Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 6

Discussion Analysis
Is it possible that a table format can be useful at this point? This Talking past each other 2 table summarizes one view of the current straw poll status. If any one of the cells does not accurately reflect the current views of "involved users", it is my mistake. Sorry. As needed, the table can be improved by timely edits. --Tenmei (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, Can I suggest you start with direct quote from wiki policy first? San9663 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Direct quote? I'm not sure I understand. If you wanted me to tweak the top left cell, I have done so. If you wondered about broken links in the first column, they have been repaired. I don't know how broken links evolved at 1+2+3+4. If there is something else, please explain again so that I can address any other inadvertent errors. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, opinions are again largely divided by culture of origin. There is no way we are resolving this without a RfC/mediation/arbitration. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say things like "culture of origin" - you're implying this has something to do with race. And as I've pointed out previously, arbitration isn't useful unless you're accusing someone here of disruptive editing. Arbitration only deals with behaviour, not article content. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nothing personal. Opinions of territorial disputes between two nations are often divided significantly by this dimension. I did not say User:Qwyrxian or User:Tenmei are necessarily voting solely based on cultural allegiance nor did I say those who had a different opinion to them are not necessarily doing so. But the fact that the results of the vote so far appears to be split by such a criteria is still unsurprising. Given what we know of User:Winstonlighter, User:STSC, User:Oda Mari, and User:Phoenix7777, how they will vote on this (if ever) is almost certain.
 * My perspective on this is that there has been enough discussion regarding this matter to the point that any further debates will not further sway the opinion of anyone here. If User:Qwyrxian wouldn't mind, he and I can work on the details of a RfC post in the near future. Otherwise, I will type one up by myself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bobthefish2 -- Each of my edits in Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are informed by care, research, judgment. These diffs withstand closer scrutiny -- even when I was simply wrong, like my mistake here. In contrast, your diffs here and here are insufficiently risk averse. In other words,
 * I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something. I must not fail to do the something that I can do.
 * I can and do say "no" to guesses about so-called "culture of origin" or "cultural allegiance. It is practical and seemly for each of us to reject this house of cards. --Tenmei (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read my post again. I didn't accuse you of anything.
 * However, I'd like to add that the list of "contexts" you had on the table are so heavily biased (much like your previous table) that I am not even going to bother to correct. They appear to me as a set of policy-based questions that are almost designed to suggest a particular type of conclusion. Given the discussion between Qwyrxian, San9663, and I had regarding the issue, there are plenty of issues you have omitted and are definitely not representative of what was discussed. While I will still assume you are acting on good-will, please do keep in mind that I am not the only one who has had problems with your way of adding structure to a discussion. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for example the wiki principle is fine for me, though it said more than the two lines Tenmei quoted. I also think the 4 'contexts' of your quote do not reflect exactly what wiki principles say. e.g. the 'really really really' is nowhere to be found in wiki's principles. So i cannot agree to. San9663 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * San9663 -- Aha, I see. Why don't you click on the hyperlinks for 1+2+3+4. You will learn that each is a distilled summary proposed by Qwyrxian.  The words are not mine, but each of these restatements seemed innocuous to me.  Your comments show that you rejected the words without clicking on the hyperlink which would have clarified the issue. This table may have failed in many ways, but it does succeed in proving my willingness to invest time and effort in bringing fine focus to the five points Qwyrxian tried to make a week ago here. -Tenmei (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the willingness in spending efforts to help a discussion, but you also failed to bring focus to the points that San9663 or I have brought up. Unless your intention is to undermine our arguments, I don't think you have succeeded in actually organizing the points that have been brought up so far. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bobthefish2: I am in agreement that we are very near the need for an RfC. I am still hoping that others will chime in with their opinion on the straw poll--I think it will be helpful for new people coming to the discussion to see clearly what people's opinions are, and what supports those opinions (e.g., it's helpful to know if someone supports, say "Senkaku" because it "obviously" belongs to Japan, or because they believe that is the name most commonly used in English). If you want, how about starting to draft the RfC on a subpage in your userspace? I'd be happy to comment. I think we probably both/all agree that we need to make sure the RfC itself is phrased neutrally and briefly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer Qwyrxian to "distill" it himself. I do not think Tenmei's "distillation" correctly reflect what we have discussed. Let's just leave the job to Qwyrxian, can we? having said that, and as i said before, i am okay with the wiki guideline to start with. i guess this is something we can all agree to. San9663 (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a few general comments are appropriate at this point:

[[Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|thumb|right|180px|Parsing argument content &mdash; acknowledging categories of constructive comments:
 * Refuting the Central Point * Refutation * Counterargument ____________ Identifying remarks which are unhelpful: * Contradiction * Responding to Tone * Ad Hominem  ]]
 * A. YES, San9663 -- this table exists to help us identify something we can all agree to.


 * B. No, Bobthefish2 -- The "Talking past each other" tables are not designed to undermine any arguments put forward by anyone. The near-term objective for all of us  is to join issues rather than avoiding them.   This table presents hortatory statements proposed by Qwyrxian as starting points for a discussion which establishes aspects of common ground  -- that is all.
 * C. No, Bobthefish2 -- This table does no way attempt to "organiz[e] the points that have been brought up so far". It only offers 5 bland sentences which were effectively ignored and an general inquiry which is also irngored. The only function of the table is to move past the failure to acknowledge that Qwyrxian invited comment about a few simple sentences.
 * D. No, San9663 -- The "Talking past each other 2" table is not a summary of everything presented thus far in this talk page venue. That complaint is not a fair and reasonable assessment of the words which are emphasized in clickable, hyperlink blue.  This spin is not helpful, not credible, not forward-looking.
 * E. No, Bobthefish2 -- The table is not highly biased because it offers no argument nor any point of view.  It is in fact, nothing more or less than a conventional cell-format structure which elicits data to help us assess the current status of talk page discussions.


 * F. IMO, the blue, hyperlink, clickable propositions are arguably nothing more than bland restatements of relevant policy. These were explictly proposed for discussion by Qwyrxian.  Each point remained unaddressed after the first "Talking past each other" table -- and this second "Talking past each other" table has elicited only scant feedback.
 * G. IMO, this table has now produced a couple of responses; and this becomes a good start.
 * H. IMO, the problem with this table is not in its cells, but in the strategic non-response which effectively thwarts a more direct engagement with issues.
 * This diff should not be construed as argumentative; rather, I hope it is understood as an attempt to parse issues relating to a process for consensus-building. This is a step towards addressing disagreement more directly and constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, I mimic Qwyrxian's model here. I decline to pursue discussion about these table-related issues.   A few  mischaracterizations have been corrected; and these small problems might have been more distracting if left unchallenged. --Tenmei (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, there are a lot I would disagree with your "context" statements. e.g. you said "Policy says we really really really shouldn't use Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa." This is simply not the same as what the policy stated. Policy said we should try to choose one name, if that fails, policy says we could follow the examples such as Liancourt Rock, even if that is not as popular as the two other names. Your statement are not policy statement but you presented them as if they were. In your language, these statements are "not helpful" in achieving a consensus. San9663 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should simply ignore this table. As I said, the "contexts" he provided are basically designed to suggest a particular conclusion. It's like a prosecutor asking a series of choice and non-comprehensive questions in an attempt to portray a certain impression of a circumstance. There's a term for this philosophy, but I don't remember it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Change of Chinese name
User:Myheimu has changed the Chinese characters used in Diaoyu. Can one of our Chinese literate regulars confirm that the change is correct? It would surprise me to find out we've been wrong all along, but I have no way to tell one from the other in terms of accuracy. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's basically the same thing. He changed from "Diaoyu Islands" to "Diaoyu and associated islands". Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Collision incident section
I just re-read that section...does anyone else think it makes no sense? First, I don't believe that the collision "sparked new debate about natural gas drilling." Second, I don't have any idea what the latter part of that sentence is supposed to mean, about a "zero-sum game." I mean, I know what the term means, but I 1) don't see how it applies, and 2) don't see how using that term from the source helps the typical reader understand the incident. Wouldn't it make more sense to give some bare bones details (boats collide, Japanese hold the fisherman, China gets upset, Japanese release the fisherman)? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was equally puzzled when I first read it. But since this entry is so controversial and I was wary of making new debate. I already raised the issue of a similar line in the lead section which we discussed a few weeks ago. I had thought it was some bad translation from Japanese which actually mean something. Now that you raise the issue, I agree we should just remove them, or do as you proposed in your final sentenec. San9663 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold and make a change now, and I will absolutely do my level best to make it neutral, but I certainly welcome anyone else adjusting anything I don't get level. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While you are at it, do you mind digging up who's actually responsible for the collision? I suspect the Chinese actually committed the offense, but the news sources I found were quite ambiguous about this issue. I'd say this belongs to the dispute page anyway...Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who caused it? That depends on who you ask.  If you believe the leaked video, well...it sure looks to me like the trawler drives directly into the Japanese boats twice, in spite of them attempting to evade.  Of course, I'm no nautical expert. If you think the video was faked by the Japanese government (as the Chinese government has implied), then the matter is in doubt.  Or, if you believe, as many Chinese netizens do, that the islands are all Chinese territory, then the Japanese are automatically at fault, because they shouldn't legally be there anyway.  So....I just avoided the issue (as does the specific article).  Hopefully at some point we'll get a non-Japanese, non-Chinese expert commenting on the videos to clarify what happened.


