Jump to content

Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Discussion

I propose that this article be moved to Pinnacle Islands according to WP:NPOV. An anon user (and some editors) claim that the "situation is different". There is nothing different from this article to Liancourt Rocks or Socotra Rock, which are both named with neutral, "english" names.

If you claim that Pinnacle is not commonly used, then Liancourt Rocks is not a commonly used word. This problem with "what word is more common according to google" caused the botch at Liancourt Rocks during the poll (which itself was screwed by anon users). Liancourt Rocks isn't any more common than Dokdo. Others and myself have showed this repeatedly but unfortuanately it was too late as the closing admin already decided. But that is another problem.

Is "Senkaku" any more common than "Pinnacle"? Whats sad about some of these anon users' claims is that the media doesn't use the words they think is so common. In fact, Times uses Diaoyu to describe the rocks, and like most articles about disputed territories, mentions Senkaku. [1] [2]

Then you say "wheres Pinnacle Islands? I don't see Pinnacle anywhere". Then I'll ask you "wheres Liancourt Rocks in the media?" Times uses "Dokdo" and "Takeshima" but no Liancourt Rocks [3]. I keep mentioning Liancourt Rocks because the problem with the move there is affecting this article.

Its obviously not fair when "Dokdo" is moved to Liancourt Rocks because Liancourt Rocks is more common (when it really isn't) and this article stays at Senkaku when Senkaku is not even more common than Diaoyu.

The admin who moved "Dokdo" to "Liancourt Rocks" based his move almost entirely on the policy of NPOV regardless of whats more common. We need to do the same here. The most neutral name should be used and thats Pinnacle.

I remember one editor who wanted "Liancourt Rocks" say that NPOV is the most important, and thats probably right and that applies to this article. Someone said that "Dokdo and Takeshima will be named almost always together. Thats the case here and using Pinnacle just stops the disputes. Good friend100 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "common usage" justification is very problematic here because the very usage of the Senkaku name is POV. I'd like to point out especially that the US essentially recognises these islands as Japanese because it was the American military that handed control of these islands to the Japanese government. It can't get any more biased than that. On the other hand, WP:NPOV strictly says that neutrality is "non-negotiable". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a serious problem with either title, but we should not be acting prescriptively on any of these pages. Does Middle of Nowhere fit NPOV? I think that might be the most common name in English. (^^) Dekimasuよ! 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Pinnacle Islands", in English, is equivalent to Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼) in Japanese, which is a small subset of the "Senkaku Islands". "Senkaku Islands", in English, is equivalent to Senkaku Shotō (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, and not "Pinnacle Islands". Please don't use Wikipedia to redefine "Pinnacle Islands" to suit your needs.--Endroit 06:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Suit my needs? What do you mean? And whats your point? "Pinnacle" is the same as "Senkaku"? I'm proposing the move on the basis of NPOV, on the basis that "Senkaku" is biased. I'm sure your stomach hurt because "Dokdo" implied that Liancourt Rocks is Korean. Good friend100 12:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If you didn't understand me the first time, "Pinnacle Islands" is NOT equivalent to "Senkaku Islands". You are advised to actually find many AUTHORITATIVE sources which state that "Pinnacle Islands" is equivalent to "Senkaku Islands" in the English language first. And no, you cannot use Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo to prove that "Pinnacle Islands" is equivalent to "Senkaku Islands".--Endroit 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The NGA GNS server confirms that there are TWO separate entries: "SENKAKU-SHOTŌ" and "SENTŌ-SHOSHO". Note that the usage of Shotō (諸島) vs. Shosho (諸嶼) distinguish the two. "Pinnacle Islands" is clearly specified as the latter, whereas "Senkaku Islands" is the former. Unless you play around with words or mistranslate, "Pinnacle Islands" is clearly NOT equivalent to "Senkaku Islands". Britannica, Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia, etc. clearly do not even mention "Pinnacle Islands" as an alternate name for "Senkaku Islands". And it would be un-encyclopedic for Wikipedia to rename the article as such despite this fact.--Endroit 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, on the NGA GNS server, searching "Senkaku Islands" doesn't give you any results. And searching "Senkaku-shoto" gives you this, which includes "Senkaku retto" and "Senkaku gunto". Searching "Senkaku-shosho" gives you "Sento Syosyo" and "Pinnacle Islands".

Senkaku Islands isn't even used by this search engine and the search engine shows that "Senkaku-shosho" has other names including "Sento Syosyo" and "Pinnacle Islands". Also, "Senkaku-shoto" gives you nothing relevent.

We need to use Pinnacle because its english and that it solves the POV problem here. Senkaku implies that the islands are solely Japanese. And it was the same reason why the administrator moved Dokdo to Liancourt. Mr. Killigan 03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

survey

Oppose move

  1. Oppose — per what I said just above, and in the sections before that.--Endroit 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Until someone addresses concerns such as the ambiguities (other places always associated with this name, now never used for the place), and the issue of this archaic name being commonly accepted today. The name Liancourt Rocks is commonly (and sometimes solely) used by governments, UN, encyclopedias, news articles, etc., where Pinnacle is not. To say the situations are the same is to illustrate one's own ignorance of the complexities of both situations. --Cheers, Komdori 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    Keep your comments to yourself, I never asked for you to call me ignorant, dumbass. Oh and who gives you the right to claim that both situations are different and complex? Those are external reasons. Wikipedia doesn't care whether who controls what nor does it give preference to what country controls what, like the result at Liancourt Rocks (oops, did I refer to Liancourt Rocks again).
    The closing administrator based his decision heavily on the policy of NPOV (If you even bothered to read my reason at the beginning of the thread, which you probably didn't), and I want to say again that Wikipedia is run by the policies and not by what happens outside. I'm sure you once said that to me in the discussions at Liancourt. Good friend100 00:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Please, no personal attacks. There is no reason to call someone a "dumbass" here. Please try to remain civil, even if you disagree with someone (even if you very strongly disagree with them). Thanks. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Senkaku is commonly used in english, hence the article should stay. Also, Good friend100, please watch your language (dumbass). -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per Endroit. Stop requesting a move because you don't like the result. John Smith's 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Endroit as the proposed name is not equivalent. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Per Endroit - the terms are not interchangeable. LordAmeth 09:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. For article naming, NPOV is not to use a term you think neutral but to follow established guidelines to name objectively. Pinnacle Islands fails to meet WP:PRECISION (it may refer to a subset of islands per Endroit and lowercase 'pinnacle islands' may be used as a geologic term) and WP:NCON (not common as a neutral alternative). --Kusunose 10:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I guess that You just want to take revenge for this request case. Or proposed in order that return Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo. Please don't confuse distinct island, moreover don't bring the other article's discussion to here. You should go to Talk:Liancourt Rocks. --Gettystein 10:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Per wrong article name. The word of "Pinnacle Islands" in English is mentioned to "Minami Kojima" and "Kita Kojima", and it is not used as Senkaku Shotō, by "Okinawa-ken no chimei (沖縄県の地名; The place-name of Okinawa Prefecture)", published from Heibonsha in 2002. Oxford Atlus 13th edition and the Concise Atlus 9th edition does not use "Pinnacle Islands". They use "Senkaku Shotō". The Columbia Gazetteer uses "Senkaku Guntō". A proposing "Pinnacle Islands" is not in agreement with descriptions of the reliable geographic references. --Nightshadow28 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per Endroit.--Watermint 08:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. OpposeNPOV is not an excuse for ignoring reality; like the reality that is no good alternative for Senkaku available. Pinnacle Islands does not appear to be an official or widely used alternative name for the island groups. For lack of a real alternative Senkaku is the only acceptable name of the article. I strongly oppose moving the name to one that is rarely, almost never, used in references, government, or the media at the present. --Nikostar 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose The name "Pinnacle Islands" is so rarely used, practically a dead name, that even the extent it refers is somewhat uncertain. Wiki should not be a tool for advertising it. As I had pointed out here before, if taking NPOV as the only principle, we need to apply the same standards to all sides in the dispute, i.e., China-involved disputes, Japan-involved disputes, and the Republic of China(Taiwan)-involved disputes, rather than to Japan-involved disputes only, and if we do, some ridiculous results can be foreseen, just consider the outstanding territorial claims of the Republic of China. Captain0 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. "Pinnacle islands" is so archaic it would be the same as demanding that the Hawaii article be renamed “Sandwich Islands”. As with similar naming conflicts (i.e. Dokdo/Takeshima) no resolution acceptable to all parties is possible. There is too much emotionalism spawned by patriotism, propaganda and personal opinions to permit a neutral solution. We are left with either a) using a “neutral name” not in common use (which violates current Wikipedia naming policy of “commonly used” in the English language) and whose accuracy appears ambigious, or b) staying with the name assigned by the government currently in de facto control of the territory. At the risk of upsetting everyone, could we not use BOTH names as the title (i.e. Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands)? Otherwise, I vote to stay with Senkaku Islands, rather that digging up an extinct name.--MChew 04:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Support move

  1. Support In accordance with the neutral policy. Mr. Killigan 04:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support NPOV is non-negotiable and absolute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support NPOV. Kingj123 19:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I think the move is proposed strictly speaking of the NPOV policy. It seems like that was the case at Liancourt, so I don't see any reason why it should stay. Mr. Killigan 01:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support NPOV, per reasons stated by myself and others previously on this page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Per above. Good friend100 07:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Pinnacle is a neutral name. Ian Kiu 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Why are people here complaining that Pinnacle Islands is an absurd name? In no way then, should it be "Senkaku." This bias needs to stop. Sky Divine (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 10:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved content from article

I moved the following lines to the talk page:

"Later usage of the name Pinnacle Islands in Western references appears to be a translation back from the Japanese name Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼) in the early 1900s. However, the extent of Pinnacle Islands/Sentō Shosho remains undefined due to the differences in definition between the Hydrographic Office and this novel translation."

