Talk:Senkaku Islands

Name change suggestion

I suggest renaming the article "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" to make it more neutral.--Maps9000 (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I support this suggestion to help the article's NPOV. I think a few of the admins lean towards the Japanese position, however, and locked the page the last time someone tried to rename it. Yi Ding (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

First, note that "neutrality" isn't quite the right way of putting it; the question is, "What name to people use when writing about the subject in English". Essentially, that is, by definition, the English name.

It is the English name because America is biased. I agree to this of changing the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBZ.LVLV (talk • contribs) 09:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So, if you wish to pursue a renaming discussion, which is fine as long as it's done civilly, you'll need to provide evidence that when the islands are discussed in English, they are generally referred to by both names or by some sort of hybrid name. Be sure to focus especially on high quality reference works and academic sources, though journalism sources are also fine. But on the latter, you'll need to do some serious work in showing the trend; Google search numbers won't tell you anything. I recommend looking through the archives of this page to see some of the work we've done previously, along with the several RfC's we've held that each time found "Senkaku Islands" to be the standard English name. It is possible, however, that over the last several years (since the topic has become more commonly discussed in English language media) the standard usage has changed; if it has, we should change with it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasoned response. I do think that journalists are beginning to use the names in combination more, but what you're saying does make sense. Yi Ding (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I hear more and more journalists referring to the islands as "Diaoyu" these days. --Menkus (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And I will also concur that, especially in the last year, I've heard and read many journalists say something like "these uninhabited islands, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China". But we need to be sure, and we also need to account for what high quality reference/academic work says. That is, we need to follow a clear linguistic change, not jump at what may be a passing trend. I have no interest in doing the research myself, but welcome a thoughtful discussion if others are willing to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is no need to change the name of this article as long as written to be "Administered by Japan" in the infobox. Aren't those all right if exist redirects of Diaoyu, Tiaoyu, Diaoyutai, Tiaoyutai (and Senkaku), are those?--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)--(minor)--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't name articles based on who administers them, we name them based on common usage in the English language. Otherwise, Liancourt Rocks would be located at Dokdo, because I don't see Japan Self-Defence Forces stationed on that island. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, on the technical aspect. It is unfortunate that this particular usage is so closely tied to Chinese issues of perceived sovereignty. I would support Wikipedia allowing "slashed" name articles in cases as contentious as this. Although, there could be a slippery slope there. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It does seem that in this case at least, most serious news reports make it a point to use both names. I don't have any strong preference between that or the way it stands now. a13ean (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your opinions. Considering broadcasts about this area in English, the suggestion "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" is not so bad. But I'm concerned about whether it is rational, sensible and appropriate selection. We cannot be free from recent Senkaku-Diaoyu dispute as far as we think about this article's name depending on recent broadcasts. What they said and written on these islands by governments and Foreign Affairs of U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New-Zealand, ... and UN?--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In reference to an above point, I found out fairly recently that, in fact, Wikipedia does allow slashed names. I don't recall how I found this, but we have an article Imia/Kardak. Note that I'm not suggesting that be used here, and I don't know the history behind the naming, but I just wanted to verify in good faith that it is technically possible. Of course, we can't use the name that I have seen recently, the islands called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. One thing to keep in mind is that if we somehow come to a conclusion that a slashed name is better, we would still need to determine the order. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am just hoping that it is a name that is the item this title are dealing mainly the history and geography of the islands is known. I think is not good in the title, such as first and foremost think of the territorial dispute. That, "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" in that or is suitable for the title of this article? (cf. another article, Senkaku_Islands_dispute).--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

ジャコウネズミ, and other editors who came this talk page recently, I suggest reading past talks in the archives. WP:NCPLACE#Alternative names says "Wikipedia articles must have a single title". The reason we use the current title, "Senkaku Islands", is it is the name used by United States Board on Geographic Names and by nautical charts of Australia, UK, and US. Media reports are not helpful because they use the two names as basic information regarding the dispute. Oda Mari (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, Oda Mari. I guess that settles it for now, then. I suppose this conversation would not have even come up if it weren't for recent territorial disputes. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The last "RfC" (post-Arbitration) [1] was done in the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [2][3]. It actually stifled voices from other side (opposing using "Senkaku"), so that none parties from the side opposing then Qwyrxian's side took part in that "RfC". Although I strongly oppose this "RfC", I did not touch or I did not think to be worth touching the two main pages regarding the Islands and the Dispute since then. Now I unexpectedly saw some positive changes from Qwyrxian's attitude toward this naming issue after many new comers raised questions to challenge the current name. I'd like to give full AGF to Qwyrxian. The last "RfC" (post-Arbitration) has been expired on January 1, 2013. Now it may be the time to open an RfC starting from a root question to solve this years-long naming issues. This RfC was unreasonablely prohibited to open or killed on November 24, 2011[4][5]. We need to get consensus that "Senkaku" is a Japanese name or a English name for these Islands first. Then we can make effort to see which way we can go to satisfy wp's NPOV, NOR, and other related naming policies. Now I re-post my suggestted RS as follows, and the draft anyone can revises is here User:Lvhis/xI RfC. --Lvhis (talk)