 * I edited the paragraph, sticking to bare facts. I didn't include the protests, because that just gets into too many complex details (which, as BtF2 points out, are better handled on the dispute page or the main page for the incident), and I didn't think i could make it neutral in just a few short words.  I left one sentence uncited, because none of the cites on that other page really fit exactly.  Anyone else is free to remove or cite it, although I'll try to look for something later if I remember.  I think it's pretty uncontroversial that this caused diplomatic tensions to rise, but I'd prefer a good source, nonetheless.   I definitely think we don't want to go beyond 1 paragraph, since the whole point is that we have a main article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it amounted to "disrupt diplomatic relationship". That would need to be something like calling back your ambassador. But even the recent call back of Japanese ambassador from Moscow wouldn't amount to that. So I changed the word into "disrupted official and non-official exchanges and activities". Please feel free to improve it. I guess we can also say "tension" has been raised.San9663 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: bobthefish's question. I think it is difficult to present the "cause" in wiki, even if all the videos will be released. To me it looks like the JCG tried to cut in front and block the trawler from fleeing, while the trawler tried to get away. If this is a normal traffic accident you may say JCG is at fault. But JCG viewed themselves as law enforcement and has the right of way and the right to demand obeidience. So it is back to the sovereignty issue. For simple traffic analysis there are some websites I found but I don't think wiki can take them as sources. San9663 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the Chinese boat rammed into the Japanese boat. But then again, I am not familiar with the physics of boat navigation. It could be as you've said. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Bobthefish2, we should probably take this discussion off line, since our opinions do not count in wiki. :) but here are some of the HK newspaper reports and interviews with local maritime experts. I am sure Japanese sailors would say something different.San9663 (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with the new phrasing as a more neutral word (at still matching the details). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Validity of Chinese name about Senkaku Islands
Please speak international evidence about Chinese name of Senkaku Islands. When evidence doesn't exist, Chinese name of Senkaku Islands should be deleted.HighSpeed-X (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do a google News search for "Diaoyu Islands" you will find over a thousand current results, and more if you do an archive search. Similar results can be found by doing a Scholar search and a Web search. This indicates that the name is used in some cases in English.  In many cases, the name Diaoyu is used alongside Senkaku.  Please note that this is what is necessary in order to list the names here on Wikipedia.  Note that this is not a judgment about who owns the islands--it is simply a recognition that some English sources use the name, and a recognition that there is a dispute about who owns the islands.  Some editors (see the discussion above) in fact believe that the Diaoyu name is used approximately equally with Senkaku islands, and thus even the title of this article is incorrect; however, that issue has not yet been resolved, I think.  Finally, please note that neither the article nor this talk page may be used to argue in favor of either country owning the island, so please do not begin to do so here.  Our only question is what reliable sources say about the Islands; since reliable sources report that they are disputed, we must do so here (and at Senkaku Islands dispute).  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please present International Law that records Chinese name of Senkaku Islands. HighSpeed-X (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have to. Wikipedia doesn't care what International Law is (to be honest, there is no such thing as international law, by the way--just treaties and accords and conventions that nations enter into; not that this matters).  All Wikipedia cares is what reliable sources say.  Reliable sources say the islands are in dispute, so we must report that.  We cannot say who is right, although we are required to analyze the level of importance of each argument, and include the opinions in due weight to their representation in the real world. This is fundamentally what Wikipedia does--collect information from other sources, summarize it, and report it in encyclopedic format.  We do not make judgments about who is right or wrong.  Since it seems like you don't understand how Wikipedia works, I recommend you read three of our key policies, as they may help you understand: WP:V, which is the policy that requires that all information be verified, WP:NOR, which is is the policy that requires that we present only what others say and do not include our own original research, and WP:NPOV, which requires that we report the information neutrally, without giving inappropriate bias to one side or the other.  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian cannot show grounds. Please publish Chinese name about Senkaku Islands only in Chinese version wikipedia. HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are wasting your time with this guy. My guess on his response to your big paragraph of writing: "Please present International Law that records Chinese name of Senkaku Islands." Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The name without international grounds cannot be published. HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like I've missed a party. The "Senkaku Islands" have a Chinese name because numerous sources (with a few being Japanese) have unambiguously shown they were part of China's area of influence at a time prior to the Sino-Japanese war. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please post the law name. HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The name of Koba island had been named before being legally enacted. It was named the Hoapins island in the chart of the Europe. It follows International Law neither of them. There are no legal grounds each name of an old Japanese name, a Chinese name, and Europe name.HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just ignore him - don't feed the trolls. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not your blog.HighSpeed-X (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Um, I just want to clarify that there is nothing unambiguous about this issue, and that we very much do not want to get into such a discussion. I'm trying to explain to Highspeed-X that he is fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose and function of Wikipedia; your comment only encourages him/her to make more POV arguments. For that matter, your comment itself comes right to the edge of making a claim about the facts, rather than a claim about what other sources claim. I only bring this up because if anyone on either side starts trying to transform this talk page or the article into a place to debate the subject, both I and I'm sure others are going to start erasing the comments per WP:NOTFORUM. We cannot allow this page to devolve into a discussion about international law, what "person" "owns" the islands, or whatever... Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) And at John Smith--dangit, xe's not a troll. He's a POV pusher, and xe doesn't yet understand how Wikipedia works, and xe may never...but that doesn't make him/her a troll.  Yesterday, HighSpeed-X got in trouble for blatantly edit-warring and not discussing, so xe got blocked, and we told him/her to come and discuss the issue on the talk page.  Lo and behold, 31 hours later, xe did.  We can't very well then just ignore him/her.  That's downright uncivil on our parts.  As a newcomer, we are required, both ethically and by policy, to try to help HighSpeed-X understand how we work here, what the purpose of WP is, and what we do or don't care about in terms of "evidence."  If xe demonstrates an inability/unwillingness to work within our rules, then fine, we'll take the appropriate steps.  Until such a time, our rules also require we give him/her the benefit of the doubt.  I know that when I first came to Wikipedia 2 years ago I thought it didn't make any sense the way they were ignoring what was "obvious" to someone in the field (different subject from this one, but a similar problem).  We cannot forget that what we do here is so fundamentally different than what is done basically everywhere else on the internet that it really is strange for new people.
 * tl;dr: Don't bite the newcomers. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ec*4: @ Highspeed-X: and it's not yours. Please read up on the rules I pointed out to you that we all need to follow. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian speech is needless. There are no legal grounds in the Yokonkoba island, the Koba island, and Hoapins island. Chinese name is also the same. Please speak international evidence about Chinese name of Senkaku Islands.HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Last chance: Legal grounds have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Cease this line of discussion, or you may be in trouble for violating our rules on WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOXING.  I already gave you international evidence in the form of reliable news articles and scholarly publications.  That's what constitutes evidence for WP.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify that "legality" does not really exist in this instance of international dispute. There is no governing body in this world that dictates which belongs to who. Russia has sided with China and the West largely stayed neutral. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only Chinese that says like that. Then, please publish Yokonkoba island, the Koba island, and and Hoapins island. Endemism exists in Senkaku Islands. Those habitats are registered internationally as Senkaku Islands. HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that CNN and BBC, both of whom use Diaoyu and Senkaku, are Chinese; many (although, I believe, not a majority) use both. Do you have a source that uses the names you mentioned?  If so, and if the sources using those names are reliable and of sufficient weight, then they can be added to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian Thesis is needless. Please describe legal grounds.HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

People's Daily said "Senkaku Island". HighSpeed-X (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Chinese does not seem to have the way of thinking of legal grounds. Because China does not still have democratic election. HighSpeed-X (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is of no use to reference this figure because we've already decided the caption is wrong and the article did not in fact say anything about the islands being part of Okinawa or Japan. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