All of it is WP:OR. The interpretation of the Hydrographic Office source is itself OR. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Have replaced the above deletion with new and correct content citing WP:RS. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, so you're basically agreeing then it is original research to say that "Pinnacle Islands" is equivalent to "Senkaku Islands" in the English language.--Endroit 17:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
No, only the way you write it, with no sources to back it up but your own pro-Japanese biases. Backed up by proper sources, it would not be original research.
If you are wondering where I perceive your bias - the most recent evidence is this edit, which changed a neutral, verifiable statement into biased speculation with no sources backing it up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Senkaku Islands" is NOT "Pinnacle Islands" in English, unless you mistranslate it back from Japanese into English. That's a fact supported by authoritative sources, not a bias.--Endroit 04:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We're arguing over using "Pinnacle" as an english word and on the basis of NPOV. Which authorative source are you mentioning? Good friend100 07:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: The NGA GNS server confirms that there are TWO separate entries: "SENKAKU-SHOTŌ" and "SENTŌ-SHOSHO". Note that the usage of Shotō (諸島) vs. Shosho (諸嶼) distinguish the two. "Pinnacle Islands" is clearly specified as the latter, whereas "Senkaku Islands" is the former. They are clearly different.--Endroit 08:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
And why should Wikipedia care whether which specific islet is what, or care the Japanese equivalent of Pinnacle? Using "Pinnacle" to describe the islands is fair. Good friend100 07:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The proposed title for this article, "Pinnacle Islands" is a WP:V violation, since NO AUTHORITATIVE sources have been provided, which define "Pinnacle Islands" as being equivalent to "Senkaku Islands".--Endroit 08:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pinnacle" is still a name for the islands and is the most neutral we can get. Senkaku can infer that it is solely Japanese control. I'm sure this is the reason why Liancourt won out at Liancourt Rocks. Mr. Killigan 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's your proof? Cite your sources which define "Pinnacle Islands" as including Diaoyu Dao / Uotsuri Jima (the main island) and all the other islands.--Endroit 14:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, why does it matter whether outsiders know Pinnacle islands is which specific island? They only need to know that its a disputed subject and that we use te most neutral name. Here it describes the islands as "Diaoyu/Pinnacle/Senkaku". Here it uses Pinnacle as another name for the islands.
Even if your argument makes sense, only Japanese users would be able to read and distinguish the two islands you keep saying. Also, Pinnacle is used to describe the islands as a whole. Nitpicking about which island is which doesn't concern people who search this article on Wikipedia.
I'm sure you support the NPOV policy, and being neutral here is a must. Mr. Killigan 23:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I support the NPOV policy. I follow WP:NPOV#Article naming and its main article WP:NCON. Senkaku is objectively chosen per WP:NCON. Pinnacle is not. --Kusunose 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCON says that Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications. You're contradicting yourself. Senkaku can imply that the islands are Japanese territories and that is POV. Mr. Killigan 08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Senkaku Islands" and "Pinnacle Islands" are proper nouns, not descriptive names. Please read WP:NCON#Proper nouns instead of WP:NCON#Descriptive names. --Kusunose 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pinnacle - Senkaku equivalence

Okay, I've dug up two contemporary sources which use "Pinnacle" as equivalent to "Senkaku" and "Diaoyu" to refer to the whole island group (including both the little rocks and the bigger islands). These are the sources which Endroit requested above. While this does not address the "common names" objection to Pinnacle (because there are only two sources, and one of them uses Senkaku by preference), it does at least address the "different subject" objection.

That is to say, it is evidence that "Pinnacle" is indeed used to refer to the entire group, and not just the small islets that the term was used for in the 19th century.

So "not referring to the same thing" should no longer be an objection to moving to Pinnacle. The question is whether NPOV trumps common names. IMO, it does.

Keep in mind, also, that our experiments on whether "Senkaku" is more common than "Diaoyu" or "Diaoyutai" produced inconclusive results. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The novel usage to refer to the entire island group as "Pinnacle Islands" is not widely acknowledged to supercede the archaic usage. Therefore, its usage is ambiguous. You cannot declare that it IS used as an alternate name in the lead like you did. It is clearly a WP:NEO violation.--Endroit 04:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Where's your proof? Thats your own claim that "Pinnacle" is not widely used. I could say that "Liancourt" is not widely acknowledged. Good friend100 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are the authoritative sources....
"Liancourt Rocks" is widely acknowledged by many authoritative sources. "Pinnacle Islands" is not.--Endroit 13:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, what are you doing? You ask for authoritative sources, I find authoritative sources, and now you are insisting that Encarta is more authoritative than academic publications?? I'm going to revert your changes until you explain yourself with reference to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. In particular, the bits about caution in using unsigned articles in general encyclopedias, and the preferences for peer-reviewed journals and academic publications. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
On a separate note, your conclusion that Raleigh is outside the "Pinnacle Group" is your own inference from the source, and is WP:OR. The source does not mention it as being excluded, so we cannot conclude whether it does. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hagstrom (and your other sources) are directly contradicted by Suganuma (2000). Suganuma clearly defines "Pinnacle Islands" as an archaic term used by the British. There are clearly 2 different uses for the term "Pinnacle Islands", one is the archaic term clearly defined by the British and cited by most researchers. The other is the novel usage suggested by Hagstrom, which isn't widely acknowledged, as I have explained above. (By the way, all the Britannica articles I cited above are signed.)
You cannot declare that "Pinnacle Islands" is equivalent to "Senkaku Islands" in the lead, for this reason.--Endroit 02:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, I really don't know how your brain works.
We are talking here about whether there exists a particular usage for a term. The lack of a particular usage in a source does not contradict another source where that usage is present.
If there are 3 authoritative sources which call Japan the "Land of the Rising Sun", it doesn't matter if you can produce another 1000 sources that dont call Japan the "Land of the Rising Sun" - the 3 sources prove the presence of that usage.
Likewise, if 3 authoritative sources use Pinnacle Islands to refer to the whole island group, then it doesn't matter if you can dig up another 3 sources that dont use Pinnacle Islands to refer to the whole island group.
That goes to the prevalence of the usage, not the existence of the usage.
It's not exactly a hard concept to grasp. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
PalaceGuard008: Read my comments below, particularly the part about WP:NEO.--Endroit 13:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, on the NGA GNS server, searching "Senkaku Islands" doesn't give you any results. And searching "Senkaku-shoto" gives you this, which includes "Senkaku retto" and "Senkaku gunto". Searching "Senkaku-shosho" gives you "Sento Syosyo" and "Pinnacle Islands".

Senkaku Islands isn't even used by this search engine and the search engine shows that "Senkaku-shosho" has other names including "Sento Syosyo" and "Pinnacle Islands". Also, "Senkaku-shoto" gives you nothing relevent.

We need to use Pinnacle because its english and that it solves the POV problem here. Senkaku implies that the islands are solely Japanese. And it was the same reason why the administrator moved Dokdo to Liancourt. Mr. Killigan 11:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So the NGA GNS server have no English names for the island group that is Senkaku Shōtō. Let us look other external sources recommended by WP:NCON rather than to choose a term "you think" is neutral. And as I have already said, "Senkaku Islands" is not a descriptive name that carries POV implications. It is a proper noun that is in common usage in English. I think your reasoning why we should not use "Senkaku Islands" is subjective and therefore should not be used to determine usage. --Kusunose 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe Senkaku Islands is a name without POV because numerable RS use both Senkaku and Diaoyu. Why is Senkaku preferred over Diaoyu when both names are used by numerous RS? The UN Cartographic section will most likely not use Senkaku Island as the name if they do not assume the islands to be Japanese territory. Ian Kiu 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Move survey reboot

Note: to avoid confusion--the post in bold directly below is one user's personal interpretation of the situation. Please post your opinions below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: to avoid confusion--for the current move request discussion, please see Talk:Senkaku Islands#Requested move. The below discussion is essentially an extension of one editor's argument regarding their position in that poll. --Cheers, Komdori 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes

  • The proposal is to move this article to Pinnacle Islands.
  • Many of the opposing votes in the previous survey focussed on Endroit's theory that "Senkaku/Diaoyu" is not equivalent to "Pinnacle" in contemporary usage. As that theory has now been proven wrong, the survey should be rebooted.
  • As this is a survey for the gauging of opinions, it would be fruitful only if users included at least some indication of the policy reasons behind their vote - e.g. "NPOV", "English term", "common names", etc. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  • Support WP:NCON prefers common names, official names, or self-identifying names. In the absence of an accepted official name or self identifying name, and given that the "most common" term is ambiguous per the literature surveys above, the English and neutral term "Pinnacle" should be preferred per WP:NPOV, and English term preference under WP:NCON --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support Pinnacle is a neutral name. Yearwaves3 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I removed edits by known banned sockpuppet. See here. --Nightshadow28 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as of discussed reasons. If my vote is still valid, that is.

Oppose

Discussion

What's the meaning of yet another poll? The other one hasn't been closed yet.--Endroit 02:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Circumstances have been materially changed. A key objection which you and some other editors relied upon has been resolved. That is the meaning of another poll. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't pushing your selfish POV.--Watermint 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't have a very strong opinion on this topic, but there was no such presentation of any resolution. There has still been no presentation that it a widely accepted name in use today (after so long without such information, it seems it probably isn't), and there are some unresolved questions over its accuracy. For full details, please see the ongoing requested move poll here. --Cheers, Komdori 14:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The Pinnacle Islands name isnt a widely used name. However the reason I chose the Pinnacle camp is because both Senkaku Islands and Diaoyu Islands are equally POV and equally common, and these names are not justifiable. Ian Kiu 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Endroit had a theory that Pinnacle Islands was not used to mean the same islands as "Senkaku/Diaoyu". That theory has now been shown to be false with modern (and not 18th century) sources. It is appropriate that the poll is rebooted given that a major objection raised by several users has now been removed. User:Komdori, I suggest you read some of the discussion which has ensued since the last move poll.
To be specific, the newly added sources show the existence of the usage of "Pinnacle Islands" to refer to the whole island group. While they may not prove prevalence or that usage, the existence of that usage in modern contexts was User:Endroit's main argument.
I also suggest that both User:Endroit and User:Komdori take a closer look at the sources which they keep on removing before they revert again. You are treading a dangerous path here by blindly reverting. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I repeat: Hagstrom is directly contradicted by Suganuma (2000), which is a modern source.
PalaceGuard008, many of your "sources" (except Hagstrom) appear to be merely saying "Senkaku Shotō / Sentō Shosho in Japanese is Pinnacle Islands in English" in the literal sense. We all know that the Chinese characters for Senkaku Shotō (尖閣諸島) and Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸礁) can be interpreted as such. However, that says nothing about which particular islands are represented by each of those terms. Per WP:NEO you can't rely on references which merely use the words "Pinnacle Islands". Specifically, WP:NEO says:
  • Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.
Suganuma (2000) is the best modern source we have about each term: Senkaku Shotō, Sentō Shosho, Pinnacle Islands, etc., and can be relied upon. The other "sources" you provided merely use the term.--Endroit 12:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Endroit, you are interpreting the equivalence drawn by the sources between Senkaku and Pinnacle as a "mere translation". However, the sources don't naturally lend themselves to that interpretation. The sources which I supplied earlier say that these islands are called Senkaku or Diaoyu or Pinnacle. While your interpretation may be quite right, that interpretation is WP:OR because it is based on your interpretation of the sources, based on your own theory about the term.
You keep referring to WP:NEO. However, the paragraph you cited applies only if the term concerned is a neologism. If you use that paragraph to determine some term as neologism, you are missing a step in logic.
To give you an analogy, we don't need sources about the term "Fall" to identify it as an alternative term for "Autumn", because Fall is not a neologism.
Likewise, Pinnacle Islands is not a neologism. How do I know that? Because there is a whole raft of academic sources that evidence its usage, as shown by the sources supplied.
I hope I am making myself clear. However, I am leaving this discussion and taking this page off my watchlist because it seems to be increasingly interrupted by hysterical outbursts (as evidenced below) and blind reverting on the article. It's not an environment conducive to rational discussion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The missing step in logic is: How did the original British definition transform into your purported "new" usage in the English language? None of your sources provide those details.
For example, the only analysis Seokwoo Lee (2002) gives is:
* "Japan calls the islands 'Sento Shosho' or 'Senkaku Retto', which means 'Pinnacle Island'."
Lee appears to be claiming a literal translation back from Japanese into English, like I suggested. And he mentions "Pinnacle Islands" on the first page only. But he doesn't step into the detail definitions of which islands are included. Moreover, Lee decides to use "Senkaku Islands" throughout the rest of his book.--Endroit 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT, this new poll is not valid!! This is downright ridiculous. You can not just start a new poll simply because the results do not match your position. That's not how Wikipedia works thankfully! You have not demonstrated that Endroit's point was categorically wrong and its a moot point anyway since not everyone who has opposed the name change voted so based on Endroit's arguments. Only four of the twelve opossing votes (excluding Endroit) clarified their position with Per Endroit. Many, including myself, voted against Pinnacle Islands for other/multiple reasons and said this. You should read some of the opposing votes agains more closely perhaps. I clearly said I oppose the name chage because the name is not in common use in modern English sources and may have never been used officially to refer to all the islands (still disputed). There is no reason for another poll since the original poll results are quite conclusive that there is 1. no consensus for the move and won't be one anytime soon 2. a clear majority who voted opposed the name Pinnacle and 3. the original poll is still ongoing I think. You will just have to accept that there currently is no majority for the move to Pinnacle Islands and continue your debate with Endroit without starting a new survey. "Rebooting" and repolling until you get the result you want is not an option. Can you guarantee that the all of the people who previously voted will be made aware that their original votes have been "disqualified" and that they will come back here and restate their position - of course not. And you certainly don't have the right to disqualify or negate their votes because you disagree with Endroit's argument. --Nikostar 12:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you could calm down and state your reasons clearly, that would help the discussion a lot more. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think my problem should be quite clear to understand! I have never seen anyone just decide they could just start a new survey and negate another one because of a debate with one editor. So yes, I was a bit annoyed and shocked to see you attempt to disqualify all the votes of the people, including myself, who participated in the legitimate survey. I might have rambled on a bit, i tend to do that, but i am quite sure you know what my reasons were and if not read what I wrote again more carefully. --Nikostar 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR and edit warring

Endroit and Palaceguard, please stop edit warring both of you. It seems to me that you are both gaming the system] and thats still a violation of wikipedia policies.

Discuss on the talk page and leave the article as it is. Mr. Killigan 11:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetial Order

"China" is before "Japan" in alphabetical order, just like in Liancourt Rocks, we should put the order alphabetically. Kingj123 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

the alphabetical order issue, seems to have been resolved.Sennen goroshi 04:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough of Korean's absurd complaint about alphabetical order

I modify the sidebar by alphabetical order. [4] Because, some Koreans are complaining of this sidebar on Talk:Liancourt Rocks. I don't understand why they are complaining on the different article, but I feel that the order of the item is not a big deal. Also, I'd like to finish about this absurd matter. How about, all? --Gettystein 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about the alphabetical order until I see some obvious patterns going on which has been made intentionally. Kingj123 20:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rammed and Sunk ?????

What occurred in the most "Recent Development" is under dispute, while the Taiwanese claim their vessel was rammed the Japanese are telling a different story. The Reuters article linked to only states that the vessels "collided."

Jdgang (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Jdgang

"What occurred at Auschwitz is under dispute. While the Jews claim they were gassed and massacred, the Nazis told a different story." What occurred with the boat is quite clear from the recently released video footage. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Textbooks before and after 1970

I think that the facts


"It was described, "Senkaku Islands is a Japanese territory" in the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China textbook before 1970. "

and

"However, China began to insist on owning Senkaku Islands suddenly when the possibility of the Natural gas field was found in 1971. "


may be disputed. First, PRC was more or less in chaos from the infamous "Cultural Revolution" at that time, so therefore, wouldn't be able to make such a stance at this, thus indicating that the statement may be untrue. Also, from other edits that user user:122.17.68.238 have made, the fact may be untrue. (Due to bias; user:122.17.68.238 have shown in his edits that he agrees and/or sides with the Japanese on this issue, and his IP is located in Tokyo, Japan)

I will delete these unsourced statements in 24 hours unless someone finds proof and provides it.

From the history of the article, I found that user:122.17.68.238 have made other edits such as putting "Senkaku Islands" first in "naming" and other controversial but trivial edits. If you're user:122.17.68.238, would you care to explain your two statements above, and why your edits should not be reversed. I will give you five days to do so.

If anyone else found information to back his statements and his edits, feel free to post that info here in the Article Discussion.

And to everyone else, edit warring is against Wikipedia's policy. I suggest you state your point here, and make sure that others agree with you before posting controversial and/or trivial information.

That goes same to you, user:203.198.138.171, where you changed and added the phrase "was deliberately crushed by" in the Recent Developments section on the page. Some of your edits may be controversial, and may be reversed unless you provide substantial evidence of it. (Yes, I heard what the boat's Captain said, but he is not an official source of information that's reliable for Wikipedia.) --KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added additional information that supports the claims about the textbooks, from a Taipei Times commentary by Heritage scholar John Tkacik. 1) a Renmin Ribao article from 1953 that refers to the Senkakus (by their Japanese name) as being part of Japan. (2) the fact that as late as 1969 the Senkakus are shown on PRC maps to be Japanese, and (3) no ROC map before 1969 shows them to be ROC territory. The "dispute" began in 1968, when Japanese scientists published the news that the continental shelf might be rich in oil. I have included this information in the text.218.162.123.203 (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton

In my view, the "Ming Dynasty claim" and "qing dynasty claim" sections should be deleted. There is no formal Qing or Ming claim to the islands in existence. These "claims" were back manufactured out of history after 1970 by the PRC. I think it would be better if the article discussed them but included them within the Chinese claim and identified the recent origins of these claims.218.162.123.203 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton

Also, IMHO the section on Unequal Treaties should be placed under the Chinese claim. "Unequal treaties" is simply a Chinese propaganda claim -- the Treaty of Shimonoseki was a completely acceptable treaty by then-current international practice and was no different from the treaties that the Qing court gave to its defeated opponents.218.162.123.203 (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton

TOC on the right column?

I don't think that having the TOC in such a place is a good idea; The TOC, currently located beneath the infobox, is not user-friendly, and being there defeats the purpose of having such a TOC at all.

Having a TOC in the normal place would speed up navigation a lot better.Agreed? (And please, contact the editor who put it there...)--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the attraction?

I assume that there's some oil, gas, fish or something nearby considering that the nations involved are so bothered about a few small, uninhabited islands. This article currently does not mention any such factor. LukeSurl t c 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is (some oil and natural gas, I think), but from my understanding, they bothered with these uninhabited islands because of national pride and the like. --KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 13:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Luke. I think we need to address the fact that natural resouses are one of the key factors why these 3 parties are so interested in these small, uninhabited islands. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added that information at the "Beginnings of the dispute" section.218.162.123.203 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton

Warning/note for people to lessen controversial edits?

Shall I make a note under each heading to tell people to discuss controversial edits before posting?

It'll be something like this: 

<!-- Please discuss on the talk page before posting potentially controversial edits -->

--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

I have tagged as duboius the following paragraph:

For example, a Nov 1953 Renmin Ribao article on the "Ryukyun People's Struggle Against US Occupation" has an opening sentence that reads "...琉球群島三部再我國台灣東北和日本九週洲島西南之間的海面上, 包括尖閣諸島, 先諸島 . . ."The three parts of the Ryukyus are located in the ocean northwest of China's Taiwan and southwest of Japan's [九週洲島] islands, and include the Senkakus, the....."

I have tagged it as dubious becuase the Chinese sentence quoted is nonsense. It is probably a typo, and should say "琉球群岛散布在" and not "三部再". A typo does not make the passage dubious. What makes it duboius is that the editor proceeded to translate this as "the three parts of the Ryukyus".

There is also a basic error in that Kyushu should be written 九州, not 九週洲. I could not find the original text authoritatively presented anywhere, but a blog post (http://www.kakug.com/blog/archives/115) which at least has the correct characters says that the article was published in January 1953.

There are basic inconsistencies in the sentence and I suggest removal. What do others think? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a facsimile of the original on my blog, and the article clearly dates from Nov, not Jan. http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/2008/06/1953-renmin-ribao-says-senkakus-part-of.html. It is really irrelevant how the article refers to Kyushu; the relevant issue is that in 1953 Beijing saw the Senkakus as part of Japan. You can save the point by removing the wrong Chinese and editing it to read something like "For example, a Nov 1953 Renmin Ribao article on the "Ryukyun People's Struggle Against US Occupation" has an opening sentence that refers to "the Senkakus," using the Japanese name and identifying them as part of Japan." That eliminates the Chinese problem. Thanks for the spot though!218.162.120.15 (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton

I went ahead and made that change. 218.162.120.15 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton

The problem, Michael, was that a source that is peppered with typos is not a reliable source. I'm wondering how you concluded that the article came from November. The unmagnified inset does not contain the magnified piece from what I can see. How do we know they came from the same newspaper?
I might add that the deduction being drawn from the sentence is somewhat WP:OR. It seems to me to be quite obvious that the writer of the article did his or her research from Japanese sources, hence the reference to Senkaku rather than Diaoyutai. What does that show? At the highest, what it shows is that the writer of the article was not aware of the Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute - and nobody would be at that stage becuase it was a non-issue. The implication in the article that this reflected an official government position that the islands were in Japanese sovereignty seems to take the sentence too far. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The inset does contain the date, very clearly. I know they came from the same newspaper because I myself created the pic + inset from that page, which is huge. If you like I can send you the original, send me an email. The reference is from the Ren Min Ri Bao, not a Japanese source. The "official government position" is inherent, not stated, because in the 1950s and 1960s it was not an issue -- everyone on all sides agreed that the Senkakus belonged to Japan and were not part of China. Looking for an "official government position" on that would be like searching today for the Official Government Position of the US on whether Sussex is part of the UK. Such official positions only begin occurring after 1969, because both Taiwan and China began claiming the Senkakus at that time. I agree that the typos are a problem, and I will get back to the person who sent them to me on that. But typos alone do not make sources unreliable -- otherwise we'd have to shut down Wikipedia -- especially when accompanied by the original document.218.162.123.186 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Michael Turton

Canvassing by Benlisquare

Note that Benlisquare is canvassing at Anti-cnn and is asking to manipulate Wikipedia to counter a perceived Anti-Chinese bias, see [5]. This article is mentioned in his forum post. Novidmarana (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of this disputed territories

Since Japanese claimed Dokdo (Takeshima) as theirs, and the Wikipedia voted to different name, we should vote for Senkaku islands to use Pinnacle Islands instead.--Korsentry 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"a high-traffic website"?

Really? (See template) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous people

There needs to be some mention of the indigenous people of the area (the Okinawan/Taiwanese both descendents of the Jomon people) and how they may or may not have used the islands as fishing stop offs. It seems that both Japan and China seem to forget that there used to be an independent kingdom in the area before either of them started this dispute and that the islands would have been used by both Okinawans and aboriginal Taiwanese (not Chinese descendents) long before either the Wajin Japanese or the Chinese were aware of the existence of these islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.49.44 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed

There're a couple of cite tags on the article. Anyone want to find references for them? And shouldn't this article's name to be modified given a lot of events happened during 2008 and 2009? OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IPs edit warring

As there were a couple IPs edit warring over content in the article, I've protected the article so only established editors can edit it (semiprotection). I also undid all the edits made by the IPs. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

agreed. the edits from the anonymous IP user stir up a meaningless competition for name ordering in the article, but it doesn't help improve the article. I would rather to keep the current status as a de facto stable version in which Japanese names go first in some places, and go after in other places. --Winstonlighter (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Article lead and infobox

Winston, please do not undo my changes. I was restoring things to how they were before you tried to move the page. Wait until there is a decision with the page move discussion. Also if you are going to revert my changes, please have the courtesy to say you're doing so in the edit description. Thanks. John Smith's (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston seems to suggest that he doesn't oppose my restoration at the start of the article. I have asked him to indicate why this should not be done or allow me to restore it. John Smith's (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, please use the talk page and stop reverting my changes to the lead of the article. There is no consensus to change the article title, so you should not change the lead to place Pinnacle Islands to the front and Senkaku Islands to the back of the first sentence. Similarly you should not rename the infobox. John Smith's (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

hi smith, it sounds interesting to hear this. In recent days there were a batch of anonymous IP edits that contribute nothing but keep changing the name ordering in the article. In a talk page, we actually communicated well about those reverts and semi-protect, unfortunately you didn't read it. Anyway, aside coming to the article to vote, change name order and do some reverts, the article needs more citations and proof reading. Hope you can help. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. I changed the article's lead section and infobox title to how it had been before the disputes started. You changed it back twice without explanation. The article's lead and infobox must reflect the article's title. The title is currently Senkaku Islands, so that is what should be reflected in the lead and infobox.
However, you seem to be indicating that you do not dispute my changes. Therefore I will restore the lead and infobox to how it had been, unless you give me a reason (use the article talk page) why it should not happen. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
yes, i agreed, but look at the second revert, did you see what else has been revived? And within 15 seconds, what else has been added?
Sorry that I didn't realize that you've also changed the name ordering in infobox otherwise I would patch this change to the existing edition too. Anyway, as your name ordering issue is fixed, I suggest that you can further help improve the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I can see that you did re-order the names (I think my page didn't update/I didn't refresh it properly). However, you forgot the infobox - that should be sorted out now.
I have indicated my views to the name change above. As for improving the article, I would suggest that everyone here nominate things to discuss. For example there are far too many sub and sub-sub-sections, especially under "territorial claims". The first thing to do should be to remove the sub-sub-sections and combine text. John Smith's (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
While combing text is needed, the question is how? The Sino-Japan disputes seem to stem from the different understanding on three major aspects: 1) was it terra nullius in 1895? 2) was it annexed, along with Taiwan, through the Treaty of Magun? 3)according to continental shelf, who should own it? 4)....? any more?
The current structure makes it hard to read the arguments of China, Taiwan Japan on those subjects of debate, so I would suggest reorganizing the article under the those arguments, rather than under a country's name. Winstonlighter (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisions to the article

I have removed all of the sub and sub-sub-section headings - they were unnecessary. I have also made mostly stylistic edits, plus a few content tweaks - such as removing duplication of Chinese names of the islands. Also I removed the second infobox because it was cluttering the article, and it didn't seem to serve any helpful point. I have put the Japanese claim section ahead of the "Chinese" one because Japan has control of the islands - it helps if a reader understands why they have control of the islands. John Smith's (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've revived parts of stable version. By removing all sub-subs, some of your edits made the sections significantly longer and even harder to understand what both countries are actually arguing.
The major issue in this article is that it doesn't show the arguments of the dispute clearly and your name ordering rearrangement and sub-sub removing doesn't improve the stable version which has been around here for a long time.
While you asked everyone to nominate things to discuss (see above), I hope you would discuss first before making a significant change in the article.
Also, Minami Kojima is a Japanese name, not a Chinese name. The mistake should be avoidable. Anyway, I've already corrected it.
About your edits on the Name section, you removed the etymology of "senkaku" and gave the impression that pinnacle stems from senkaku, but it's actually the opposite. I didn't touch that part yet because your edits seem to be unfinished. I'm just not sure. --Winstonlighter (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, I have the following comments.

  1. The changes I made seemed uncontroversial, which is why I made them. They did not seem significant to me because it was about style not content.
  2. You say that you have revived parts of a stable version and that I should discuss things. In that case, why did you unilaterally change the order of all the names in the geography section? Before the edit-warring (i.e. previously to September 2010), they started with the Japanese names, followed by the Chinese names - you have reversed this. It seems to me that they should go back to as they were with the Japanese names first. Also you made the change without making a note of it here or in your edit description - please make it clearer what you're doing next time.
  3. It should be enough to have all the names together once. We shouldn't keep having to say Uotsuri Jima/Diaoyu Dao, just as we don't say Senkaku/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands throughout the article. Name them all together once and then just list the Japanese names.
  4. Can you give me a source to say that Senkaku comes from Pinnacle? However, the article does not imply it is the other way around, just as it does not imply that Senkaku and Pinnacle come from Diaoyu.
  5. There needs to be a decision as to whether Diaoyu or Diaoyutai is used - the latter is used elsewhere on Wikiepedia.
  6. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that my edits to the claims section made things harder to understand. We are dealing with adults, not children, and the sections as I re-drafted them were not too long. More importantly I had not finished working on the section. Again, I was making style changes to make it easier for me to edit later. Next time please do not revert automatically.
  7. Unfortunately many articles suffer from a lack of interest, with people just making small edits (a lot like slapping plasters on gaping wounds). The article's layout in places is a problem that needs to be addressed. Someone has to reorganise it at some point. It's easy to change content, whereas changing the layout is harder work. But until you have the layout right arguably you cannot get the content right. John Smith's (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Smith's, I'm starting to get confused with you. After you exhausted our time in protesting what's edited in the content yesterday because you were reading the old cached article (sigh), you removed all subs, took away well-sourced content that tells the etymology of "Senkaku". While arguing to only keep the Japanese name in the rest of the article, you actually kept the Chinese name and wrongly said it's Japanese. In fact, the name ordering was removed by you, not me[6].
When you talked about name ordering, I think you're referring to "Geography" section. Compare to the old version and what you edited out:
  • "Uotsuri Jima (魚釣島[8]) or Diaoyudao (釣魚島[9]) is the largest island of the Senkaku Islands..."
  • "Kuba Jima (久場島[8]) or Huangwei Yu (黃尾嶼[9])..."
  • "Taishō Jima (大正島[8]) or Chiwei Yu (赤尾嶼[9])....."
(dashed content was you've removed)
Here is your final version of the geography and name section [7] which is a mess. Here is my cleanup [8], which was done 7 hours after your last edit. I think anyone could compare the quality of changes.
About the etymology of Senkaku, you would easily get it from any old version prior to your edit on removing the Chinese name and sub-heading: [9]
::: "In the late 19th century, Sentō Shosho (尖頭諸嶼?) and Senkaku Shosho (尖閣諸嶼?) were translations used for these "Pinnacle Islands" by various Japanese sources."
(well-sourced content you removed)
Anyway, edit warring didn't happen between you and me but basic consensus needs to be reached, especially you're talking about the quality of edits in recent days. Here is my suggestion:
  • Have basic understanding about name issues. When you don't understand which name is Chinese or Japanese, ask first. Don't guess.
  • Don't remove the Chinese names. They're there for a long time.
  • Don't remove well sourced content such as the etymology of Senkaku even if you don't like it. If you dispute it, discuss here first. --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Morever, as per your comment above, you don't seem to realize you had removed a sourced content which contains the etymology of island's names. I've re-edited the etymology section[10] based on Nihonjoe's last edit. Anyway, there's handful of books about this topic on Google Books. Please get familiar with the topic if you really want to improve the article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston, I would like you to reply to the points in my previous message one by one, please. They were clearly made. You can start by addressing point number 2, that for a long time before the last week or so the names were Japanese first followed by Chinese second. You have changed this to Chinese followed by Japanese. Why did you do this? Thanks. As for edit-warring, I think you've made reversions 3 or 4 times in the last 24 hours. That's edit-warring, and 4 reversions would be a violation of the 3RR rule. I've given you a formal notification of this on your talk page - thanks. John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're suggesting that there's a "reservation system" for name ordering in each section. In Geography, Japanese names go first. In Infobox, Japanese names go first .... so when I come to clean up your edits and build a new table from scratch, I had to spend time on studying each revision to see which names historically come first and last. I think no one can serve your ultimate pursuit for tediousness and picky requests.
If you don't want anyone to touch the existing ordering, don't mess them. Don't wrongfully say a Chinese name is Japanese while arguing to remove all Chinese names in the rest of the article. Don't give a chance to anyone to clean up a mess because they hardly make research on each revision to see which name should go first.
More interestingly, the name ordering was removed by you, not me. Are you really sure what you did? [11]. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
About reverts. my major cleanup on Geography was actually based on your revision. Check it again: your last edit [12] and my cleanup[13]
My cleanup on the Names section was based on an older version because you clearly didn't realize what you've removed. (see #4 in my dialogue at 07:18 and check your answer again.) --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
To answer the point about the names, I accidentily got the names reversed for one of the islands. You accuse me of being picky, but you're the one who is pretending that my mistake is somehow important when I was trying to improve the article. It's not relevant to the discussion, so why do you keep raising it? I'm not presenting myself as a historical expert, and if anything I have said that for the moment my primary concern is about style and layout.
I did not say there was a "reservation system" or anything like that. As I said previously, before the last week or so the names were Japanese, followed by Chinese. You changed that. Given you said earlier that we should keep sub-sub-sections because they were "stable", why are you now changing the name ordering despite the fact that previously they were stable? I am also not suggesting that ALL Chinese names be removed. I suggested that rather than keep listing both names for the islands, it would easier to list both together and then the Japanese one later in the Geography section. But that is a different discussion, I am happy to keep the Chinese names if we revert to Japanese-Chinese names.
You also did not need to "clean up" my edits. They were much better than the article was previously, and as I pointed out earlier I was going to readdress them ASAP. But I can't do that right now because I'm trying to reason with you.
I know that at the time I removed the Chinese names apart from their first usage, because I was trying to make things look more tidy. I am not saying that we must remove all Chinese names. People make edits because they think they're good, not because they are saying they have to stand. If you are insisting that Chinese names be listed amongst Japanese names all the time, we can discuss that later. The issue for the moment is how the names should be ordered.
About reverts, if you undo my edits in full or part it still counts as a revert. Check the 3RR rules as I linked on your talk page.
Your cleanup was not based on the long-standing precedent of Japanese followed by Chinese names. John Smith's (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Look at the older revision (August)[14], even in the geography section, Japanese names go first and second in different parts of the article. I never touch the name order when the order is there. However, when I added back a removed name, I wouldn't examine who "reserved the seats" in each section of the article. Next time, if you don't want to see any change, keep the order, instead of removing any names.
If you're trying to propose an ultimate common name for each islet, feel free to start a proposal and check which name is more common in Google Scholar and Google Book.......... well, did you see the results? then you better not waste time on that. --Winstonlighter (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that the older version had Japanese names followed by Chinese names. I did not change this order - I kept it the same. John Smith's (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry that the old version suggested the opposite and I don't see how you concluded that I acknowledged your idea. All revisions are stored in the system and no cheat is possible. Please look at Nan Xiaodao/Minami Kojima and Other islands under Geography in the older revision again[15] and make sure you know which name is Chinese or Japanese.
The name order in the revision you provided is your edits yesterday, and it's not even your last edit.[16]. --Winstonlighter (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't suggest the opposite. The islands have Japanese names first and Chinese names second. What has happened with the last island is that someone inserted the title incorrectly (the text below refers to them as being Japanese-Chinese). As for the rocks, I didn't consider them as important. But I thought it fair to bring them in line with the islands. John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting that you suggested some name ordering is more important while some are less. Can you clarify your criteria? Any Wiki guideline? Do you mean that the Japanese names for islets are more common names in English? --Winstonlighter (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you please not misattribute my comments. Where did I say "some name ordering is more important while some are less"? I can't see a comment like that anywhere.
My reasoning for having the Japanese names first is thus. First, because the article title uses the Japanese name for the islands. It's common sense that the islands themselves be principly named with the Japanese names. Second, because previously the islands also had the Japanese names followed by the Chinese names. The exception to this was the last island, where the description was Japanese-Chinese, but the title was Chinese-Japanese. Uniformity is preferential. It is true that the rocks were inserted with Chinese names first, but as I said uniformity is better. I made them uniform.
So what is your reasoning for having the Chinese names first? John Smith's (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Page move

I have revered the page move from Senkaku Islands to Diaoyutai Islands. While the mover gave the comment "no objections on the move". I see no recent discussion per WP:RM and previous one Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3#Requested move resulted to stay at Senkaku Islands. --Kusunose 23:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked for comments at here and there's no comments for 15 days, plus the link you pointed took place more than 2 years ago. The move is based on WP:COMMONNAME, as shown by # of Google results for those 2 terms and also by various governments not involved in the dispute. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean "Citation needed"? A wrong title, I should say. It's unnoticeable. The section title should have been "Page move request". Oda Mari (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
My first point was still valid, as I first did ask for more citation before deciding to to add a move request along. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe Senkaku Islands is better in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCGN and WP:NCON. For # of Google hits, my search does not agree with your observation, for "Senkaku Islands" [17] (26,400 pages) outnumbered "Diaoyutai Islands" (6,850 pages)[18]. In any case, Search engine test is hardly conclusive; see also WP:NCGN#Search engine issues for problems for foreign geographic names.

WP:Naming conflict suggest some other methods for determining the common name. For reference works, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta uses Senkaku Islands (on Britannca, search for Diaoyutai and Senkaku produses no hits). For international organisations, this is a page hosted on un.org about a report authored by UN. Secretary-General and China; it says "concerning Diaoyu island" in the summary but it uses "SENKAKU ISLANDS" in subjects for classification. I also remember the United Nations Cartographic Section used "Senkaku Islands" in List of Territories but both links are currently not available. --Kusunose 08:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to you the 3 UN links you pointed. The latter 2 links, as you mentioned, are dead and cannot verify your claims. The first you you provided[19], did you even bother to check the contents, not just the title/summary of the pdf, to ensure that it supports your argument? When I click on the link to English on that page,[20] the pdf opens a UN document that supports my viewpoint. You just gave us reference that contradict your own views (facepalm). OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
CIA Factbook uses Senkaku Shoto. Select Japan and see the map. And CNN site search result is 255 Senkaku Islands and 155 Diaoyu Islands Oda Mari (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The document itself is authored by China and it naturally supports the Chinese point of view. I'm aware of that. My point is that the UN's indexing/categorization system uses Senkaku Islands over Diaoyutai or Daiyou Islands, recognizes it as a common/standard name. --Kusunose 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

i don't understand the reason for "not move" is because there is "no consensus". it is precisely because there is no consensus that we need to find a more neutral name. otherwise, unless wiki has taken a "first come first serve rule"?

when compared with Liancourt, this is simply inconsistent. you either call this some neutral name. or switch Liancourt to "Dodko" -- which Korea is administering at this point of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.23 (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In all media report we see either Diayou/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu. Why cannot we just name this wiki item Senkaku_Diaoyu or Diaoyu_Senkaku while the debate continues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.24 (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Either Senkaku or Diaoyu is controversial. I support the move back to Pinnacle. In fact, not only is Pinnacle more acceptable to the Chinese or those who are neutral, Senkaku is a literal translation of the word Pinnacle. Furthermore, google search/etc do not yield overwhelmingly different results to justify one over another.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.181.200 (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pinnacle Islands

I added a tag as even the title of the article is not npov.andycjp (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm suspicious over the claim that the UN endorses Senakaku as a common name. The UN doesn't seem to take a position in this contentious topic. Kusunose, could you provide more details on it?
While the Columbia Encyclopedia filed the article under "Senkaku", it clearly mentions different common names for those disputed islands and I don't see the Columbia takes any position in suggesting which one is more common. In international media, it seems to be more common to use both diaoyu and senkaku interchangeably. BBC simply tag the island with "Diaoyu/Senkaku" on the map[21].
While it is true that the search result, which shows 245,000 results on Diaoyu islands[22] and 47,700 on senkaku islands[23], doesn't mean that diaoyu is more common than senkaku, it hardly supports senkaku is a common name too.
According to WP:Name, the encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalists to claim disputed islands and I don't see either senkaku or diaoyutai will achieve the required degree of neutrality. I suggest moving the article to Pinnacle Islands until there is a other better neutral choice.

--Winstonlighter (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to do moves like this, please make sure you are doing it correctly. You moved the article to Pinnacle islands (lowercase "i") when it should have been Pinnacle Islands (capital "I"). You also didn't check the box to move all the talk archives as well, so they became inaccessible after the move. These issues have now been fixed as I've move the article to the correct title and moved the talk archives. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks joe for the help. hope the current title will permanently settle this issue. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it will be solved at least as much as the Liancourt Rocks issue. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please move the article by WP:Requested moves for a controversial move. It is clear the most common name is "Senkaku Islands". The following are the result of Google search:

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Phoenix7777, your move from Pinnacle islands to Senkaku islands seems to be based on a careful choice of search queries. Google results could often be misleading in many ways and hardly provides a way to drive "definitive conclusions".

By searching the most recent news:

  • "senkaku islands": 21 results [24]
  • "Diaoyu islands": 194 results [25]

Similar results can be found in German Google news:

Also on book', which yields different results by using another keywords, compared to your finely-polished keyword "diaoyutai islands":

  • "diaoyu islands": 3440 results
  • "diaoyutai" : 4,700 results.

WP:Name states clearly that the encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality and the Japanese title has been disputed before the move.

Phoenix7777, your revert seems to be based on a misinterpretation of google results. Correct me if i'm wrong. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalists to claim sovereignty and it's hardly productive to stir up a great debate between the use of "senkaku" or "diaoyu" as we can see in Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan. It's especially true in an article which is poorly and patchily edited, lack of citations. More efforts are needed for the article itself, rather than the title. --Winstonlighter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

I've reverted the edit from 203.218.190.89 which seems to spark an unnecessary warring on name ordering. In the article, Japanese name sometimes goes first, some of the goes second and I'm inclined to keep it as a de facto status. Those nationalistic-driven warring won't end up in a dead loop. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Phoenix7777, speaking of which name is common, I would say diaoyudao is used by over 1.5 billion people. Also, just to remind you that senkaku isn't an English word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.30.222 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus to move. kotra (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands → Pinnacle Islands — A recent discussion about the controversial use of Japanese name over a disputed land seems to suggest that neither Senkaku and Diaoyu is predominate common name. Search results show that both names are common, in which the Japanese one yields more results in Google Book search, while the Chinese name yields more in Google News and General Google search. The title was hence moved to Pinnacle Islands following the example of Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan, which neglects who administrates and controls the place, but pick up a neutral generally known name. In this case, although the name Pinnacle Islands does not seem to be overwhelmingly popular than the rest of two, it achieves the highest degree of neutrality required by wp:name. An admin (nihonjoe) and I have moved the page to Pinnacle Islands for neutrality, but the move is disputed by a user. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Before posting the formal move request, Please review the following points.
    • Please review the past discussion regarding the article name and discuss how the situation has changed or what evidence newly found since the last discussion. We are not persons of leisure to waste a time every time a new comer came to request a move.
    • Please review "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)" first. Its " Widely accepted name" describes how to resolve the disputed name. It states the use of "Google Scholar" and "Google Books" hits not "Google news" hits. Also " Use English" describes the use of "a widely accepted English name" not a German language.
    • Please indicate the Policy or Guideline that states the title of the disputed place should not be either of the name called by the disputed countries but the least common English name found elsewhere.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi phoenix, this is the first time to start a formal move request for this article. In fact, Nihonjoe and I has moved the article to Pinnacle Islands but you reverted it and insisted to use a Japanese name based on an obviously flawed google result with a carefully polished keyword ("Diaoyutai islands"). As per your previous request, we started the formal move procedure, in which you now described as a process for "persons of leisure to waste a time every time a new comer came to request a move." I lean towards keeping good faiths on you but please spend your time (and our time) more efficiently. --Winstonlighter (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

--Winstonlighter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Actually, I only fixed an incorrectly titled move. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Even if there are some instances of one name being used more than others, the current title "Senkaku" still is very POV, as it lean fully towards Japan's pov. Until the dispute is solved, a neutral name would be preferred here, as it have been done numerous times elsewhere and thank god this has one. :) --LLTimes (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: In disputes such as these, such as the Liancourt Rocks as pointed out above, or even Mount Everest, the native English language name should be preferred to endorsing one claimant or the other. The Senkakuite argument that its name is more common in English is only true for very selective web searches, whereas Diaoyu wins in others, and still it is not possible to make a 1:1 comparison of the Chinese and Japanese names, for there is far less consistency in the romanization schemes and translations of the Chinese. Quigley (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support for the same reasons as with Liancourt Rocks. This is the most neutral name. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to mediate an actual naming dispute by changing the title from the most common name to the least common name. It's like to change "Persian Gulf" to "Arabo-Persian Gulf" by compromising the naming dispute between "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Questions about the choice of keywords Diaoyutai Islands.
  • Scholar Search on "Diaoyu Islands":709 results[28]
or try without a bracket:
  • Scholar Search on Diaoyu Islands: 1,340.[29]
If you just want a more favorable result, try "Tiao-yu-tai islands". Anyway, the result doesn't seem to suggest a decisive conclusion about which one is more common and that's why there's a proposal for using Pinnacle Islands as a neutral term. --Winstonlighter (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I used the name User:OhanaUnited used to move this article in #Page move. I will add "Diaoyu Islands" to my list if you want. 'Diaoyu Islands' without bracket is apparently inappropriate. Anyway your preference is "Pinnacle Islands" which is still the least common name. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. "Senkaku": 372 000
  2. "Diaoyutai": 252 000
  3. "Senkaku Islands": 47 400
  4. "Diaoyu Islands": 26 500
  5. "Diaoyutai Islands": 6 630
  6. "Tiaoyutai Islands": 2 200
Support: While I'm confused as to how the nominator concluded that the "Chinese name yields more" results, I do concede that there is a substantial divide in usage, and the ratio is not nearly great enough to warrant the selection of the "most common" name. Pinnacle Islands appears common enough, and should prove neutral and effective. Nightw 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for participating this discussion. However as you may know that Google web search is quite unreliable. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name recommends the use of "Google Scholar" and "Google Books" hits as I posted above. Please explain why you are determined to support the least common English name as the most preferable article title. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose:Senkaku Islands is the most commonly used name in en. Winstonlighter, your news search above doesn't have the word "Islands". Only "senkaku" and "Diaoyutai". Probably the results may include Diaoyutai State Guesthouse. This is the results of my Google news search.
Comment: following the link above, here shows the contrast results:
  • [33]"Diaoyu islands": 325 results
  • [34]"Senkaku islands": 24 results.
Or try without a bracket:
  • [35] Diaoyu islands: 561 results
  • [36] Senkaku islands: 387 results.
Enough is said. --Winstonlighter (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't think the Google news hits is relevant to the most common English name. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Phoenix, it seems to me that you're trying to be a troll with endless tricks. You asked for this formal WP:MOVE, in which you later described as a process for "persons of leisure to waste a time". Once it's started, you asked to postpone. The latest trick is WP:CANVAS policy? I've informed users who recently edited this article, including you and Kusunose who seemed to be in favour of a Japanese name rather than a neutral one. In this contentious topic, I actually expect an endless WP:MOVE would happen if the active users who are involved in this article haven't been informed about this WP:Move. While you're toying with the debate notification and stalking my contributions, you possibly miss two more notifications:
User:Tenmei brought Talk:Eulsa Treaty to my attention yesterday and surprisingly, you're highly active in those naming issues. Frankly, nationalistic driven debate is often exhausting but brings nothing to the community. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Winstonlighter, please refrain from WP:Personal attack. Or you will be blocked from editing. Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
........Speechless. Anyway, adopt WP:IAR if you see anyone is obviously toying with police but don't forget to apply WP:AGF. Let me know when you come up with a new argument or trick. Cheers. --Winstonlighter (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Neutrality in disputes is a value (not the only value); for example, WP:NCGN says In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example, the name Liancourt Rocks has been adopted rather than select either the Korean or Japanese name for the feature. Similarly, Wikipedia's version of the Derry/Londonderry name dispute has been resolved by naming the city page Derry and the county page County Londonderry. I am commenting rather than !voting because one question involved is whether Senkaku is so predominant in the sources as to make the efforts at neutrality pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The description you cited is in "Multiple local names" section where the use of Google Scholar/Book hits is hard to determine which is widely used in English. Actually, 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) 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ajax's comment. I know no one that uses the term "Pinnacle Islands", regardless of nationality. Given that Senkaku is the most widely used term (see below) in the English sphere clearly the current title is appropriate. The "it's more neutral" argument is also invalid. Just because something is disputed does not mean that a correct/appropriate name should be ditched. More importantly, people who try to change the article name without forming consensus (especially if they edit war) should be punished according to the vandalism rules. If necessary the article can have semi-protection. More generally, I seem to remember that this has been proposed more than once before and failed. The same question shouldn't be repeatedly asked until the project "gets it right" and the people that voted on it previously aren't around. Finally, why has no notice of this proposal been put on the front page? This needs to be rectified. John Smith's (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: More than 10,000 results from Google and 396 results from google book on pinnacle islands doesn't seem to agree that the word is original research. Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple_local_names states that in some cases where multiple common names occur, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view.
Considering the comments in this thread and various google results shown, I do concede the use of senkaku or diaoyu is regarded by some as a support for a particular national point of view. Probably we understand the issue well. Following the example of Liancourt Rocks, Pinnacle is the only neutral choice. --Winstonlighter (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not claim Pinnacle Islands was original research. Ajax said that it was bordering on original research because it is not commonly used in English these days, apart from academia (and even then it's not the primary term).
You have misinterpreted what NCGN says. The very start of the section you refer to 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". The point is that it is easy to see which term is widely used in English - this has been demonstrated above, showing that "Senkaku" is clearly the most common term.
Moreover, you're happy to quote one part but ignore the part that says "the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory" and it recommends a single name. I tried to edit the article to just use one name for the islands and rocks, but you reverted that. John Smith's (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Several of the above opposes hit the nail on the head. Etymology is irrelevant; "Senkaku Islands" is the common English name for these islands and should be used. The argument for using "Pinnacle Islands" seems about as strong as that for naming the article on Frankfurt "Frankfort". Ucucha 14:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would be equivalent to yielding to territorial claims over the Spratly Islands and renaming the page Xisha Islands or whatever they are called in Vietnamese which would be both incorrect and baffling. Senkaku seems to me to be the most commonly used name - no UK newspaper uses anything other than the Japanese. The equivalent Chinese Wikipedia article says that the name came from the British navy in 1844 and the Japanese translation came along in 1900. At that time I suspect no-one really cared what they were called and the dying Qing Dynasty in China would not have made a claim at that time. Now things are different but let's stick with the name that's been used for the past 100 years. Philg88 (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Google Book/Scholar hits

There are many unreliable search results (Google web, Google news) including inappropriate results (without "quote", too many spurious hits like "Diaoyutai" which include Diaoyutai State Guesthouse) are provided above. So I list the Google Book/Scholar hits as described in "WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name".

According to the "WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name", "If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted." So "Senkaku Islands" is clearly a "Widely accepted name". ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What WP:NCGN says

  1. General guidelines says "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
  2. Widely accepted name says one of the methods is to "Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits."
  3. Multiple local names says if "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.", then "In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view." like Liancourt Rocks.

So, "Senkaku Islands" is a "Widely accepted name" by the method described above 2, no compromise to use the least common name is necessary. To sum up, the votes casted with a reason "neutrality" or "NPOV" are all void. ――　 Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as having something "null and void" base on WP:NCGN; policy is flexible. If all else fails, WP:IAR. If a policy prevents the optimum functionality of Wikipedia (for example, neutrality), then we also have the option of ignoring it (even though it is discouraged, it is possible). You could similarly consider the fifth WP:PILLAR as well, perhaps even WP:BURO and WP:CCC. Also, I'm not going to bother to !vote in this discussion, because I frankly could care little on the title of this article, as long as the content isn't compromised by any major decision made by users. I'd prefer that this article doesn't become an expansion of the circlejerk that we see at Liancourt Rocks, because it's just silly, and nationalism doesn't add any inches to you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Benlisquare, thank you for commenting my post above. My word "void" may have been too provocative to you. I apologize if the word offended you. However I still believe the votes with a reason simply indicating the neutrality or NPOV are not productive to this discussion. ――　Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that unlike the Liancourt Rocks, nobody uses the term Pinnacle Island. No, I don't say that in absolute terms, but the numbers show that the name's use is extremely rare... so rare that few people will even recognize it. From what I recall, there's already been a vote on the nomenclature before; I'm sure if we look in the archives, we can fish it out. Are we going to have cyclical debates on the dispute every time the passions of fellow netizens are inflamed about the islands? Feel free to apply Wikipedia rules all you want, but let's not construe it to further individual bias.--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What WP:NPOV says

WP:NPOV#Article naming says

  • "If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors."
  • "Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources."

This policy explicitly rejects above "neutral title name" discussions. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change the name to "Fishing islands"

Chinese Diaoyutai and Japanese Senkaku are the same (disputed) islands near Tiawan. In fact, the major island is called "Fishing Island" by both side (Chinese:钓鱼岛；Japanese：鱼钓岛）. So, in English we should call it Fishing Islands rather than Senkaku. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiftian (talk • contribs) 06:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Let's just arbitrarily change all the names of the places around the world as we wish. I propose we change the islands' name to something more catchy, like Skull Islands or Candy Land. Too bad 鱼钓岛 isn't the way the Japanese people spell Senkaku (尖閣諸島); 鱼钓岛 is how they transliterate the Chinese name (Diaoyutai/钓鱼岛) into their own language. It's funny to see how far some people will go just to expunge Senkaku...--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe Leiftian is referring to the Japanese name of the main island, Uotsuri Jima, literally meaning fish luring island, as oppose to the Japanese name of the island group, Senka, meaning pointy place, or pinnacle. Furthermore, 魚釣島 is in fact how the name of the largest island in the island group is written in Japanese Kanji. Before the appearance of the name Pinnacle Islands, the island group would most likely have been referred to by most local visitors whether Chinese or Japanese in some combination of the charaters "魚" meaning fish and "釣" meaning luring or catching or fish, followed by the Chinese word for an island group "群島" or the Japanese word for an island group "諸嶼". Therefore, I believe Leiftian's suggestion of "Fishing Island(s)" dose have some grounds, however as ScorchingPheonix pointed out, the islands has never been widely refereed to as "Fishing Islands" by English speakers hence it will not achieve the recognizability that a title of an article should encompass.

At this point, if I may hijack this section and present my own suggestion for a compromise to the ongoing problem. I propose a separate page with information regarding only the main island of Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai be created This would follow the Derry/Londonderry example and name of article regarding the island group "Senkaku Islands", and the article regarding the largest island in the group "Diaoyutai".

The source of the difference opinions in naming as I see it is that most Pro-Japan medias have always refereed to the island group, as oppose to the single island, when talking about the dispute in order to avoid using the characters "魚" and "釣"(the reasons why are not important to this discussion). While on the other hand, Pro-China medias have mostly focused their attention on the individual island. This resulted in a situation when referring to the island group, the name in majority of the articles or publications that can be found will be using the Pro-Japan name of Senkaku Islands, where as when referring to the main island, the term "Diayutai" will far outweigh the term "Uotsuri Jima" in any search. Therefore we can only conclude the fact this website, by choosing to only host an article about the island group and no article about the "Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai" island specificly, is in and of itself bias and violating neutrality. Therefore I suggest that a separate article be created dedicated to the "Uotsurijima/Diaoyutai" island, and existing content on the current page be split accordingly, or in cases where coverage overlaps, duplicated and perhaps enhanced. (As I am a very inexperienced member, I don't really know how to formally propose a change/addition like this, so if I could get some help from a more experienced member, that would be great.)--Spkg (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Geography section

I've started a new thread as the old one was getting too confusing.

I have restored the picture that got lost - no idea why. The line about the USN has been removed as I couldn't find anything about that on the internet and in any case I have no idea why it was important - the US has gone on manoeuvres in lots of places around the world! There is a citation for the albatross' nesting ground.

I have moved the text and table around a bit. I think it makes sense to say "there are x islands/rocks...." followed by the table. In that case the table does not need a title, but it is useful to distinguish which are islands and which are rocks. We could have two tables but this looks more tidy at the moment.

Finally, yes I have moved the Japanese names in front of the Chinese ones. This makes more sense as the article title uses "Senkaku", the Japanese name. It was also the format for the names of the islands until recently, apart from Minami Kojima. In the case of Minami Kojima, the text itself had the Japanese name followed by the Chinese name. It was also the name given on the picture of the island. The rocks did follow the Chinese-Japanese name format, but I think for the sake of uniformity it is fair to have them follow the naming format used by the islands. John Smith's (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of vandalism and IP anonymous edit on this article that makes nothing but changing the name ordering. When you start to do nothing but changing name ordering on the caption, table,and each sentence, and even go so far by proposing "Japanese always go first" criteria in name ordering, you surely need to reach a consensus with other editors. "It is what it looks" is practiced here for long time.
Also, when you added a column in a table (island/rock column), make sure you know that by international law, islands are granted with EEZ while rocks not. Whether an islet is island or rock could be a contentious topic but so far I didn't see the governments of Taiwan, China and Japan reach an agreement on this. As you can see, in 2 out of the last 3 islets, they're called -iwa in Japanese and -dao in Chinese. So your edits, along with your endless effort in promoting "Japanese goes first" criteria, have been removed.
Names are used because they're common, instead of favouring any nations. When pushing forward your "Japanese names go first" rule, please prove they're more common. However, Google Scholar and Book doesn't appear to support it. --Winstonlighter (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Winston, why is there one rule for me and one rule for you? You didn't get consensus for giving Chinese names precedence, yet you demand I get it. Where is your evidence that the Chinese names are more common?
You've also completely misrepresented by last edit when you said "when you start to do nothing but changing name ordering". I did not do that, I added a citation, added a picture, moved text, clarified and improved text, added what I thought was a helpful description of the islets, etc. You've reverted all of those.
You've created a problem by jamming all those pictures in there. There is now a block of empty space in the bottom left corner that wasn't there before - it needs to be removed. John Smith's (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
As i said many times, when i edited the article based on your last edition[37], there was no name ordering in the text description and no table. When I cleaned up[38] your edition, I've tried hard to keep the existing name ordering as long as it's there. That's why all name ordering in the Infobox, See Also , leading paragraphs has left intact. However, when there's no name ordering, no one would spend time on reviewing each revision to see if Japanese names have reserved a front seat or rear seat.
The vandalism, as we can see in recent days, aims at doing nothing but changing the name ordering, has been reverted by the admin. If you want to push forward a rule (Japanese names go first), discuss first.
By the way, the image you added is kept there but I changed the alignment(from [39]->[40]). The contentious column to state which is rock or island is unnecessary because whether those islets are rock or islands itelf is controversial and no governments have reached an agreement on this.
Lastly, I seriously advised that Aside editing the name order, you should understand more about this contentious topic. 1) know clearly which name is Japanese or Chinese 2) read international law regarding rocks and islets. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I note that there was no table, but whether we needed one is a matter of debate. Also, whilst there were a few examples of Chinese followed by Japanese names, there was in my view a clear preference throughout the article for Japanese names followed by Chinese names.
There was no "clean up" required of my edits to the geography section. Please do not characterise it as such. You were free to make your own edits, but please do not suggest that it was somehow "necessary" or I had otherwise made bad changes.
You are failing to address the point that you keep saying I need to have consensus for having some sort of naming order, yet you undid my edits to impose your own naming order. You have still not told me why you do not need consensus and I do.
I have already shown I noted your point about islands and rocks, which is why I did not reinsert it into the table. At the time I added the detail to the table I thought it was helpful. You don't need to keep mentioning it. Similarly please stop telling me about what I need to know. I have noted your suggestion and that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to me that the easiest way around this is to bring back the formatting/layout used before I made the original changes. You did not start making changes until I did, so I take it that you saw nothing with things as they stood previously. We can try to work out some sort of consensus to progress things from there. John Smith's (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

you're bordered on vandalism. Other users have spent a lot of time and efforts at improving the quality of the article since you left a mess there[41]. Efforts have been paid on cleaning up, removing all syntax errors, building a new table from scratch and verifying every single sentence you tried to remove, refining the citations. And now you tried to make fool of everyone that those efforts in cleanup should be wiped out only because you don't like the name ordering. I can't agree any proposal for vandalism. Sorry. --Winstonlighter (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Winston, that is an extremely bad faith comment to make. I have not vandalised anything. As for clearing up my "mess", there was a small error when I left off a close reference tag. That was solved by someone else before you made your own changes, so why do you keep mentioning it as justification for the edits you made alter?
Even given your comment above I'd like to think you are editing in good faith. I even proposed reverting the section in question (not the whole article) to the state it was in previously. You claimed that the claims section should stay as it is unless there was "consensus" as it was stable and had been there for a long time. So why isn't it possible to do this for the geography section? You do not own own this article so we should be able to talk about this. John Smith's (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In the whole discussion, you even failed to criticize the quality of the revision you're eager to cancel. I couldn't see anything more unproductive than your proposal to remove a new constructed table, take away refined citations and canceled all copy-editing only because you don't like the name ordering which didn't even exist when I tried to clean up your revision.
Thanks for reiterating that no one owns the article. I couldn't agree more. Please resort to admin for help before you revert. Feel free to start a formal procedure for gathering consensus. While it's a waste of time, I do concede that it's the only way to go. ---Winstonlighter (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
For the last time, you didn't "clean up" my revision. There was nothing wrong with it that couldn't be tweaked.
I was not proposing that all copy-editing and improved citations be removed. I was trying to suggest a way to reach a consensus by using an earlier version and working from there. You seem to be rejecting this because you're trying to control the article and want to preserve the name ordering as it currently is.
What is seeking an admin's help before doing anything going to accomplish? Are you suggesting that you will revert and edit unilaterally unless you're blocked from editing? Or that if an admin comes along you will bow down to whatever he or she says? And why are you insisting I seek consensus when you admit it's pointless and you make edits all the time based on what you alone think is best? I would seek the views of outsiders, but your conversation with Simon below doesn't bode well. It suggests that you will not accept the views of anyone with a view that could be seen to support mine or you otherwise don't like. You're just talking at people, not engaging in dialogue with them.
So for the benefit of everyone, please explain why is it better to have the Chinese names followed by the Japanese names, instead of the other way around. John Smith's (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. Hi John, I fully understand that you're eager to push forward a new "Japanese names first" rule. As your suggestion is beyond the current Wikipedia policies, I advised you to discuss in WP_Talk:NC. While Wikipedia naming convention states clearly that it doesn't favor any national point of view, please don't feel hesitated to discuss it ther if you have a strong reason to overturn this policy.
  2. However, I have to reiterate for the nth times that I've never suggested Chinese names must be placed before the Japanese, or in the other way around. I've proposed that editors shall dutifully respect the name ordering as long as it's there. Don't try to change existent name ordering because it will stir up an endless vandalism and unnecessary competition.
  3. Not convincing? Last week, I requested to revert all those edits that aimed at changing existing name order and placing Chinese names ahead of the Japanese ones. In such case, the admin can simply asked him to respect the existent name ordering. If you start "Japanese name first" rule, endless questions will be asked from different users in an indefinite time. I forsee that it will be even more unproductive than this communication between you and me.
  4. If you revert to an older version which is obviously worsen than the current version, simply because you don't like the name ordering in a particular section, you're abusing revert and you're bordered on vandalism.

--Winstonlighter (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never suggested Chinese names must be placed before the Japanese - Then why did you put all of the Chinese names first in the geography section? John Smith's (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I fully understand that you're eager to push forward a new "Japanese names first" rule - I don't want a rule or policy. I want the names to have a single format throughout the article. That does not require a new naming convention. Besides, what is the point of going there? You say yourself it's useless, I guess because you'll ignore any other comments you don't like. John Smith's (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think i got your sentiments now. you believed that everyone should always follow the "japanese names go first" criteria whenever they edited the article, even if the name ordering doesn't exist.
As I said, to respect existent name ordering has been practiced in this article for a few years because it's an easier way to solve any future potential edit conflicts. If you want to push forward a "Japanese-goes-first rule", discuss in WP_Talk:NC. --Winstonlighter (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to push forward "Japanese-goes-first rule" whatever you mean by that. (compare with the somewhat analogous situation on the Kuril Islands, if you don't believe me). The Japanese name should go first because: 1.) Japan de-facto controls the Islands for over 100 years. 2.) most modern English language sources (books, maps etc) use the Japanese name. By doing that we are not taking sides in the Japanese-Chinese dispute as you seem to assume, but rather describe the situation as it currently exist.  Dr. Loosmark  23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Loosmark's comment above. No one wants a rule. We just want common sense to prevail and use the Japanese names first. John Smith's (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Table column order

There's lots of hurf durf above which I'm not going to wade through so I'm putting my viewpoint here. If you look at the Kuril Islands article, you'll find that the islands' names are presented Russian version first, Japanese version second, presumably because the islands are controlled by Russia.

Logically, the Japanese names should be presented first in this article. They are controlled by Japan, but China claims them. Regardless of how you feel about the respective countries, it is logical to present them controlling party first, disputing country second.

I may live in Japan but I respect the veil of ignorance -- if the Liancourt Rocks article presented the Korean names first, since Korea is controlling the rocks, I wouldn't mind. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't provide any policy to favor any national point of view. In WP:NCGN, names are used because it's common, not because it's used to favor a point of view of a particular nation. If no decisive conclusion is drawn, a consensus is needed among editors especially in this contentious topic.
You seem to promote a brand-new "Japanese-first" criteria which seemingly hasn't existed in any Wikipedia policy . You surely need to get consensus on this. I reckon that it's a gray area. Please discuss at here for more official guidance. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please re-read my comments, particularly the last paragraph. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:NCGN again about how to deal with a case when multiple names occur. To overturn the Wikipedia policy which doesn't favour any national point of view, you need to discuss there. However, I'm wondering when you mention liancourt rocks as an example, do you think that the use of English title, instead of Korean or Japanese names, applies to this article too? Anyway, for overturning Wikipedia policy and introducing a new policy to favour a particular national point of view, please discuss in here.--Winstonlighter (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not about a "national point of view". The reality of the situation is that the islands are under Japanese administration for more than 115 years. As such, it's pretty clear that the Japanese name should come first.  Dr. Loosmark  12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Loosmark. Having the Japanese names first doesn't take sides in the territorial dispute or show a "national POV". John Smith's (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If I learn history right, then Qing Dynasty already gave this islands to Japan through Treaty of Shimonoseki so that mean this islands not own by China anymore and Japan call it Senkaku for 115 years, because of that Senkaku name became common in world since Japanese move around the world even most Asia country call that (except China of course), Diaoyu name only use in China and some small area around them, it not common as Senkaku name (already through the world), then I agree with name Senkaku it not POV name at all, it just common as normal.Tnt1984 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as riveting a tale as it may be, but you're ignoring the argument where China claims that the Treaty of Shimonoseki was an unequal treaty forcefully imposed on China, and was therefore invalid. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
True it forcefully because it war, if you say Treaty of Shimonoseki useless because it war that mean all treaty make by Qing Dynasty make by war is all useless that same at Xinjiang, It became one with China in Qing Dynasty war age, yes? Does that not forcefully? Whatever if Xinjiang page say it not belong to China then this page can become Diaoyu I have not objection if it come to that.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Refer to Treaty of San Francisco, et. al. Such treaties did not remove territories occupied by Japan during World War II; they specifically called for all territory gained by Japan through conquest to be revoked. Otherwise, the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan would still be part of Japan, since they weren't wartime aquisitions of World War II; they were aquired prior. Whilst the Treaty of Shimonoseki was the treaty to which the Qing ceded the Senkaku Islands to Japan, it was that exact same treaty, the Treaty of Shimonoseki, that ceded the islands of Taiwan and Penghu to Japan, and allowed Japan influence over Korea. Additionally, your argument regarding Xinjiang is somewhat irrelevant, because one, China was a victor of World War II, and thus was not subject to such treaties, and two, no such treaties were imposed on China regarding its conquest by the Qing in the 17th Century, nor by its reconquest by the Chinese Communists in the 1950s. In other words, if you want territory, you have to win wars, and not lose them; you are simply ignoring the fact that Japan lost the war, and thus had treaties imposed on it following WW2, whilst China did not. I mean, if Japan had actually won the war, no one would even be disputing as to whether Manchukuo and Mengjiang should be part of Japan. It's no one else's fault that Japan lost the war (reality is cruel, I know), so bringing in irrelevant analogies won't really help. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Taiwan and Korea riot to their own free people and Treaty against they will but on this Islands not have single man except Japanese soldier to riot and even more China not give single soldier go to retake Islands so you can say Japan still own Islands because China abandoned it in war or don't care about them (useless in their eyes that time?), moreover Japan take it even before WWII and in that war they won fair and square. This Islands is not target by any naval battle in WWII. Yes you must win on any battle for territories and occupation it but I don't see any battle for this Islands. For the one: China can win back mainland but still lost Islands around them because their naval too weak for retake any of them event for Japan who lost the war in sea battle to 1970s (that time naval of China became stronger) but that time is too late for them to retake them because Japan and others already taken back their strength of naval. For the two Chinese Communists is new party not root with Qing so in reality their country not have any relations with Qing country they fight to where there will be their land but I don't see they have any naval battle for islands at all so how they take Islands while they can't even touch it? And don't worry about example it only use to compare anyway.Tnt1984 (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
"This Islands is not target by any naval battle in WWII" - my point exactly. You have just clarified what I have said. Japan gained the islands before WW2. Japan also gained Taiwan (1895) and Korea (1910) before WW2. However, because Japan lost WW2, Japan subsequently must abide by the Treaty of San Francisco, which cedes the aforementioned territories from Japanese control. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well United States (not Japan) indeed ceding of control over Senkaku Islands but to who? Japan own that before WWII because that it not in Treaty of San Francisco (I looking on it but not have any info that give it back to China) so they still have right to claim it that make big trouble right now while China don't agree with that.Tnt1984 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't a forum. Argue on your talk pages as to the status of these islands if you like. However, I will comment that the San Fransisco Treaty does not refer to the Senkaku Islands, so it's a moot point. Now, please, no more on this. John Smith's (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank I will stop it here, guess we go to far for "who right to own".Tnt1984 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
"However, I will comment that the San Fransisco Treaty does not refer to the Senkaku Islands" I must beg to differ. John Smith, the topic at hand is most definitely relevant to the San Fransisco Treaty. The article itself notes that Japan made it ambiguous as to what territory it officially revoked. The Senkaku Islands were originally intended to be ceded, however following the notion that the Ryukyu Islands remain territory of Japan, the treaty was altered from its original state, so to speak. The common argument from the point of view of Japan is that the Senkaku Islands are a part of the Ryukyu Islands, however this is definitely disputable and controversial. A geographer can argue that they do not belong in the same island chain, that they aren't even in the same volcanic region, etc. I mean, look at the islands - they branch from Taiwan, and have little, if not no, geographical relevance to the Ryukyu Islands; much of the geography itself has been politicised. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an international court of law, nor are article talk pages a forum. John Smith's (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
How is this forum material? I hope you're not trying to go the easy way out to dismiss something. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Because it isn't helping improve the article, you're just debating your personal opinion with Tnt and now me. Nothing you've discussed looks like it can work its way into the article. The article is not here to decide who owns what. John Smith's (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mukden Incident

In the Post World-War II events Section there is the following: 18 September 2010: 79th anniversary of the Mukden Incident, protests held in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Shenyang. with an appropriate reference. This protest was about the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and has nothing to do with the Senkaku Islands. Can we get a consensus to remove it please? Philg88 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Phil. To be honest I would just remove it if I was you, unless someone strongly objects and gives a credible reason for not removing it. John Smith's (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the images say. Why would a protest regarding the occupation of Manchuria have banners saying "日本滚出钓鱼岛！！" (Japan GTFO of Diaoyudao Actual translation. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, no user has the right to refactor my edit)? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In that case the reference needs to be updated to indicate what the protest was about, possibly by removing "79th anniversary..." Is a 79th anniversary significant in China for some reason? John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
79? Not really. It just happened to be conveniently a few days after a boat collision incident. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Right, then the anniversary is fairly irrelevant. Someone can just make it clear that there was a protest in China about Japan holding the captain. John Smith's (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is now completely hijacked by the pro-Japanese contributors

It is now poorly constructed with poor English, and full of pathetic attempts to support the Japanese claim. And these pro-Japanese editors aggressively suppress other fair-minded editors who try to re-balance the content. What a shame, it could have been an informative article. STSC (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider creating a separate article with more accurate and less-biased information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader81 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Extremely biased with false facts.

This article is very poorly written and extremely biased towards the Japanese. Wikipedia should consider rewriting or edit this article. Many of the facts are false. It completely degrades the credibility of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader81 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's just like propaganda material from the Imperial Japanese! STSC (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands/Archive_3&oldid=1142445365"