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

(rfc template was here) 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.

Policies and guidelines

• WP:VERIFY
• WP:ORIGINAL
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and 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 [6] 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 [7])
• Daniel J. Dzurek, "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996 [8]
• 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 [9] 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 [10]. 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".

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name

Put argument here.

Other comments from involved editors

==== Comments from uninvolved editors ====

And an old discussion with a talbe[11] may also be worth being reviwed as follows:

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

The original section has been archived POV_or_NPOV.3F, which was intially posted starting on 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC). The left column accusing "POV" was mainly completed by users Lvhis and Stuartyeates, and the right column defending "NPOV" was mainly completed by users Qwyrxian and Oda_Mari. User Kusunose helped in formatting the table.

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.

	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)

Pushing to use single "Senkaku" is same as pushing to use single "Diaoyu". Good quality reliable sources such as Times, CNN, Fox news and more almost always use "called Senkaku in Japan (or Japanese) and Diaoyu in China (or Chinese)". They also use "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Many editors (now including Qwyrxian) mentioned to use this slash way. One very important point I want to emphasis here is this "D/S" or "S/D" is not a original research, it is from very reliable resources! As for which one goes to first for the slash form, I believe it is easy to reach consensus. I myself won't care which one is put first.

My last words are: the development of the real world outside Wikipedia can be and has been totally independent on what name/title the related wp pages take. If Wikipedia inside pages/articles cannot reflect the real world outside Wikipedia or cannot catch up the changes and development of the outside real world, the one who looks like embarrassed or even stupid is the related wp pages, but not the outside real world. If one tries to use wp pages to change outside real world, one will be finally disappointed. But the changes of outside real world can eventually change the wp pages, pages of called online free encyclopedia. --Lvhis (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we use "Pinnacle Islands (Diaoyu/Senkaku)" to avoid POV? --202.108.128.130 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to Lvhis' proposed RfC above: just like last time, if you attempt to launch the RfC under this formatting and title, I will request it be stopped, and, at this point, I'll have to request you be topic banned. It was explained clearly last time why the way you've phrased that RfC 1) doesn't help us answer the question of what to title the article (because POV isn't actually the governing rule for article titles), 2) is itself biased, and 3)contains far more information than is allowed for an RfC to start (from WP:RFC: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template."). You've complained about the last RfC that was run, but you're trying to run one that is extremely unbalanced and against the rules. If you want the name to change (and, as you've correctly intuited above, I'm far more open to a name change than I was before, though I'm not entirely sold, and insist that we must account for what high quality references use, not just what newspapers use), you're going to have to do it fairly and neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, this one "Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV?" is NOT an RfC. It is an old discussion and worth being reviewed. You may have misunderstood. --Lvhis (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The "English name" argument simply cannot stand because "Senkaku" is not and has not been more common than "Diaoyu". I'll be tagging the article. STSC (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

STSC, rather than adding a tag, which really does nothing to advance the discussion, could you consider instead starting a discussion (or even RfC) that seeks clarification of the proper name? As I said/implied above, I am willing to look anew at the evidence. I do recognize that news reports have much more commonly used both names in the last year or so, but to really make a decision, we need to weigh that against what other sources have done. However, before starting said discussion, you may want to wait...Lvhis and Oda Mari are both likely about to be topic banned for 3 months, and, no disrespect intended, but Lvhis is the definitely the best advocate that the dual name has ever had. You may be more successful if you wait for 3 months for Lvhis to rejoin us. But, of course, your path is up to you. If you add the NPOV title tag, I won't revert you personally. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I really have the energy to involve a RfC. It's unfortunate that Lvhis is banned for 3 months; for the time being, tagging maybe the best course of action. STSC (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about freedom, and Japan is a much freer country than PRC-controlled China. So I think that in the spirit of Wikipedia, and the free and democratic western culture that it comes from, the name used in Japan "Senkaku" is the correct name for these islands. Also, the Japanese military currently seems to be able to keep Chinese ships away, so from a "de facto" perspective control (and with it naming) are on the Japanese side: Senkaku. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not on basically every count. Wikipedia is not about freedom--it's about building a "free" (which is different) encyclopedia that is neutral. Second, we're not here to judge which country is "freer" (even though I think most people would agree with you). Finally, and most importantly, we are not choosing the Japanese name--we must choose the English name. Current consensus is that Senkaku is the English name, though we can discuss if people want to dredge up data to prove otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the concept that there is such a thing as an "English name" is wrong. The evidence proponents have used to support the "English name" concept is usage in areas such as other encyclopedias, newspapers, and books. But the majority of these publications are inextricably tied to the American (and British) culture from which they derive. America and Britain are strong allies of Japan; the three countries share a common culture of freedom and democracy. On the other hand, America and Britain do not view the PRC as a close ally, because of its denial of so many fundamental human rights (like viewing Wikipedia). I think it is impossible to separate the English language from the American and British culture that dominate the usage of the language worldwide. So the real reasons we are using Senkaku get back to my original post; Wikipedia has a greater cultural affinity with Japan and its allies the US and Britain. Let's call a spade a spade and not beat around the bush with false quests in search of the true "English name". --Westwind273 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia article naming policy requires that we use the English name when there is one. This group of islands is described in English newspapers, academic journals, books, and encyclopedias. When we decide what name we should use, we look at those sources. That is the one and only reason we may use to decide the title. Anything else is a violation of our policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that my beef is more with Wikipedia policy than with this particular article's use of that policy. By choosing to draw from existing popular English newspapers, journals, books, and encyclopedias, Wikipedia inserts an American/British cultural bias into the issue of article names. And that is the reason there is so much debate on this talk page, and so many Chinese-favoring people complain about it. It is pointless to go on debating the name without debating Wikipedia's policy. I favor the name Senkaku for the reasons I originally mentioned. But I don't make any pretense of not having a cultural bias. I am sympathetic to the pro-Chinese posts here, but in the end I think they need to realize that Wikipedia is unavoidably biased toward a Western culture based on long-cherished liberties: speech, press, assembly, etc. The very fact that Wikipedia itself is not viewable in the PRC should serve pro-Chinese people as the ultimate underlying reason why this article's name must remain Senkaku. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying that Wikipedia is biased towards Japan because of freedom and liberty, then are you then saying that Taiwan is not a free and democratic country? This article uses the Japanese name, and not the Chinese one recognised by Taiwan, but both countries are allies of the United States, and are freely democratic. In the end, the rationale behind the naming is based on our policy of what the common name is, however something like that is quite fluid, and not really set in stone. It's essentially up to how the community interprets the situation, and forms its own consensus. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a point about Taiwan, which is free and democratic. In fact, I think if this were simply an issue between Japan and Taiwan, there would not be so much controversy. The two countries would work something out. Keep in mind it is not Taiwanese coast guard ships that are challenging Japan's control of the islands, it is PRC coast guard ships. In the grand scheme of things, Taiwan is a small player compared to China and Japan, as evidenced by the US lack of formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan. Essentially, this is a struggle between Japan and the PRC, and in that struggle western culture (and Wikipedia's naming conventions) take the side of Japan. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "Keep in mind it is not Taiwanese coast guard ships that are challenging Japan's control of the islands" - Uhhh....

Refer to the above image. This was a scuffle in 2012, and there was another more recent one as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/10/national/japan-to-let-taiwanese-fish-near-the-senkakus/#.Uffit41BXh4 As one would expect of two democracies, they have a much greater ability to work things out. The main conflict is with the PRC. --Westwind273 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see very few people here pushing for Tiaoyutai (the Taiwanese name). Most are pushing for adding Diaoyu (the PRC name) to the article name. The anti-PRC bias of western publications means that Diaoyu will never be the most common name for the islands in English. Moreover, this quest for the true "English name" reminds me of Don Quixote and his impossible quest. You cannot remove the western bias from the majority of the world's English language publications. Pro-Chinese contributors here would do better to devote their energies towards freedom and democracy in mainland China. That is the only thing that will eventually change this article's name to Senkaku/Diaoyu. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please take this conversation to another website, per WP:NOTFORUM. This is not the place for you to spout your views on freedom, politics, Japan, Taiwan, etc. This page is for one thing and one thing only: discussing changes to the Senkaku Islands article. Current WP policy requires that we use the English name, no matter what "biases" that may incur--by definition, if a name is widely used in English and others are not, that is the "unbiased" name. I understand the point you're trying to make, but if you want Wikipedia to work in that way, you'll have to go to our policy and guideline pages and suggest changes to them. Otherwise, once again, WP:NOTFORUM. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please take your rude arrogance to another website and stop telling others what to do. --Westwind273 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This particular article is an English language article on an English language section of a predominantly English language online encyclopedia. It seems appropriate to use naming conventions that are most common and most widely accepted in English language publications. As previously mentioned, English language publications are making the distinction that Senkaku is the Japanese name and Diaoyu is the Chinese name. I believe it would be the most appropriate to either use "Pinnacle Islands" or "Diaoyu Islands/Senkaku Islands" in this order, explicitly because alphabetic order is a politically neutral method by which to arrange the names.160.39.202.96 (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that demonstrates that this is the regular trend used consistently (or, at least, most commonly) among English language publications? Please be sure to account for all types of reliable sources, but particularly 1) newspapers, 2) academic articles, and 3) encyclopedias/atlases/other tertiary sources. Those of us who've checked in the past have either found Senkaku to be the dominant name (for instance, when I checked in major world atlases a couple of years back, it was almost exclusively Senkaku) or, in the case of newspapers, have found weird mixed results that we can't define for certain. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian,as listed reliable sources in here,"Senkaku" is the Japanese name, but not the English name, for this group of islands whose ownership being disputed. When talking about which local name, Japanese "Senkaku" or Chinese "Diaoyu", is most commonly used among English language publications, neither one of these two local names can be defined as "most commonly used among English language publications" if you do not go "cherry-picking" way. The long history discussions/disputes on this article title/naming issue in this talk page and in the mediation also demonstrated that the frequency of using Japanese name or using Chinese name in English is not significantly different. If one is not gaming the system/wiki policies, one should honestly face this evidence. Wikipedia users cannot in an original research way create an "English name" or a "most commonly used name in English language publications" for this group of islands and this wiki articles. BTW, although I do not agree with many points raised by user Westwind273, I appreciate the frank way he/she expressed: don't make any pretense of not having a bias. --Lvhis (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And the result of that mediation was to lead to arbitration at which several of the editors who had long engaged in pushing for the use of an alternative name were blocked or banned. Furthermore, the result of the arbitration was to have a binding community RfC which found that Senakaku Islands is the most commonly used name in English. Since that was the last consensus result, the burden of changing finding evidence supporting a name change falls on those who think the current name is wrong. We will certainly need new evidence, since every prior time this has been discussed and brought to a wider discussion, the result has been that SI is the most common English name. Again, I fully accept that that may have changed in the last year or so, since the issue has reached more international prominence (and thus more mention in English language sources). But we need to look at the whole of sources--not just news reports, but also academic journal articles, books by quality publisher, and other almanacs and encyclopedias. No one, for instance, has ever produced an almanac which uses either a dual name or the Diaoyu name. No one has, for instance, provided the findings of any government body outside of China/Taiwan which supports the use of the Diaoyu or a joint name. If anyone wants to present that evidence, do so. We're waiting. Until that evidence is provided, it's very hard for consensus to change. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not honest. The arbitration has blocked or banned several of editors NOT DUE TO they "had long engaged in pushing for the use of an alternative name". The most serious ban from the arbitration was on a Japanese editor/user who firmly opposed the use of an alternative name but pushed very hard to stick on the Japanese name "Senkaku". Please be honest and do not mislead other Wikipedia users particular some new comers to here. Evidence has been there already and I listed some before [12][13]. You just like to deny them by playing "cherry-picking". When talking about naming rules, you seemed always to avoid this one "Multiple local names", and seemed to forget the most immportant Wikipedia:Five pillars the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, wikipedia users, even wikipedia community, shall not create some material in an original research way. Reliable sources show "Senkaku" is the Japanese name and "Diaoyu" is the Chinese name, no source says "Senkaku" is "the most commonly used name in English". That RfC was led and pushed by you. Using RfC created "the most commonly used name in English" is violating Wikipedia:OR, in addition to that RfC was running under the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [14][15]. It actually stifled voices from other side (opposing using "Senkaku"). Even that RfC has stood there, it does not mean it can stand forever. I'd like to point again that using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu" is not original research, it has reliable sources. From the point of no original research, this dual name is better than so called "the most commonly used name in English" that was actually created by several wikipedia editors led by you.--Lvhis (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Lvhis, of course you are correct. Most independent news sources now use both names in their articles. For example: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131107/DEFREG03/311070013/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24709148 The real reason Qwyrxian sticks to Senkaku is because of the unavoidable western bias of Wikipedia. Like it or not, the English language is primarily a creature of the free and democratic countries in the world, who will necessarily side with Japan on this issue. It is impossible to separate a language from its culture. To pretend to do so is fantasy. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Westwind273, thank you for confirming my points. Again, I appreciate the frank and honest way you expressed, but I need to clarify several points that I disagree with you. 1) The romanized name of the islands often (not always) used by official authority in Taiwan is "Diaoyutai"(see the official website), but not "Tiaoyutai", some times "Diaoyu [16][17][18]" or "Tiaoyutai" is also used. I will change the incorrect content in the article per the reliable sources. 2) Japan and Taiwan on April 10, 2013 signed a fisheries agreement, that is NOT due to these two parties are "two democracies, they have a much greater ability to work things out" as you think. Taiwan had 16 rounds of fishery negotiations with Japan regarding the waters around the Diaoyu Islands since 1996, that had taken 17 years for nothing to reach any agreement, or just failed for each time. While the dispute and conflict regarding the disputed islands has got heated up between Japan and PRC the mainland China as well as Taiwan since September 2012 when Japan made an official move to "nationalize" the Islands in order to make Japan sounded more "legally owning" the islands, Japan dislikes the potential possibility that the mainland China and Taiwan might joint together at certain extent to oppose Japan's claim. Japan then made this compromise to Taiwan in fishery issue only but not sovereign issue over the islands in this 17th round of negotiations held in this year and these two parties finally reached this agreement. This is actually due to mainland China's great efforts to oppose Japan's more and more aggressive moves and made Japan to have to give certain compromise to Taiwan the least capable independent party but a potential partner of the mainland China against Japan's claim, or Taiwan took some advantage of the mainland China's stronger efforts on the dispute. This is almost nothing to do with "democracy system" here. Otherwise, you cannot explain why Taiwan and Japan were not able to reach such agreement during past 17 year with 16 rounds of negotiation. 3) Wikipedia now is viewable or readable in the mainland China (PRC) at least for many articles I checked when I was there recently, but I did not try some article you mentioned. Theoretically, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are quite fair and in line with what it claims as a "free encyclopedia", particularly the Wikipedia:Five pillars. The problem is how the users to treat and interpret these policies and guidelines, as a typical example, what has happened for the naming issue of this topic of articles here. Some users have bias but pretend they do not have, and play some tricks to game the system of Wikipedia. Even if there is unavoidable bias from a language originated its culture, some user's bias has gone very far beyond that. Regarding this Wikipedia, if you want to educate the people in PRC to learn or accept "the freedom and democracy" from the free and democratic countries in the world, you should let them feel they are treated in way of fair and free, i.e. give them a good example of the freedom and democracy here.

Back to the naming issue, you listed two more English language sources. So by honestly following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the name for this article should go dual local name "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands"(as used by CNN [19] and Brookings Institution [20]) or "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"(as used by The Telegraph [21] and BBC [22]). I prefer using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" one because just following the alphabetic order of English language .--Lvhis (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusing wording

In the "Early history" section, the last paragraph states "the Chinese name for the island group (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) both mean "fishing"." Later in the same section, there is a sentence that reads "The name "Pinnacle Islands" is used by some as an English-language equivalent to "Senkaku" or "Diaoyu".

The latter sentence implies that "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" mean (roughly) "Pinnacle" or "Pinnacle islands". As this contradicts the first sentence I quote I presume that this is not the intended meaning? I would assume that the meaning "fishing" is more likely than "pinnacle", but the latter has a source (which I can't read atm) and the former doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify the names. The name of the group of islands is Pinnacle in en, Senkaku (Pinnacle) in ja, and Diaoyu (fishing) in zh. Each islands has its own name in ja and zh, but not in en and the main island's name is Uotsuri (fishing) in ja and Diaoyu (fishing) in zh. Is my clarification understandable? If it is, please rewrite the section. Oda Mari (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In the "Sovereignty dispute" section, "they" is used frequently and this should be avoided in order to minimize ambiguity especially in the last sentence in the first paragraph. It should be replaced with "the People's Republic and Taiwan" instead of "they". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken1962 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Tagging POV-title