2channel and Futaba channel
This page has been linked from 2channel and the Futaba imageboard. I've seen a lot of related posts on 2chan recently, however they tend to 404 really quickly. --  李博杰   | —Talk (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC) contribs email 06:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, can you give me the link where this page is referenced? Bobthefish2
 * That's bad news, although not that surprising. At least the page is already semi-protected.  I suppose that if it starts to get worse, we can always request full protection.   I hate to do that, since useful changes are being made to the article, as all of us "regulars" have been avoiding edit warring on the contentious stuff (although maybe that's because most of the really disputed stuff is going on at the dispute article, which is fully protected).   And, while it seems unlikely, we do need to keep trying to bring them into the fold; on rare occasions, it should be possible to show a POV pusher how we work and what needs to be done.  And if we don't try, that may escalate the problem.    Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how 2channel and Futaba work, but maybe we can talk to their moderators and tell them to remind their users of Wikipedia policies? This will save a lot of work since you've already dealt with around half a dozen of these dudes recently. Bobthefish2 (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, you definitely don't know how 2chan works. I'm not a member (can't read Japanese), but take a look at 2channel.  Not only do they not care about our policies, they don't even have the ability to police their own policies.  Furthermore, they're 100% anonymous, and some subparts take active pride in being disruptive on other sites, particularly when it gives them an opportunity to push Japanese nationalism.  I think that contacting them would actually make things worse, because they'd see that we're a target that can be effectively irritated.  The better approach is to keep doing what we always do--cordially talk to newcomers, tell them about our policies, revert any policy-breaking edits they make, and, when they don't stop, get them blocked through 3RR, AIV, or whatever other venue seems necessary.  Liancourt Rocks had the same kind of problems if I remember correctly, although those problems came from both 2chan and similar groups in South Korea.  If things get really really bad (like they actually organize and start coming at the article in waves), we'll just have to go to full protection.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * @Bobthefish2: On 2chan, pages immediately HTTP 404 once no one bumps them and they fall beyond page 10, or if they are deleted by janitors (in the event that a post is in violation of Japanese Law). You can't really have a solid URL link to a 2chan discussion as they appear and disappear every now and then. Also, mods on such boards seem to be in line with "freedom of speech, as long it isn't against Japanese Law" (and by that I mean certain types of pornography) - most don't really care about Wikipedia, it's not their job, and they don't fix what ain't broken to them. Going onto 2channel and making such a request would probably end up with multiple sages and a "not your personal army" reply.
 * @Qwyrxian: I don't think that this page will end up like Liancourt Rocks did. That article was essentially once an online battleground between VANK and 2ch, before the arbitration committee introduced the 1RR rule there. As far as I know, most Tianya and Mop users (the main source of online Fenqing) don't really care about Wikipedia (most Chinese use Baidu Baike anyway since Chinese Wikipedia is so lacking in content due to low contributor numbers), and most web-warrior Uyoku dantai only come in large packs once the trolls have already been fed. Hopefully my prediction is right. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

China is invading Senkaku Islands of Japan
China is naming a Chinese name without international permission in a Japanese territory of Senkaku Islands. Babochink (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for joining us. Do you have any new sources that help address this dispute?  Please note that this article (and in more detail, Senkaku Islands dispute) contain sources that say that Japan owns the island, and sources that say that China owns the island.  Please note that Wikipedia requires that we state what reliable sources say.  If you have new reliable sources, we can discuss them.  Finally, I removed the Youtube link--it doesn't help this discussion, and isn't reliable anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool username there, mind if I report you for WP:USERNAME violation? (바보 babo = moron, and chink is, well... obvious) --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a coincidence or a case of sockpuppetry? Over the past week, we've had like 3-4 seemingly new Japanese users coming in and complaining about approximately the same issue (i.e. existence of a Chinese name for the islands). In fact, he reminds me of a certain person who was stalking you a while ago. Bobthefish2 (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Territorial dispute
This section needs some serious work. It should summarise the basic positions, not have some meaningless statements with weasel words ("some" is used twice in one sentence). John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are somewhat right. I think that when the article got split, we didn't do a good job of preserving a summary here.  At this point, if I knew little to nothing abou the islands (i.e., if I were a new reader), I doubt that I would understand what this section means.  However, as far as summarizing, it would have to be extremely briefly--that's why we have the other article..  I'll take a look at it later today if I have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just rewrote the section from scratch by summarizing and consolidating what seemed to me to be the key of the issues from Senkaku Islands dispute. I don't have the mental focus and patience at the moment to source it, but since everything I wrote (except for the last paragraph) is based directly of the other article, it should be relatively easy to just copy and paste references.  Plus, I figured if anyone objected to my writing (as always, I tried to be neutral, but no one's perfect), I didn't want to bring over sources if they were going to be erased.  If anyone else wants to source it for me, that's fine; otherwise, I'll work on it later tonight or, more likely, tomorrow.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In our Wikipeida framework, Qwyrxian's otherwise reasonable approach is rejected by WP:NOR and WP:Synthesis.  Moreover, the text proposed by Qwyrxian is an object lesson which demonstrates the value and prescience of these policies. The "summary argument" excludes and re-frames the indispensable context and perspective; and this creates unintended consequences.  In a sense, the core problem here replicates the discussion threads which focused exclusively on the introduction at Senkaku Islands dispute. The restored sentences are not meaningless. Please note that the word "some" is edited out in response to John Smith&#39;s comments.
 * An English idiom accurately applies to the analysis of John Smith&#39;s and the revision suggested by Qwyrxian.  Do you know the phrase "throw out the baby with the bath water"? --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't cite a single article as reflective of the Chinese media and another as the international press. You would need an independent, very reliable and respected source to make an overview like that. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, a three different responses. First, the easy one: John which article or part are you referring to?  I'm not sure if you mean the part I added or the part that Tenmei re-added.  For my part, I certainly didn't intend to add only 1 citation--I was going to pull over at least 4-5, if not more, from the other article.
 * Next: Tenmei, please identify any place where I have violated WP:NOR or WP:SYN. I know for a fact that I did not do so intentionally, and I am almost 100% certain I did not do so unintentionally.  Perhaps you misunderstand WP:NOR, and the summary style.  If so, no worries, as it's currently undergoing massive concerns at about 17 different locations, due to recently discovered problems relating to plagiarism, copyright violation, some Arbcom members, and a fundamental misuse of the terms involved.   To summarize (!), summarizing sources is not original research.  Combining 2 sources together is synthesis only when those combined sources advocate a point neither one makes.  However, I believe that the paragraph I added states only facts and the explicitly stated opinions of each government.  It is, of course, possible that in my drive to summarize I did go a little too far (my biggest concern would be the sentence/paragraph explaining the Japanese position, which should probably be a couple of sentences longer, just to make sure each claim is independently sourced.  Finally, please don't confuse the lack of citations with original research.  Everything I wrote is citable, straight out of Senkaku Islands dispute.  I just didn't do it then because I wanted to fulfill my word and get a first draft up yesterday, knowing that the sources could be easily added later (i.e., today).  Not having a citation is a violation of WP:RS, or, if no citation could possibly exist, WP:V.  That's not the same thing as WP:OR.
 * Third: I have a lot of problems with the re-added text. But there's one that dominates: it simply doesn't belong in this article.  The whole point behind having two articles (the "Main" tag) is that this article must contain only a bare-bones, factual summary (as such, it may be correct to remove the final sentence I added about economic issues).  All of the details, including the "analysis", must go in the other article.  So before I go forward trying to propose fixes to the problems (which, in brief, are that the section absolutely doesn't make sense and what does make sense is in the wrong tone and far more appropriate for a political science or philosophy journal than an encyclopedia), I would rather first see if there is consensus to remove it entirely.  Then at the dispute article people can debate about whether that information can be including and how.  But I don't see it serving a proper purpose here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, John Smith&#39;s -- point taken. In response to a constructive critical comment, the subheading was changed from "Context and perspective to "Overview and perspective." Is this better? Also in response, two related edits: (a) adding a dynamic list template; and (b) tweaking both format and wording of illustrative examples of disagreements about the causes of the dispute. The phrase "disparate perspectives" is a succinct characterization.  Is this better? --Tenmei (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Qwyrxian -- I think I understand. At this point, nothing more needs to be added to my response to John Smith&#39;s. --Tenmei (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's worse now, because it's longer. I think the whole thing needs to be removed.  I do like that you attributed the opinions, but my point is that they don't belong in this article at all--if they belong anywhere, it's at Senkaku Islands dispute.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The dispute page exists for a reason. All we need is something like "The sovereignty of these islands is currently under dispute. Japan, People's Republic of China, and Republic of China have all laid claim on this territory.". Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we have a "Dispute" entry already, I agree this one should be kept at minimalistic and outline the broad introduction only, say, at most around 5 sentences. I would simply save the first two paragraphs about China(and Taiwan)'s position, and Japan's counter-argument (which should really be that Japan considers this is separate from Shimonoseki, hence Chinese argument voided). The a line saying this leads to many disputes and events ever since 1972 when US included it in the Okinawa package. The "perspective" section is probably not needed here (or be moved to the 'dispute' item)San9663 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the diff which started this thread: Is it possible that John Smith&#39;s frames an unhelpful proposition with unintended consequences? John Smith&#39;s argued that the article's "Territorial disputes" section "should summarise the basic positions." Qwyrxian accepted the premise and the ensuing problems are the unwanted result. Bobthefish2 and San9663 assent. In this straw poll agreement, two premises remain problematic.
 * The Japanese government rejects the phrase "territorial dispute" as controversial; and even the Choson Ilbo in Seoul acknowledges the implications in print.
 * Our shared experience on this talk page at at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute demonstrates why we must reject the reductionist premise of "basic positions" which can be summarized succinctly. The hypothesis is unworkable, impractical, etc.

On the other hand, The edited text addresses both aspects of improving this article. Please consider how a "borders" section might be edited in order to flows more naturally from the "Geography" section. I know you will not hesitate to edit this text in order to make it more readable, more understandable, etc.
 * Yes, I can readily agree with John Smith&#39;s observation that sentences I posted may need "serious work;" but it bears repeating that we need not "throw out the baby with the bath water."
 * Yes, an explanatory context is needed for the headnote link to Senkaku Islands dispute.

The Senkaku Islands dispute article is structured in two parts:
 * 1) A bilateral disagreement with a beginning, pro- and con- arguments, and tangential aspects
 * 2) A chronology of bilateral relations and independent developments

The Senkaku Islands article is an appropriate place for anything else which helps the reader understand this subject. --Tenmei (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's much easier to simply comment there is a dispute in sovereignty. For interested parties, they'd still want to click the link to the dispute page anyway. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I "accepted {nowiki>[John Smith's] premise" because his premise was based upon WP:MOS, as well as the standard layout for articles across Wikipedia. When there is a sub article, the main article should contain only a bare bones account of whatever that sub article contains.  Otherwise, why even bother to have a sub article?  In any event, I hear a clear consensus (i.e. 4 editors agreeing, some of whom cite policy and precedent) to keep that section as short as possible.  Until I hear a cogent argument, I'm taking that sub-section out.  Furthermore, I'm reverting all of your additions.  I apologize, but I have to be blunt--this is not a graduate level political science textbook. Neither is at a journal article in a maritime disputes academic journal.  Your (Tenmei's) phrasing is somewhere between confusing and deliberately obtuse.  It's no different than the phrasing you use on these talk pages, that we have discussed before is unhelpful.  The goal of these articles is not to place everything into some broad philosophical or geo-political framework. I know based on your comments before that you think it is, but that is simply not how encyclopedias work.  They frame events in discrete, fragmented ways, pretending that concepts and ideas are overlapping but distinct.  I personally disagree with this worldview, but I also understand that it the worldview required by the project.  The reason for this is very simple: the point behind the existence of this article is for someone who sees "Senkaku/Diaoyu/whatever" in the news, and says, "What's that?" and then comes her and searches for a concrete, discrete answer.  The purpose of the dispute article is to lay out, in a historical and political but not theoretical context, why there's a disagreement here, and what the arguments in the disagreement are.  So I'm reverting to the factual summary (I think I'm even going to take out my final line), and removing your extra words putting this into a theoretical context, and reverting the switch to "boundaries".  I'll raise that boundary issue in a separate section if you want, but it's part and parcel of the above: calling it a boundary dispute is fundamentally confusing to the average reader.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if his elaborate summary (which I didn't take a look at yet) is good, then maybe we can graft some of it onto the dispute page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that may be the case, as long as it goes into a separate section, is very carefully monitored for WP:DUE, and does not replace clear factual claims. I'd say that article has other problems right now that are more pressing, but, in any event, the info definitely doesn't belong here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- In response to speculative comments here, one of Bobthefish2's phrases seems on-point : "... the degree of neutrality of a decision is not binary." In other words, your all-or-nothing deletions illustrate right/wrong, black/white, yes/no binary logic which is misplaced, especially in the context of this article about the Senkaku Islands.

Again, I can do no better than to offer an idiomatic expression as a concise refutation of edits which effectively throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is no adequate justification for deleting of sentences which are supported by clear citations from reliable sources. As a separate matter, these edit summaries raise arguable issues, but neither can be construed as sufficient explanation for deleting inline citations or the sentences which are verified in this way:
 * diff 10:21, 12 November 2010 Qwyrxian (25,659 bytes) (Boundary is not the right word here--the issue is who owns the islands: determination of the ownership of the islands comes first; that one book used the term does not override the majority of sources pointing to the islands as the defining issue)
 * diff 00:31, 13 November 2010 Qwyrxian (24,024 bytes) (per talk--Tenmei's alternate version was entirely the wrong tone for an encyclopedia article)

This sentence is apples and oranges:
 * I "accepted {nowiki>[John Smith's] premise" because his premise was based upon WP:MOS ...

Please explain again in different words. Could it be that substance and style have been mistakenly conflated? Would it be reasonable to reconsider your thinking in the context established by articles like Content (media) and Style guide? --Tenmei (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian -- -- In response to the opinions expressed here, please consider this maxim:
 * "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"
 * Please help me to parse the distinctions between opinion and fact in your diff. It might help if you could restate this slurry of opinions in different words? --Tenmei (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

maritime border -- delete or move to sub-entry "dispute"
I am of similar opinion as qwyrxian, that this whole new section of maritime border, apart from the problems in narratives, does not belong here. it either belongs to the 'dispute' sub-tab or 'east china sea'. please move them away first, then we can work to fix this entry. maritime border by definition is not EEZ, it is simply 3-12 nautical miles, although one does not have to claim all 12 nm -- e.g. in certain straits between the main islands of japan where only 3 nm was claimed. San9663 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that I read the full description, along with a few of the citations, I, at least, understand better. It does seem like a valid addition to Wikipedia, as it shows how Japan is attempting to re-frame the dispute, by essentially saying there is no dispute.  However, I strongly believe that the information belongs in the dispute article, not this one.  Personally, after moving it over, I would delete the last two paragraphs, as they seem to not be directly related to this issue, but I can imagine others disagreeing, so it should be discussed in full.  But I am nearly certain it doesn't belong here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Tenmei has not only listened to the requests of 4 different editors to pull back on the included info, but is continuing to add more to a section that most of us don't believe belongs in this article. Tenmei, please understand we're not saying this info doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  What we are saying is that it does not belong in this article.  As I just explained on Tenmei's talk page, this article should be about very neutral, factual things: location of the islands, any relevant info on animal life, any indisputable history, etc.  Plus, of course, it should contain a short, simple, factual summary of the political dispute--but I think all of us (save for Tenmei) agree that it should be at most a paragraph or two (I think BtF2 has argued for even shorter than that).  I see a strong consensus here that this section is expanding far beyond the bounds of what it should be.  As such, I am now going to go remove everything from the article except for the summary paragraphs I had added a few days ago.  I would not normally be so aggressive and remove such a large section of well-sourced info, but I believe that consensus on this is clear.  If anyone believes I have misread consensus, please undo my removal of the info and know that I will not object or revert.  But this article is already contentious enough that I do not believe that one editor should be significantly expanding without first gaining at least something resembling consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian -- I think I understand your rationale. Your analysis is flawed; but your blanket deletions do not invoke the need for an urgent response. In other contexts, it would be provocative to ask if you actually read what you deleted before you deleted it? In this instance, we don't have to ask because you've already provided the answer here. This small disagreement provides an unexpected illustration of cognitive dissonance  confirmation bias. Your own words are compelling.  I don't understand why they don't cause you to feel embarrassed, but there you have it -- a question without an obvious answer:
 * Now that I read the full description, along with a few of the citations, I, at least, understand better ....
 * ... as it shows how Japan is attempting to re-frame the dispute, by essentially saying there is no dispute.
 * Note that Tenmei highlighted Qwyrxian's words in blue by linking them to the archived diff. This makes it easier to find the context Qwyrxian created. If anyone objects to this trivial change in Qwyrxian's edit, please feel free to remove the hyperlink.
 * Qwyrxian -- you will have to wait now because I will respond slowly ... and this will involve re-visiting the development of this thread. It will take time. This is a needless conflict which you alone contrive.
 * Propositions:
 * A. Qwyrxian was wrong to delete a citation-supported section of this article.
 * B. Qwyrxian was wrong in failing to respond to the diffs in this thread which invite discussion.
 * C. If Qwyrxian is not wrong in "A" and "B", then Tenmei needs to understand why.
 * Wouldn't it be better to restore each of the citation-supported sentences in the deleted section? --Tenmei (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it would not be better, because that section does not belong in this article. It belongs in Senkaku Islands dispute.  I'm going to try to explain by analogy. Let's imagine that I were to add 3 or 4 paragraphs about the life cycle of a plant that lived on one of the Senkaku islands.  Assume, furthermore, that it was well-sourced, and that the plant only lived on that island.  Would that justify me keeping it in this article?  Wouldn't it be better to have just one or two sentences about this unique plant here, and then put all of the biological details into the article about the plant itself?  That's what I (and, I think, others) are trying to say--that this information, regardless of whether or not it belongs somewhere in Wikipedia, does not belong here.   Simply because a section is well-sourced doesn't inherently protect it--it must be in the right article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand Tenmei probably put a lot of time writing these paragraphs. But they just should not be here, otherwise everyone would create something in the dispute tab over to here. So I would suggest Tenmei to put these on the discussion page of "dispute" entry, to make things easier it may help to put them one paragraph at a time.San9663 (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Tenmei, I'd point out that he may want to do something like World_war_2 where a concise but representative summary is given in addition to a link to a more detailed page. Personally, if he's able to do a good multi-paragraph summary of the dispute page, I'd be fine with it. However, the trouble is that it is something very hard to do and what belongs within can vary depending on opinion. As a result, I believe sticking to one sentence or two is a more preferable alternative. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And the added info isn't a "summary" of what's at the dispute page--it's wholly new work. If all of that was at the dispute page, then perhaps a sentence or two could be added hear to include that "part" of the dispute page.  But my understanding of subsections that refer to a Main other article is that they work basically like the lead of an article--they shouldn't contain information that isn't covered in the target article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the last paragraph of the "dispute section", it talked about the EEZ dispute. There are two problems. (1) As per Qwyrxian's comment above, the detailed discussion should be in the dispute tab and only a summary here. This is the whole point of splitting the entries and locking the others. Otherwise, this entry would become political and "disputable" again. (2) The EEZ dispute regarding the East China Sea sounds fine. However, again, it DOES NOT APPLY here. For the section near these islands, the 200nm / median line /continental shelf boundary differs little. I think we could still mention this (mainly at the East China Sea tab), and perhaps at here we should refer this to the "East China Sea" tab and expand over there. For these islands, the proper description should be first the dispute over the islands, then the dispute over whether the islands can be baseline of EEZ and finally the dispute about which EEZ demarcation rule applies.San9663 (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This revert here removed a Straw man. In other words, a straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man") .... The edit history of this article is instructive. Those who hope for consensus going-forward are compelled to reject the unstated premises of San9663's proposal here. --Tenmei (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Geography
Why do we have "arguments" in the geography section? I thought that section should be purely for describing the geograpahy of the islands. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The format of this rhetorical question is flawed. A better place to begin is with the term "geography" + WP:RS + WP:V. Those who hope for consensus going-forward are compelled to reject the unstated premises of Bobthefish2 proposal here. As context, compare
 * the 1st sentence of "Geography" section as of 04:25, 14 November 2010.
 * the 2nd paragraph of "The islands group" as of 11:58, 21 July 2007.
 * Sometimes, less is more, but not in this article. The edit history of this article is instructive. --Tenmei (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should've been more direct with my rhetorical question - It has been agreed that any content dealing with disputes would occur in the dispute page. While I have not expressed a strong position on this matter, I believe Qwyrxian and others have already communicated their objections to your contents. I'd advise you to try to reach an understanding with them before proceeding any further. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bobthefish2 -- Did you mistakenly think that I was responsible for what San9663's wrote here? --Tenmei (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bobthefish2 -- Were you unaware that the first sentence in the "Geography" section was a Chinese-biased frame which feigned to be non-controversial?
 * The islands sit on the edge of the continental shelf of mainland Asia, and are separated from the Ryukyu Islands by the Okinawina Trough.
 * My question is not a rhetorical one. Did you recognize the  embedded problem in this sentence?  If so, why?  If not, why not?
 * Fact: My modest edits deleted the non-neutral gambit and substituted neutral edit equivalents.
 * Fact: The new edits are the result of research.
 * Fact: Each new sentence is cited and linked to work published by a well-regarded Chinese academic; and, by the way, the research which informed Ji Guoxing's writing was supported by US Institute of Peace and published by the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.
 * Fact: There is not acknowledgment of the wiki-appropriate way I redressed an argumentative flaw in the "Geography" section.
 * Fact: There is complaint.
 * In other words, is this maxim on-point in the context this complaint creates?
 * "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"
 * At this point, I mimic Qwyrxian's model here. I decline to pursue further discussion about a this complaint. What matters is that a misleading sentence has been corrected.  This small problem would have been distracting if left unchallenged. I will continue to do what I can to help ensure the academic credibility of this article and other articles in our Wikipedia project.  I remain open to suggestions about how I might contribute more effectively. --Tenmei (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. If there is a pro-Chinese bias in that particular sentence, can you not simply remove it instead of adding new content? Since I have not followed your debates on the issue with Qwyrxian and San9663 closely, this is just an advice based on an impression that they may not find your choice of edit to be agreeable. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tenmei, the last 2 bullets just shouldn't be in geography section, not even in this entry. I tried to refrain from doing too much changes, but I think sooner or later someone will change it. Frankly, I have difficulty understanding most of your edits and reverts, and I do not think you were using qwyrxian's model, but I will leave that for him to comment.San9663 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * San9663 -- The edit history of this article is instructive.  The ultimate purpose of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute was put into simple words by DXDanl who suggested a salutary goal:
 * "... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not."
 * My edits to the Geography section enhance the usefulness of our article because they help readers better understand. --Tenmei (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Islands names and table
We've discussed this previously. As far as I could see there were no legitimate reasons given why in the previous discussion in the geography section there had to be a duplication of the Chinese name of the islands in the table header and in the image captions. We don't keep referring to the "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai islands" throughout the article, so why must this one section have the Chinese name - and just the Chinese name, not the Taiwanese or "English" (i.e. Pinnacle) names - in the header? There is no reason as far as I can see.

There's also the issue of the ordering of the names in the table, but I haven't played around with this as it involves a bit of care that I don't have time for now. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010 Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith&#39;s in this diff. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to discuss the changes you are about to make in this talk page before making them. I don't believe the naming and name-ordering discussions resulted in an agreement that is consistent to the nature of your recent changes. And of course, as a reputable Wikipedia editor, you would probably understand how WP:BRD works unless you don't plan to follow it.
 * While nothing can prevent you from continuing the subtle acts of POV-pushing (such as removal of Chinese names), I'd much rather you to be at least somewhat constructive and willing to work with the rest of us here. Do you think you can do that? Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And as an experienced editor (if we're going to play the "civil incivility game"), you should know that WP:BRD doesnt' apply here. WP:BRD is a useful essay, but itself points out that it isn't applicable in all situations.  The question is whether or not the 1) there is consensus to have the names there, and 2) whether or not that consensus is based on policy.  My argument would be that as long as this article continues to be named "Senkaku Islands," the Chinese, Taiwanese, and English names should be mentioned only once. You accuse John Smith of subtle POV pushing, but he could just as easily accuse you of the same: why are you "subtly" trying to exclude the Taiwanese names?  My point isn't to accuse you of POV pushing, but to point out that it's a useless claim here even if it were true, because whatever set of names we choose will support one POV or other--there literally is no neutral name here.  And, while I don't recall exactly which of the policies/guidelines it's in, we're supposed to try to stick with one name throughout the article, mentioning alternates only when we need to to discuss the dispute.  Otherwise it's just very confusing.  So I would argue that, so long as we call this "Senkaku Islands," we keep only the Japanese names except in 1) the lead, where we list the island group's names in all relevant languages, 2) in the table, where we list all of the different names for the individual islands in each language, and 3) anywhere a direct quote uses another name.  If we switch the article title, I suppose it will end up depending on what it's switched to.  Which, as a side note points out a possible problem: are there English names for the individual islands?  If not, that's a definite strike against Pinnacle Islands.  Finally, Bobthefish2, I really think that it will benefit us to talk about the edits, not the editors.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2010
 * Endorse the neutral analysis and editing strategy of Qwyrxian in this diff. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do admit I have a habit of playing the "civil incivility game" if I personally consider an editor to be a persistent pest who has little interest in promoting objectivity. While I do admire the patience and generosity you allocate for obviously disruptive elements, it is a quality that I don't have.
 * Your mock allegation of my anti-Taiwanese POV-pushing, it is in fact inapplicable. The reason being the negligible difference, the correspondence to identical Chinese words, and a virtual lack of organized Taiwanese-style Chinese->English phonetic translation system. However, I do understand the point you are illustrating.
 * I agree that there is technically no such thing of "true objectivity", but the degree of neutrality of a decision is not binary. In a scenario where intense dispute is involved, common sense may suggest a dual name is more neutral than a single name.
 * I disagree with your comment on WP:BRD because this particular issue definitely does not have consensus. If I had to go through this shit load of crap (and with no objection from you or any other editor) just to get rid of an obvious misuse of the Remin Ribao article, I don't see why others get a free-ride on something much more ambiguous.
 * Anyway, let's hear what others have to say about the naming issue. I don't have a position on the name-ordering. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob, I'm willing to discuss anything - but it was previously discussed. I didn't sense that there were any remaining objections, but I decided to leave it for a while as there were a lot of other matters that needed addressing. I'm sorry if you found discussing something else stressful, but it wouldn't be appropriate to throw up objections to my edits because of that.
 * We can see if anyone else has a view, but if not perhaps we can revise this section per my previous suggestions (and without putting words in his mouth, I think Qwyrxian was leaning more towards my position). Then we can focus on the summary section. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I found discussing something else frustrating notably due to the degree of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:LAWYER exercised by you and a few others. If my edits were allowed to be subjected to the same procedural hurdles, I don't see why your edits should be exempted from that.
 * As to the naming, I agree that a dual name should not occur everywhere. But I believe at least some of us agreed, in a previous discussion, on using "neutral" terms in place of the names whenever appropriate. Examples would include "disputed islands" or "islands" instead of "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". I recall you protested against that idea but then there were also others who accepted it.
 * In addition, I advocate the figure captions should have dual names if the figures are simply photographs of some geographic formation. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not relevant to the discussion here. The implication of what you said is that because you're unhappy you're going to refuse to cooperate. I hope that's not the case. Where there is a disagreement between editors and policy doesn't help, it is appropriate to look at something like WP:BOLD. But as Qwyrxian said, that doesn't apply here. And as I've observed earlier, there didn't seem to be any outstanding objections when I made the edit.
 * You asked for some extra comments, and we've had Tenmei chip in now. Does this mean that I can go ahead and edit?
 * If the names are listed in the table, I don't see why dual names are necessary.
 * If you have an article name, you are allowed to use it - you can't censor it because some people were unhappy they failed to get the name changed. I do like to use alternative references to articles aren't filed with "article name........article name.......article name" every few lines.John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you've misunderstood my intents. I simply was using the same arguments that were used to scrutinize my previous edits. Since I rode through those procedures as a cooperative editor, I'd don't see why anyone else should not be subjected to them at similarly applicable situations. After all, the protocols existed to ensure the validity of the edits in question (which I demonstrated in my cases). While I am now simply trying to ensure these same standards to apply equally to everyone, it appears such an effort is now considered as uncooperative because the author of those edits is now someone from an different opinion bloc.
 * Qwyrxian's opinion of WP:BOLD's seems somewhat weird. The WP:BRD:page specifically listed some conditions of use:
 * Two factions are engaged in an edit war
 * Discussion has died out with no agreement being reached
 * Active discussion is not producing results
 * Your view differs significantly from a vocal majority on an emotionally loaded subject
 * And interestingly enough, this is a recent enforcement by Qwyrxian.
 * If you want to play wikilawyer as with this
 * "If you have an article name, you are allowed to use it - you can't censor it because some people were unhappy they failed to get the name changed...".
 * ... then I can also quote following
 * "Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For more examples, some of them involving changes within the twentieth century, see below."
 * ... and argue that I can change all pre-1900 references to "Diaoyu" on the grounds that "Senkaku Islands" did not exist as a term before 1900. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent what I have said. I have no problem with you having your own view, you were clearly suggesting that because you didn't get your way with another matter you were going to try to delay things here. If you are willing to cooperate, that's great. You don't have to automatically agree with what someone says to be helpful, you just have to discuss it in a constructive matter.
 * BOLD/BRD does not apply here. There are not two factions edit-warring. You reverted me. As BRD says, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring. It also says BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once.
 * It seems to me that PLACE is not relevant here, because there are no examples that I can see where Senkaku is used pre-19th century. It would be better for you to take that particular discussion to the Island dispute page. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not misinterpreted what you've said. However, you appear to be unable to understand why I decided to intervene. Certainly, I was not very happy with being filibuster in the past, but it's not my intent to filibuster in this case. My rationale is simply that if the policies previously cited could be used against unambiguously valid edits I contributed, then it should also be capable of checking this particular content of interest (which I disagree with and, in my opinion, is far more controversial).
 * BOLD/BRD does apply. It does not require a pre-condition of edit-warring. Rather, it is there to discourage edit-wars from occurring especially when legitimate disagreements have been raised. As a link from my previous post suggested, Qwyrxian had cited this rule on very similar grounds in the past despite his current disagreements. At the same time, I don't think it is too hard to actually follow the BRD procedure. You simply have to discuss your changes with the rest of us and reach an agreement. Is there a reason you don't want to do that? I understand you may not like to be held accountable for your changes as evidenced by your previous refusal to justify deletions of reliable sources, but that's not really a good habit to have.
 * I am confused about the following argument
 * It seems to me that PLACE is not relevant here, because there are no examples that I can see where Senkaku is used pre-19th century. It would be better for you to take that particular discussion to the Island dispute page.
 * Diaoyu was certainly used to describe the islands before 1900. If you agree that "there are no examples that [you] can see where Senkaku is used pre-[20th] century" (I'd presume you meant pre-20th century because the term was invented ~1900), then that's all the more reason for WP:PLACE to apply. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll quote it again. BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring. Perhaps you can actually cite policy rather than put your own spin on it.
 * If PLACE is not relevant here, it cannot apply. Please indicate what you specifically want to be changed and why PLACE applies. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will help your case by keep bringing up irrelevant ideas on what BRD is not used for. In this situation, I brought it up because an agreement had previously not been reached regarding the issue(s) that is relevant to your edit. Suffice to say, this wasn't intended to indefinitely hinder your edits, but rather to make sure some form of agreement can be reached. And of course, I am all for discussing the matter with you but you don't appear interested to talk about anything other than trying to weasel your way out. Reputable editors may agree that it is not a very productive way to do things.
 * As for my point about PLACE, it was already explained in my two previous replies. I'd much rather you not to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT because it is not professional conduct. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob, I'm finding your comments strange. You say you're not trying to indefinitely hinder my edits, but you're refusing to acknowledge what BRD actually says having given it as a reason to block them. Maybe we should move on. You asked for other views, so far we have have had Qwyrxian and Tenmei offer their views (Tenmei agreed with Qwryxian). With no one else interested, apart from us, to me that seem to be a consensus that apart from in the lead and table of island details, we should use the Japanese names. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Endorse accuracy of the restatement of consensus in last sentence of John Smith&#39;s's diff here, e.g., " ... would seem to be a consensus that apart from in the lead and table of island details, we should use the Japanese names." However, in this context, it would be much cleaner and more pointed if the words "article name" were substituted for "Japanese name" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I don't really understand the issue. Here, let me use one of Qwyrxian's explanations for a previous enforcement of BRD:
 * So, that's what happened from my perspective. Currently, as far as I understand your position, you're saying "I added info, no one else is now allowed to remove that information without giving clear and specific reasons why." We, on the other hand, are saying, "The article was stable, so it's your responsibility to explain why you want to add the info.
 * It's not directly my intent to block your edits, but if what you wanted is not consistent with what's agreed on previously, then your edits may still have to be left out as part of the process.
 * Even though Qwyrxian has supported the use of a single name throughout the article, this is only one of the few matters involved. He and Tenmei also did not comment further as more issues were raised subsequently, although Tenmei appeared to have endorsed my WP:SPACE idea. The lack of participation from others can largely be due to the fact that this discussion has so far mostly been about your unwillingness with being asked to go through a BRD process.
 * I understand that you want Japanese names to predominate in the article. Even today you switched a number of name-orderings in favour of Japanese names (as if nobody would notice that). While there is little doubt you are a reputable editor, I hope you will still abide some of Wikipedia's standard editing procedures. If you agree to it, then we can start a new thread that talk specifically about this issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse Bobthefish2's proposed edits here; and also endorse the argument because it is supported by a reliable source here --Tenmei (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Explaining strike-out: This endorsement is withdrawn because it illustrates a distinction without a difference. --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

One of Bobthefish2's phrases deserves repeating: "... the degree of neutrality of a decision is not binary." To help locate Bobthefish2's words in context, these words are highlighted above in blue with a hyperlink to the original diff at 02:40, 11 November 2010. If there is any objection to this non-word edit, please let me know. Please feel free to delete the hyperlink if it is unwelcome. I have a question: Is this a well-known saying that is simply unknown to me, or is this only an example of words which surprised me? --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a quote from anyone, but the idea is not original.

Back to the issue
Okay, somebody isn't "BRD-ing" correctly. I've lost track, to be honest. So, first, here's a list of what I assume everyone agrees to:


 * Somewhere in the article, every relevant name (for both the group and the individual islands) in every name should be mentioned at least once.
 * The lead should mention all of the group names (i..e., Senkaku, Diaoyu, Diaoyutai, Pinnacle, etc.).
 * All of the specific island names should be mentioned in the table.
 * Whenever possible, when referring to the island group as a whole outside of the lead, the best approach is to use a neutral term like "the islands" or "the island group" or "the disputed islands".
 * Of course, direct quotes always state exactly what the direct quote says.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure we all agree to the above. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think that leaves 2 main questions.
 * When referring to the individual islands outside of the table (like in the picture captions), should we use just the "dominant" name (i.e., the name that matches the current article title), or should we list the Japanese name and the Chinese name (as the two "main" disputants) or should we list every avaiable name, or is there some other criteria?
 * In cases where two or more names are listed (if we think that is correct), what order should they be listed in?

Before I clarify my own position (to be honest, I'm not 100% certain what it is), is that a correct summary of the 2 points at issue? And are the 5 points above that 100% agreed to? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, thank you for fulfilling your role as an experienced editor by putting this discussion back on track - which is something I have failed to do despite my efforts. I believe figure captions of photographs should always use dual names if it appears in the geography section since the photographs themselves don't have an opinion on what an island's name is. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, let's agree on the 2/5 point principles first. i myself don't mind either way. i don't mind the ordering either, but i guess we could use the google scholar search to determine the order? since that names table is for a reference of different names maybe we should just insert the island group names into the table. on the other hand, i do think for when refering to pre-1900 we should use the "old" name. San9663 (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on name-ordering either. If some people feel it is very important for them to change the name ordering, then I will not step in. The point about WP:PLACE and pre-1900 naming is also something to think about. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well as you're no longer opposed I've reinstated some of the changes I made previously. I'm not too worried about the table for the moment. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the five points, but I don't think that there should be a deliberate avoidance of using "Senkakus" or "Senkaku islands" outside of the lead section. I think that it's best to mix it with the suggested terms to ensure that "Senkaku" isn't repeated too often in paragraphs.
 * The two questions seem correct to me. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Deliberate avoidance of using the Senkaku (outside of direct quotations) is a good idea because even the article name itself is controversial. Substituting proper nouns with pro-nouns and nouns in this case will not change the semantics of the text but will lessen the involvement of sovereignty. At the same time, it will also make the texts less prone to edit-wars over naming. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Btf2 on this last point, for now--using a generic term instead of the specific terms, when we can, seems like a good plan until such time (post RfC?) on an article name, since it dodges the issue of edit warring. However, should an RfC find in favor of using a specific name (as I still believe it must), then I think we should follow standard editing practices, like John Smith describes--it's just better writing to mix proper nouns with nouns and pronouns.  This almost tempts me to start working on writing up the RfC....
 * As for the other issues...okay, I didn't want to do this...but it seems like too many things hinge on the article title. Oh, this refers to the RfC. I haven't put any effort into writing an RfC, because I don't believe the evidence is strong enough that the article title should change, so I didn't see any need to work on something that I thought was fine as is.  But I see that not having a firmer grip on what the title should be is causing problems on other points (I think Btf2 even said that was one of his reasons for wanting to keep the full protection on the dispute page).  I'll go ahead and draft something in the next day or two, and maybe we can move forward after that.  Maybe, if we can pull together a consensus, that is....Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the RfC going to be on? Please don't tell me we're going to have yet another debate on the article title itself - I would have to object to having motion after motion to rename it until the "right" answer is chosen. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the RfC, I have to apologize for the delay. I will re-read the relevant threads again and write a draft within the coming week. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The RfC will take time and expected to be contentious. May I suggest we put a note in the lead that the Title itself is contentious (and refer reader to certain discussion page or Wiki policy regarding name convention). i.e. not just the dispute on sovereignty, but a dispute on Wiki name as well. I know there is probably no wiki policy around this. But I do think wiki should have a separate entry on Contentious Title (i.e. a wiki entry on wiki itself...listing Titles such as Dokdo/Takeshima, Senkaku/Diaoyu, etc.)San9663 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All names are controversial if sovereignty is disputed - e.g. Falkands versus Malvinas. There is no need to say that this is a "contentious title", and I wold regard it as POV if there is no policy requirement to have it. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference in the degree of controversy between our scenario and the case of Falkland Islands is quite significant. Please exercise WP:COMMONSENSE. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian -- Please modify your diff here with the addition of numbering, e.g.,


 * Qwyrxian's restements
 * Somewhere in the ....
 * The lead should mention ....
 * All of the specific ....
 * Whenever possible ...
 * Of course, direct quotes ...
 * When referring to the individual ....
 * In cases where two or more ...


 * Tenmei's comments


 * 1) Yes, of course.
 * 2) Yes, of course.
 * 3) No
 * 4) Yes, of course.
 * 5) Yes, of course.
 * 6) Same as #1 and #2 above → non-issue
 * 7) Same as #1 and #2 above → non-issue


 * IMO, numbering could have induced specific, item-by-item responses. --Tenmei (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On the RfC (and yes, John Smith, it's an RfC about the title of this article and by extension the dispute article)...the reason I have left all the work up to Bobthefish2 is that I think the name is correct as written now. While I accept that some English sources have switched to using a duel name, I do not believe that enough have switched to make it appropriate to change the name at this point in time. Furthermore, in English language sources which are neither Japanese nor Chinese nor Taiwanese in origin, when only a single name is chosen, that name is almost always Senkaku. Furthermore, I do believe that our policy is pretty clear that we cannot use a duel name as the title itself (i.e., this article should not be titled "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands", and that, given that far more contentious disputes do not use this title, there is no reason to set this article up as an exception to the general rule. That leaves us with Pinnacle Islands, a la the Liancourt Rocks "compromise".  It won't kill me to see that as a last ditch name, but I don't think it's necessary and furthermore dislike it because it's so completely absent in any current literature.  However, I don't think we need to go there.  If you look back through the Liancourt Rocks talk page archives, you'll see that the arguments there were far longer, far more intractable, filled with a lot of bad faith all around, and I really feel like using Liancourt Rocks was the equivalent of throwing our hands up in the air and saying we didn't want to take the effort to determine the "proper" title.

Having said all of that, I can see that not having done the RfC on the name is preventing us from moving forward on other issues (including unprotecting Senkaku Islands dispute). As such, I will write a draft in my userspace now. I'm pretty sure I know how to format it, but I'm going to go look at other RfC's to check their level of detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we getting a bit hasty with edits?
User:John Smith's has made this edit today. I am not exactly sure if the outcome of our discussion so far actually agreed with the changes he made. Unless I am misinterpreting something, my impression is that they are not consistent with what's been discussed. I did a speedy revert on it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Btf2 here. Perhaps John Smith just misread, but what I saw Btf2 agreeing to is that the ordering doesn't matter (thus, I see a consensus to use the Japanese name first, at least so long as the article title is Senkaku Islands).  I don't see anywhere a consensus that the pictures should use only the Japanese names.  Again, I agree with the latter position, but I don't see the consensus to remove the Chinese names.  I see almost a consensus....but as I mentioned, I guess we're stuck going to the RfC on the article title.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression that User:John Smith's does misread things a lot, since this isn't the first time I've seen such edits from this user. By the way, the article title is practically a separate issue. I have already contacted a few ex-regulars about whether or not they wanted to take part. You might want to ask if User:Oda Mari is interested as well. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't misread things a lot, it just seems that I have difficulty understanding certain users. When people say things like "I am not blocking/vetoing your changes", what am I supposed to believe? However, if it's the case that you're not going to revert me over name ordering at least that's something I can work with.
 * I think it would be best if you contact everyone who has been involved, rather than ask me to contact certain people. Otherwise it looks like I'm canvassing for support. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you misread things a lot either. Rather, I would simply attribute bad faith as the cause of such misunderstandings given prior experiences.
 * You should be careful about 'simplifying' the intent of others. I didn't say "I am not blocking/vetoing your changes" nor did I say the contrary was my intent. Rather, my purpose was to pause your edits to let others reflect on what you did - as I've mentioned to you for at least 5 times. And as it turns out, some editors disagreed with the way of how you conducted your business. Unfortunately, you still decided to move on ahead as if nothing has happened. Since you are a reputable editor, I'd assume you are sufficiently familiar with the WP:BRD process. This leaves me to wonder if there are reasons to believe your reputation somehow justify your obvious disrespect for Wikipedia guidelines.
 * No, it is still inappropriate to change name-ordering because others (notable San9663) may not agreed to it yet. Again, please respect the editorial process.
 * Lastly, the post you replied to was directed at Qwyrxian (in case you've somehow misread. If I was asking someone to have others contacted, it probably wouldn't be you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob, you really should assume good faith. I have made no accusations against you, so I don't see why you have to be unpleasant. I will quote what you said earlier - "but it's not my intent to filibuster in this case". Can you please explain to me how a filibuster is not a veto or blocking? Because as far as I understand it, that's exactly what it is. So why are you now saying that's not the point you were making, given that you keep doing this whenever I make edits you don't like? Also as I've pointed out before, you cite BRD as a reason why I shouldn't be making the edits I have been, yet you repeatedly fail to note that it says you cannot use BRD as a reason to revert someone multiple times.
 * If someone else objects to any edits I make over name-ordering, let them do it. It's not for you to make edits/reversions in the article for others. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to assume good faith from you given the numerous times you've disrespected the efforts of other editors either by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, removing well-justified content, or ignoring policies. In terms of contributions, you generally do very little other than changing names and name-orderings around, deleting (good and bad) references, and playing WP:LAWYER to sabotage legitimate edits of other editors. As a result, I tend to perceive you as a persistent source of destructive interference and this may very well be your overall intended role. To contrast this with another user I consistently disagree with, Tenmei always provides thorough analysis on changes he made or discussions he participated in. While he can be very stubborn at times, I generally assume good faith from him.
 * "Filibuster" is somewhat different to "veto". My impression is that the former term is generally associated with bad faith and is achieved by abusing procedural hurdles. The latter term, on the other hand, is more neutral and is generally achieved by exercising authorized rights/power. Since you are an Englishman, you should know their semantic differences better than I do.
 * As for the BRD, I am not going to repeat myself the 6th time. I'd assume this is yet another WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from you. Since I'd already offered fair explanations of my BRD use in previous posts, I encourage you to read beyond the first sentences of writing if you still have trouble understanding the rationale. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob, I don't know how good you think your English is, but it's not perfect. "Filibuster" is a term relating to the blocking of legislation in a legislative body. The definitions do not say there is necessarily "bad faith" involved. But it does involve something being blocked. So at the least you weren't clear and used the wrong word, and quite reasonably could have been considered as meaning that you weren't going to block my edits. I say this as someone whose first language is English. Now if you want to waste time instead of discussing the real issues, which is ironically one example of a filibuster, feel free to head off to another Wikipedia page to seek alternate views. I, however, really don't care.
 * You accuse me of not taking note of what you say, but I could accuse you of doing the same thing. I don't believe that you have offered a fair explanation of why you can keep reverting me at all and continue to ignore/misread policy for your own ends. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend you to read filibuster - most notably the last sentence of the second paragraph. If you are not convinced of the semantic differences, you can also look up the word in Webster, a dictionary established in your native British Empire. Actually, let me just quote the definitions here:
 * the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 * the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to force a decision against the will of the majority - Dictionary.com
 * Since you are a native English speaker and a reputable editor, I believe it is important for you to exercise your innate English reading comprehension skills. The only unproductive elements of this thread are your relentless protests against the use of the BRD process and your worthless arguments about vetos, blocks, and filibusters. While I've tried my best to accommodate your complaints by providing you with appropriate explanations for numerous times over multiple posts (which you can read up on if you actually bother to), it is not my fault if you cannot control your obvious obsession to cavil and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat myself for the last time, the WP:BRD was cited because the edits you've made were either inconsistent with previously agreed ideas (i.e. preference for neutral terms) or based on ideas that were discussed but not widely agreed on (i.e. name-ordering). The reverts were not imposed to directly block your edits, but was part of the WP:BRD process to pause this part of your editorial process so that your contents could be discussed and examined. However, your edits could still be indefinitely blocked due to various issues such as non-adherence to WP:NPOV or confirmed disregard of previous agreements. If that does happen, then permanency of these reverts would be attributed to policy violations or other justified causes rather than simply the WP:BRD procedure. On the other hand, if the result of the WP:BRD discussion was that your edits were reasonable, then they would stay. Unfortunately, it appears that most of the issues I've raised with your edits were well-agreed by other participants, so maybe... at least some may not stay in the end.
 * I'd also like to point out that no one else has thus far raised red flags with my reverts of the edits in question. This seems especially true for my revert of this edit of your's, as others have agreed the edit was obviously disrespectful of what had been agreed upon. It is also not something a reputable editor should do.
 * Now, I believe I've explained enough. If you have any further objections, you can choose to file an ANI. Should that not be a desired option, you can also choose to make your own Wikia where you can write whatever fantasy you have for the world in an unimpeded manner. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why John Smith has to remove the names of the small islands, for which I believe they were not referred to before. For the first time these names appear, i think both names should be co-listed. In subsequently mentioning, it may be okay to drop the alternative name. I had thought we have agreed to agree on the principles first and I thought the that that the issue was with the name in the title of the table only and it has already been edited.San9663 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * San, you will find all the islands' names referred to in the infobox and the table. I am not proposing that the Chinese names be removed everywhere including in the infobox and table, just that having been included in both places there's no need to keep referring to both the Chinese and Japanese names throughout the article. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010
 * Endorse again the neutral analysis and editing strategy of John Smith&#39;s in this diff; and also Endorse again the accuracy of the restatement of consensus in last sentence of John Smith&#39;s's diff here, e.g., " ... would seem to be a consensus that apart from in the lead and table of island details, we should use the Japanese names." However, in this context, it would be much cleaner and more pointed if the words "article name" were substituted for "Japanese name" ...? --Tenmei (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove any unauthorized edits of his. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an "unauthorised edit". Please do not encourage people to revert others' edits. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a lazy term to denote those policy/agreement/consensus-ignoring types of edits that you like to make. Despite your obvious objection, I'd encourage irresponsible edits such as those to be removed. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then don't be lazy, be clear. But you still should not encourage others to revert - if you have a problem, deal with it yourself. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ^ Obvious attempt to cavil. Feel free to continue with your diversionary tactics. Since my point's clear, I do not feel the need to reply further. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Title RfC draft
I have written a draft for a possible RfC on the name of this article and the dispute article. You may find it at User:Qwyrxian/Senkaku name RfC draft. Anyone is welcome to edit that draft. Unless there is serious objection, I will bring it here in a few days.

And, John Smith mentioned above opposing yet another RfC on this issue. To be honest, I was torn on that myself. I think 2 things warrant going forward with another RfC. First, the most recent previous RM was closed as no consensus, but many of the arguments were based on very flawed search data that seemed to show a more than 3 to 1 preponderance for Senkaku Islands, but that happened as a result of improper search terms. Second, I think that there has been a greater amount of international English press recently as a result of the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident, which might make the judgment easier. For me...well, I documented part of my explanation above for why I think we have the correct name.

Having said all of that, if this RfC ends with us keeping the current name, or even ends without a clear consensus, I think we need to drop the issue indefinitely (i.e., until someone can demonstrate some extremely strong evidence showing that conditions, either in the real world or on wiki) have changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 Endorse the scrupulous, neutral analysis of Qwyrxian here and the draft RfC text here. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At the very least can you amend the RfC so that it deals with all the outstanding issues, such as how the islands should be referred to in captions and in the article, as well as the ordering of the table, given that all the names are listed in the infobox and table already. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2010
 * We should deal with the naming issue separately, since it is, by itself, already a complicated issue to deal with. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * John Smith&#39;s -- I do not support amending Qwyrxian's draft RfC text here. However, I do also endorse again the accuracy of the restatement of consensus in last sentence of John Smith&#39;s's diff here, e.g., " ... would seem to be a consensus that apart from in the lead and table of island details, we should use the Japanese name" or "article name" .... --Tenmei (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RfC's are generally most successful when they have a single, clear focus. It tends (as far as I've seen, although I'm no expert) to encourage participation when the question is very straightforward, even when the answer itself may be complex.  If we put several different issues, I think readers are more likely to throw up their hands and just ignore it.  And, if anyone shows up who is sincerely interested, they'll keep the page watchlisted and keep editing. I will, though, look at the diffs mentioned (probably tomorrow; I'm pretty busy today).  Also, I want to look at the diffs in BobtheFish2's draft.  I'm not clear which part of that he intended for the RfC and which part for his responses to the RfC, but it's possible some of the diffs he presented may be good references to add to mine (since I came to this party a little later than the rest of y'all, and may have missed earlier debates).  I don't want to comment on them as btf2 did, or even summarize them, just have them available to make research easier for those who are coming.
 * P.S.: This must be why international diplomacy takes so long--before we can actually do anything, first we have to draft ideas to discuss how we're going to discuss possibly doing something, maybe. Qwyrxian 23:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the issue of the article's name is closely related to how the islands should be referred to individually. I don't see why that will be too much for editors to handle. However, I am sure that if we have another RfC after this one, on the island names, it will be virtually impossible to get more comments because people will go "oh this is a waste of time, I've already given my view. Why wasn't this brought up at the same time?"
 * I think that this needs to be addressed, so if you don't include it I will just have to consider filing my own RfC at the same time. But I think it would make a lot more sense to have two issues in a single RfC to make it easy as possible. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How would you feel if you are asked to comment on a RfC post that basically says: "Hey we have some heavily debated issue with lots of different arguments and a lengthy debate history. Here's a big slab of links to all the titanic and convoluted discussions of the past that we don't care to describe to you about. Enjoy your reading." Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think qwyrxian's RfC is okay. But Tenmei confused me as he first endorsed and then opposed, what specifically did you endorse and not endorse?San9663 (talk) p.s. I also think that the RfC should be simple. Have one objective first. We can, however, have an RfC on the principle though. e.g. If the results turn out this way then this, it wuold be much easier if a principle  (i.e. rules) is agreed on instead of arguing for which name should be the title and which specific ordering. 11:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * San9663 -- I accept and support Qwyrxian's draft here. As I posted my endorsement, I noticed that John Smith&#39;s suggested small changes here.  My dissent was posted adjacent to John Smith&#39;s words. Bobthefish2's subsequent diff displaced mine. I perceived nothing confusing in this, but you did. I hope this resolves any uncertainty?  If any part of this remains unclear, I will try again to explain in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Page name
I know that this might not be the right place to discuss this, but I would like to point out that the Wikipedia articles concerning the same topic have different names, with the Chinese article having the islands' Chinese name, and the Japanese article having the islands' Japanese name. Is this an acceptable regional variation, or should this issue be resolved? I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here!  12:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue. As far as I understand it, Wikipedia articles use the names most common in that language. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good question. The two-article "compromise" strategy won't work for subjects which are today paired with articles focusing only on controversies, e.g.,


 * Liancourt Rocks →→
 * Kuril Islands →→
 * Senkaku Islands →→
 * Spratly Islands →→


 * Liancourt Rocks dispute
 * Kuril Islands dispute
 * Spratly Islands dispute
 * Senkaku Islands dispute


 * However, there are other potentially contentious articles in which this is proving somewhat workable, e.g.,


 * Goryeo missions to Imperial China
 * Joseon diplomacy
 * Joseon missions to Japan →→
 * Joseon missions to Imperial China

.
 * Japanese diplomacy (pre-1854)
 * Japanese missions to Joseon
 * Japanese missions to Imperial China
 * Japanese missions to Tang China
 * Japanese missions to Ming China


 * In due course, my guess is that the development of such articles as these may help establish a consensus for creating articles which would be impossible to initiate today, e.g.,
 * Joseon-Japanese foreign relations before the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876
 * Sino-Korean foreign relations before the China-Korea Treaty of 1882


 * I have often wondered if this kind of outside the box thinking could be applied to Senkaku Islands? --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just concurring with John Smith: no matter what gets decided here, assuming jp & cn wikis have the same rules about naming that we have, the only correct name at jp.wiki would be Senkaku Islands, and the only correct name at cn.wiki would be Diaoyu Islands (obviously, put both of those into the appropriate kanji and Chinese characters), as their only concern is the most common name used in the wiki's native language. