control it.

i have not checked the distance info for Keelung(PRC) or Okinawa(JP)

i understand that the above documentation might not be enough to produce accountable numbers, but hopefully i have made the case that the current info is wrong and at the least the first two should be removed until they can be corrected.

Ascallion (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

China announces standardised geographical names

Two organisations of the PRC, the State Oceanic Administration and Ministry of Civil Affairs, has recently announced standardised names for geographic entities within the island group. These names are official for PRC-published maps as of 21 September 2012. Refer to this report by Xinhua News Agency. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you are requesting or simply making a statement here? The article lists Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, and English names of the islands. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The recent announcement officially standardises names, and also includes names of points on top of islands and straits between islands, not only islands and reefs. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Did the name change from what we use in the article? We shouldn't provide names for all of those smaller points, but if there was some other change, we should follow suit. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Some points.

This article is more notable for what it omits than what it includes. The history is shorn of a large number of significant details, the outlines of which you can get in a short article (somewhat polemical but written by a Tufts University historian/professor of Japanese Studies Gary Leupp Inside the Anti-Japanese Protests in China, in Counterpunch, 27 September 2012. That he chooses Counterpunch for his venue is neither here nor there.

• There is no mention that Hayashi Shihei 林子平’s Illustrated Survey of the Three Countries, (三国通覧図説. Sangoku tsûran zusetsu, 1785)designated the islands as Chinese territory, using Chinese names.ref Gavan McCormack, Satoko Oka Norimatsu,Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States, Rowman & Littlefield, Jul 16, 2012 p.262

• In 1971, the Okinawa Reversion Treaty passed the U.S. Senate, returning the islands to Japanese control in 1972.21
• (a) a dated newspaper report should not stand where readily accessible specialist book sources give the same info.
• (b) This is not NPOV and should read:'In 1971, the Okinawa Reversion Treaty passed the U.S. Senate, returning the islands to Japanese administrative control in 1972, without prejudice to the claims of third parties.' ref. State department comuniqué dated Oct 21 1971 in Yōichi Funabashi, Alliance Adrift, Council of Foreign Relations 1999, p.405

• 'Also in 1972, the Taiwanese and Chinese governments officially began to declare ownership of the islands.[22]'
  • The source reads: Since the 1970s, after studies indicated there may be possible lucrative gas reserves around them, the islets have also been claimed by China, which calls the territory Diaoyu, and by Taiwan, where the islets are known as Tiaoyutai
• The claims didn't begin also to be claimed in the 1970s by China/Taiwan, which simplifies long historical claims and usage, the facts, and breaks NPOV.

It should be clarified that the Senkaku dispute was longstanding since it hinged around Chinese claims to the Okinawa group. After the Reversion Treaty in 1971, the Taiwanese ROC and mainland PRC position was identical. in 1971 (June 11)(not as we and the source say 1972) the ROC government said it would never renounce Chinese sovereignty over the Senkaku islands. This was identical to the PRC claim.The crux with the US was similar. The US had in the postwar period recognized the Senkaku group as part of Okinawa, but the Nixon administration refrained from taking a position on these islands at the time of the Reversion Treaty. Admitting Japanese rights over this contentious issue would have compromised Nixon’s overtures to China, a key point in his foreign policy. Kimie Hara,Cold War Frontiers in the Asia Pacific:Divided Territories in the San Francisco System, Taylor & Francis, 2006 chapter 7 pp.156ff. pp.179-180Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is highly biased and has ignored a lot of historical facts

This wikipedia Senkaku page is controlled and kidnapped by right wing Japanese nationalist. Many "facts" are wrong and distorted with no proof and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.67.179 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The History section of the article is highly biased and a lot of actual historical evidence has been ignored. Clearly the creator of that section biased towards Japan. The section gives the impression that the islands belongs to Japan in the first place until oil reserve was discovered then Chinese started to claim it.

In fact, Japan took the islands when they scored a victory in 1895. Long before that, islands was part of China. I am not trying to say who the islands belong however the following article reflects a more object view on the issue. Please add a section "China-Japan Ownership dispute" with following contents.

Since 1970 the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Japan have all put forward bold sovereignty claims over the islands, which are equidistant from Taiwan and the southwestern tip of the Ryukyus. According to Chinese sources the first mention of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is in a 15th-century document now held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Early sources tended to mention only the islands’ location on the voyage to the Ryukyus from China, but by the 17th century Chinese sources clearly named the maritime boundary between the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and the Ryukyus as the Heishuigou (‘Black Water Trench’), an area of high turbulence which we now know marks the edge of the continental shelf. In 1720 Xu Baoguang, the deputy Chinese ambassador sent to confer the royal title upon the Ryukyuan king, collaborated with the local literati to compile the travelogue Zhongshan Chuanxin lu (Record of the Mission to Chusan), which demarcated the westernmost border of the Ryukyuan kingdom at Kume-jima south of the Heishuigou Trench. Deputy ambassador Zhou Huang likewise identified Heishuigou as the boundary in 1756 and later the envoy Li Dingyuan noted the practice of sacrificing a live goat or pig when convoys crossed the trench. In the late 19th century the reformer Wang Tao, who had had experience of travelling in Europe, responded to the Japanese annexation of the Ryukyus by referring to Japanese sources which listed the Ryukyus as a separate country in 1670. He argued that even though the islands were vassals of both China and the Japanese state of Satsuma, the former relationship was more formal; the conquest of an inner tributary (Ryukyus) by an outer tributary (Japan) of China was a cause for outrage.

In contrast Japan’s argument largely ignored the historical position put forward in Chinese accounts. Claiming that the uninhabited islands were not occupied by any power, or terra nullius, Japan annexed the islands in 1895 shortly after its victory in the Sino-Japanese War. Japan claimed that the islands were ‘discovered’ in 1884 by Fukuoka merchant Koga Tatsushiro, who then applied to lease the land from the Japanese state. At the time, however, the interior ministry noted that it was still unclear as to whether the islands belonged to Japan, especially as there was detailed knowledge of the islands in Chinese and Ryukyuan writings, making Koga’s claims of ‘discovery’ difficult to substantiate. Nonetheless a Cabinet decision in 1895 ruled that the islands should become part of Japan, which provided the basis for their inclusion in Japan’s territories under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 that concluded the Second World War in Asia, but at which neither China nor Taiwan were present.

From the Chinese perspective there is little substance to Japan’s claims that the islands were not ‘occupied’, given that a fine distinction exists between ‘uninhabited’ and ‘unoccupied’. Sources suggest that there are graves of Taiwanese fishermen on the island. Although US occupation authorities in Okinawa administered the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands from 1945 until 1972 and used them as a training base, the US government did not see the transfer to Japan of the right of administration over the islands as equivalent to the transfer of sovereignty, which it insisted was a matter to be resolved by the relevant parties. Realising that such an ambiguity existed, the Okinawa Legislative Assembly, still under US control at the time, passed a resolution in August 1970 which declared the islands to be part of Japan and its claims were backed up by the then foreign minister Aichi Kiichi in the National Diet. In the meantime Taiwan issued an official protest, followed before the end of the year by similar complaints voiced by official Chinese media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

None of this is appropriate for this page. You can't use this talk page to argue what is or isn't true, or whose claims are or are not correct. This page is only for suggesting changes to teh article, which must be done based on reliable sources, not your own personal opinions/research. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this not appropriate? I am not to argue what is or isn't true but I'm saying it is not objective. The source is from http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict . If you are saying this source is not reliable, what makes the original article reliable and objective?

I suggest you present the sources for further discussions. There is one problem though. Wikipedia only accepts "neutral" and "reliable" sources which include most Western sources, even if they are somewhat biased. Chinese sources are cut off, because Chinese press is said to be controlled by the government. So basically this article will never be unbiased. But maybe you cite the sources anyway. --Habahaba1234 (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have used Chinese sources before in other articles, so, they aren't necessarily disallowed. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with you, the paragraph was part of http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict . On this issue, I have avoided to use Chinese sources to make it reliable, however, the sentence, "Wikipedia only accepts "neutral" and "reliable" sources which include most Western sources, even if they are somewhat biased. Chinese sources are cut off, because Chinese press is said to be controlled by the government.", itself is stereotype. It basically means two things : 1) Even biased Western sources can be used 2) All Chinese sources are not allowed regardless its objectivity. 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2012

Inconsistencies with regard to how Japanese names are to be rendered in English has led to an error in the paragraph entitled «Japanese and US control». As pointed out there, Koga Tatsushirō (古賀 辰四郎) constructed a bonito processing plant on the islands with 200 workers. However, the names of Koga's descendents who in the 1970s sold four of the islets to the Kurihara family was not, as stated there, «Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō», but rather Koga Zenji and Koga Hanako or, in the European order with given name first and surname last, Zenji and Hanako Koga. «Tatsushirō» was Koga Tatsushirō's given name, not his surname. I see two alternatives here :

1) Follow the traditional Japanese order, with surname first. In this case, «Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō» should be changed to «Koga Zenji and Koga Hanako».

2) Follow the standard European order (my apologies to Hungarians !), in which case «Koga Tatsushirō (古賀 辰四郎)» should be changed to «Tatsushirō Koga (古賀 辰四郎)» and «Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō» to «Zenji and Hanako Koga», the order used in the Japan Times article used as a source («The Kuriharas bought the four islets from family friends Zenji and Hanako Koga, whose family had been managing them since the Meiji Era.»).

Mhenriday (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the name order, it's nothing wrong. Koga Tatsushirō was born in 1856. See ja:古賀辰四郎. Our Manual of Style says "For a historical figure—a person born before the Meiji period (before 1868)—always use the traditional Japanese order of family name + given name in Latin script". According to this page, Zenji died in 1978 at the age of 84. He was a modern figure. Sorry, but I have no idea when Hanako was born. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Names of historical figures. To correct "Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō" to "Zenji and Hanako Koga" would be done by an admin soon. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this practice - i e, use of the traditional Japanese (East Asian) order for persons born prior to the Meiji era, but of European order for persons born subsequently - can easily lead to confusion, as in the above case, where the article authors misconstrued the surnames of Koga Zenji and his sister Hanako. In any event, it is, of course, necessary to correct the error ; I note that this has not yet been done.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenriday (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the name order should remain the way the MOS says, but that the other part should be changed. I am an admin, but highly involved here, so I'll wait and see if someone else does it; if not, I can do it in a few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says "In the 1970s, Koga Tatsushirō's descendents Zenji and Hanako Tatsushirō... ". If the name order is confusing, how about a change like this? "In the 1970s, Mr and Mrs Koga, Tatsushirō's son Zenji and his wife Hanako...". Hanako is not Zenji's sister, but his wife. Oda Mari (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disabled request as it seems discussion is not yet complete — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion may not be «complete», but one thing is certain : the surname of the two persons concerned here, no matter whether the relation obtaining between them was that of siblings or man and wife, as Oda Mari indicates, is not «Tatsushirō». This error should be corrected as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhenriday (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an uninvolved admin who took an unannounced break for a couple of weeks and returned to find a request for help on his/my talk page. I'm sorry I couldn't be of help, but I infer that the problem (if it was a problem) has been fixed. If more disinterested help is needed, please ask. (Incidentally, I do have opinions about name order, and these don't fully agree with MoS-J. But I routinely edit in opposition to my own preferences.) NB this article is not on my watchlist. -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Now fixed. (A couple of hours ago, I inferred that it had already been fixed from the notice above saying that it had been fixed.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

China's White Paper

This recent news article caught my eye. Perhaps there's some information worthy of inclusion? Ample facts presented in China's white paper on Diaoyu Islands: U.S. scholars. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it's more of the People's Republic of China's official position regarding the island as oppose to describing the islands, it might be better suited for the Senkaku Islands dispute page. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese central government formally annexed the islands on 14 January 1895.

Why this was done in 1895? but not before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.201.211 (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Between 1895 and 1971, why China didn't protest against Japan in even once?Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 09:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

US Confirms Senkakus as Japan Territory before Inking Okinawa Reversion Pact

Anyway, I put the machine translation.

US Confirms Senkakus as Japan Territory before Inking Okinawa Reversion Pact

Just before the Okinawa Reversion Agreement signed in June 1971, it has been confirmed that presidential adviser Henry Kissinger (in charge of national security) is Japan's "residual sovereignty" is considered part of the Okinawa range Senkaku Islands and U.S. President Nixon at the time it was, I found out two days before. I had to save the audio materials Nixon Presidential Library in California recorded the exchange at this time.

"Residual sovereignty (sovereignty latent)" refers to the sovereignty having potential areas under foreign administration. The Obama administration has taken the position of "not involved in the sovereignty issue" in the Senkaku problem is now, during the day contest.

According to the audio material, afternoon, June 07 the same year, for about 20 minutes, from the aide Kissinger and President Nixon Republic of China (Taiwan) at the time of the signature of the agreement the reversion of Okinawa to forthcoming after 10 days in the Oval Office of the White House I have investigated the status of the Senkaku Islands had been opposed to the return to Japan.

In this, when Japan withdrew from Taiwan in 45 years, in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of the year. 51 which is left with "Okinawa Senkaku Islands, the aide Kissinger residual sovereignty of Japan in Okinawa was observed by us. I insisted on these islands is a big decision "was made ​​at that time.

Over the opposition of the Republic of China, on the Senkaku Islands "special negotiation has not been done at all until the peace treaty in 1971. (From China) will let go already, is automatically included in Okinawa. This is today (pointed out, "the history) up. President Nixon, in accordance with the "You can not mess up" the Okinawa reversion negotiations, we have supported the opinion of the aide said. (2012/10/03-15: 47)

Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 08:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

English version is here. Oda Mari (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I added it to Senkaku Islands dispute along with another report.[49]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 05:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

More Information about Senkaku Island

Her is another link for you to have more information about the Senkaku Island Dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adri Valdez (talk • contribs) 09:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

--Adri Valdez Diaz. 12:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Adri Valdez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adri Valdez (talk • contribs)

--Adri Valdez Diaz. 12:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Adri Valdez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adri Valdez (talk • contribs)

Edit request to add text for romanizations

The Japanese text for Senkaku-guntō (being 尖閣群島) and Senkaku-rettō (尖閣列島) should be added to the lede next to their romanizations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Should it be 尖閣列島 (S-R) or S-R (尖閣列島)? I've done the former; if it should be the latter, make another request. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be names Diaoyu Island or Senkaku Island in the article title instead of just Senkaku Island to avoid siding. Wikipedia should be neutral in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.72.106 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection of the Chinese-language-name re-directs for the Senkaku Islands

A secret content-fork of the Senkaku Islands was managed to be created by an Australian-based Chinese-speaking editor. Surely, ALL Chinese-language-name re-directs should also be under full protection from editing? -- KC9TV 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the request at WP:RFP, I have indefinitely fully-protected the page. When there is consensus to move content here or otherwise remove the redirect, let me know. Steven Walling • talk 22:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)