The Japanese-originated name of the title has raised NPOV concerns. I therefore propose to tag the article until the dispute on the title is resolved. STSC (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't imagine this will ever be entirely settled, and the lead already mentions the name is generally disputed. Adding a tag is really not going to do anything productive in this case. a13ean (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As you know, STSC, in order for a the tag to remain, you need to be willing to engage in constructive dialogue to advance towards a resolution--something that shows you (or another editor) are actively trying to change the previously established consensus. If you want to engage in such a process, then fine; we'll probably need an RfC. Just so you know, though, both Oda Mari and Lvhis are topic banned for about 3 more months, and would not be able to participate in such a discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This template was removed by Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Request for comment: Article naming closed on February 2012. The closer User:NuclearWarfare reverted the addition of the template by Lvhis with an edit summary No, this is what I meant.[23] Unless a new RfC decides otherwise, the previous RfC remains effective. Therefore the template should not be included. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I know tag-less may suit you but can you comment on his invalid action as an admin? STSC (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with A13ean. The content will always be disputed, and I don't see the point in having the tag up again. It's not a form of protest, it's to encourage discussion. Phoenix also makes a good point. I have no objection to discussion, of course, but the tag isn't required to do that in this particular case. John Smith's (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why the clean-up tag was applied; it's there to alert and invite other editors to join in the process. STSC (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

THere was no improper action by the uninvolved admin. Tags do not stay up just because one editor wants them up, except in cases where the tag is indisputable (like tagging something as needing a citation). NPOV tags specifically state that they are not just supposed to be up because one person or one side doesn't like the current consensus. Unless you can show that there is at least some evidence that consensus is changing, or that you're going to try to make it change, no, it can't be tagged. The admin enforced the taglessness under the very wide latitude given to admins on pages under discretionary sanctions. Right now, there's nothing to "alert editors" to, except the fact that you, personally, don't like the title, even though the current consensus is that it meets all of our policies. As I've said above, I'm happy to engage in such a discussion, and am even willing to believe that there has been sufficient shift in the last 2 years to warrant a name change, but I'm not going to be the one to go to the effort to start such an exasperating process. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, you as an admin should have known better: assume good faith. I was trying to make use of the clean-up tag "to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made" (as documented in Wiki Policy). STSC (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, the tag can be applied to the article because the outcome of the RfC is only valid for 1 year. STSC (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has no expiry date. The only recent change is that User:NuclearWarfare's ban on new move discussions expired in Janary, 2013. Does anyone want to volunteer to rerun all the web searches cited in Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Request for comment: Article naming to see if the balance of the names has shifted? EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I just to put a couple of points here and I welcome objections. First, I am reading this article from within PRC borders and completely puzzled by the words "The very fact that Wikipedia itself is not viewable in the PRC'(@Westwind273).I'm in Beijing at the moment and if anything censorship would be tightest here. Secondly, I know this is an English-Western predominant encyclopedia,but please, China has already had enough with you calling itself and its people by the name of one of its major products, and now you people are suggesting to do what, "find an appropriate English name’for an article on an island you Westerners "discovered'nearly a thousand years after China began its official administration? Tolerating Romanized Chinese names on foreign atlases are very annoying because in doing so strips away the name cultural background just to let Westerners able to read it. I really hope you major wiki editors out there could be a little more respectful for the history behind names from other languages and the real world, because of all things Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremostand encyclopedias reflect the world.Wikireader20000 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC+8)

Also, if japanese users here claim, what,"Japan is free and democratic',gimme an explanation how japan is supposed to do that under an increasingly undemocratic, unfree, and militaristic government.Nothing political here.Everything historical.Lets start to count...the annihilation of the Northeastern Volunteers? Why do you cause resistance in a "right' cause? Why do you want there be none?

：For those users who have a relatively correct view of history, I want you to help contribute to the renaming of the Ryukyu Islands article [[24]] as its current name is derived from the Chinese Liuqiu Qundao and it was historically a Chinese protectorate. [[25]]Wikireader2000018:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC+8) ：A use of wider historical reference for article naming including Romanized versions of names of other languages would be more internationally acceptable. Wikipedia in other languages just isn't enough.

Wikireader, try going to a Beijing internet cafe and try to look up the article on the Tiananmen Massacre in Chinese (i.e. the June 4th incident). You will not be able to read it. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have tried that 3 times with 2 successful reads...and we should be talking about the islands right? 14:15,27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader20000 (talk • contribs)

Cross-language Comparison

The Chinese article on these islands contains the Japanese name Senkaku (尖閣) 22 times, including references in the introduction. The Japanese article on these islands only mentions the name Diaoyu (釣魚) 5 times, with no reference in the introduction. I would suggest that the Chinese part of Wikipedia is more open-minded than the Japanese part. I would also suggest that it is flawed to think of the various language versions of Wikipedia as completely separate from each other. The quixotic "English name" of the islands is an unattainable ideal. The name difference "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" does not exist solely in English. In Japan/China it is 尖閣 vs 釣魚. All four of these characters are pronounceable in both languages, so the different naming is purely political. It is like Falkands vs Malvinas. History (and Wikipedia) are written by the winners. Bias is unavoidable. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's your point exactly? John Smith's (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines act as if each language were a completely separate encyclopedia, with no relationship whatsoever. But human knowledge is human knowledge, regardless of which language it is in. There is a certain unity to all language versions of Wikipedia, which is being overlooked. The Japanese don't insist on calling the islands "Senkaku" because of language purity issues; they do it for political reasons. Same for the Chinese and Diaoyu. This English name, Japanese name, Chinese name language debate is a smoke screen for underlying political differences. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

English speakers are also unaware of the practice between Japan and China of pronouncing each other's place names in one's own language. For example, the Japanese call the city of Dalian as "Dairen". And they call Guangzhao "Koushuu". Similarly, the Chinese call Tokyo "Dongjing". What westerners don't realize is that the Chinese name for the islands (Diaoyu) and the Japanese name for the main island (Uotsuri) are in fact the same word in Chinese characters (i.e. kanji). So the choice is not really which name are we choosing for the islands, but rather which local pronunciation are we choosing in English for what is the same word in east asian characters. It is like asking whether the correct name of the capital of France is "per-is" or "pah-rie". It is the same word "Paris", just pronounced differently. So the choice is an English-centric one. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Specific References

Some pro-Senkaku contributors say that standard English references use Senkaku, and that previous RfC's have shown this. Is there a link to these previous RfC's? I find it difficult to easily get at the documentation that supports the Senkaku-only view. As for encyclopedias, Britannica seems to use both Senkaku and Diaoyu. See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/158244/Dependent-States-Year-In-Review-1996/91925/Pacific Other encyclopedias simply copy the Columbia Encyclopedia article (with references), which chooses to stick with just Senkaku. Google Maps uses both Senkaku and Diaoyu. This is compared to Google Maps usage of "Liancourt" for the islands between Korea and Japan. University research papers seem to favor the dual use of Senkaku and Diaoyu. See http://international.uiowa.edu/files/international.uiowa.edu/files/file_uploads/drifte_senkaku_article_1.pdf and http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/bfa92a47-1f5f-4c23-974c-f92e1ed27be4/The-Senkaku-Diaoyu-Island-Controversy--A-Crisis-Po.aspx and http://scar.gmu.edu/book-chapter/daioyusenkaku-dispute-identity-based-conflict-toward-sino-japan-reconciliation I have trouble seeing how the pro-Senkaku people stipulate that English language encyclopedias, maps, news and research papers all overwhelmingly confirm Senkaku. It seems that the majority of evidence now weighs in favor of joint use of Senkaku and Diaoyu. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the Britannica reference, but if does use both as you say, that's a good sign (in favor of a joint name). Since I assume you have access, would you mind providing the exact quotation of the sentence/sentences that talk about these islands? I also see that those recent academic articles do seem to be using joint names. And, as I've said before, I have also seen a shift towards more use of both names in newspaper articles.

As for previous findings, they're scattered throughout the archives; one specific place that I remember was the key one for me that lead me to continue supporting strictly Senkaku Islands, which is my finding that every atlas used in a major university library that listed the islands used Senkaku Islands; see Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#Almanacs (sorry, I don't know why I used the word almanac for a book of maps, which is obviously an atlas). However, I admit that all of those books date to 2008 or earlier, and the shift that many have claimed to be observing is certainly more recent than that.

I must say that these references do actually make me much more likely to accept an alternate name, and I strongly appreciate you finding them. Let me start a new section to start asking what sort of alternate name we might consider choosing. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say thanks to Westwind273 for the efforts finding out more reliable sources regarding the naming issue, which are adding more of evidence on what correct name should be for this article of Wikipedia. Westwind273, if you still want to look at that previous RfC that I think is violating Wikipedia:Five pillars particularly WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, it is here: [26]. Qwyrxian, I can see or read Britannica reference Westwind273 linked, I don't know why you cannot see it. It dated on 1996.--Lvhis (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I get like the first paragraph and a half (which don't mention SI/DI), then it has this "To continue reading, activate your no risk free trial..." which I'm not inclined to do at the moment. If necessary, I can, but I figure since (the two of you) can read it, it's easier to get your cut and paste. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My Times Atlas Eighth comprehensive edition, 1990, calls them "Senkaku guntō (Taio-yu-tai)". Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If we chose a different name...

...what would it be? I think that Pinnacle Islands is the worst choice, because the name is totally unused in any of the major works (except as a note like "called Pinnacle in English", and even that's rare). While, yes, a long time ago Wikipedia chose Liancourt Rocks as a compromise name, a lot of that was because they couldn't really find hardly any references in English at all, and thus choosing either the Korean or Japanese name seemed wholly arbitrary. In the case of these islands, however, there's been tons of press; and it seems that there has been a shift (probably, we'll need to RfC later on on the matter) towards both journalists and scholars, and maybe even other tertiary sources, towards using both names.

If that's the case (that most use both), then the "logical" choice would be Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku (just to clarify, I believe that I used to assert that names with slashes are not allowed, but I've found out that they are, you just have to take care with the talk pages). But how do we choose which one? The argument I'd lay out in favor of S/D is that 1) Japan still maintains de facto control of the islands, including a continuing promise from the US to intervene on Japan's behalf, and 2) Senkaku was for quite a long time the much more dominant term in English. In favor of D/S, I'd argue just alphabetical. But I'm interested in the opinion of others.

Finally, let me be very clear: it is well known that I have long been the strongest "supporter" of the Senkaku Islands name. I'm not stating with complete certainty that I accept that the names have fully shifted, enough that we should change our article (I'll want to do some searches myself). But the newest presented evidence (see the above section) does make me think that there is at least good reason to believe it may have changed, and thus the time is ripe for another community reconideration, and that I myself might even be inclined to support a dual name. But I'm not quite there yet, so please don't quote me as solidly in one "camp" or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Now maybe you do can 2 things Qwyrxian: 1. Keep up with the news.From a little while ago, if any Japanese aircraft dare even approach the Diaoyu Islands not even the US guarantees they can go home the way they came. 2. If you can't find anything within 30 years, go through Qing records. There is a record of the then Fujian supreme naval commander patrolling the Diaoyu Islands somewhere... Really sorry I can't give a link, the info was on paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader20000 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I do keep up with the news, and...I could argue with you, but it's irrelevant. This isn't the place to debate the matter. As for some Qing records, they're also irrelevant. Please either contribute to the actual discussion, or find a blog to post on. This discussion is difficult enough to have based on long running tensions that any sort of soapboxing is disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Among the huge number of reliable sources regarding the islands published in English language, now it is seems only this en-wiki use the so biased single "Senkaku". This has made en-wiki shameful as it has claimed having Five pillars particular WP:NPOV and WP:NOR but here is actually much less neutral than any independent English publications. Qwyrxian, we can forget about the past and start new page from now. Be sure not to do cherry-picking. As for using dual name, I prefer using Diaoyu/Senkaku as a result of purely nothing connecting the realistic conflicts on the disputed islands, but just alphabetical order. This is better than the reason you listed, particularly your reason 1. You should not complain about "any sort of soapboxing is disruptive" regarding Wikireader20000's comment, as I would say you started so first. I could argue that now Japan has lost de facto total control of the islands and current de facto control of the islands seems to have shifted to two Japan and China, but I do not want to involve with this kind of argument. Anyway, if we go the dual local name, we can use simple vote to decide which one, "D/S"or "S/D" should be used. This should not become a big deal.--Lvhis (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This week's news articles on the B-52 flyover seem to overwhelming favor "Senkaku/Diaoyu". Just do a Google News search on "Senkaku" and see the results. Also, the US government (on the State Department's website) seems to have shifted to use of both Senkaku and Daioyu. See http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/204084.pdf --Westwind273 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

More evidence for use of both names. The US Naval War College uses both: http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2953602971/the-senkaku-diaoyu-island-controversy And the National Geographic Atlas uses both names http://maps.nationalgeographic.com/maps You have to register to see it, but both names are used. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As for word order, I think Senkaku/Diaoyu seems to be much more common in English than Diaoyu/Senkaku. I think this is because Japan is maintaining effective political control of the islands, which is supported by the United States. The US government is officially neutral on the ultimate fate of the islands, but opposes any use of force to change the status quo of Japanese administration of the islands. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)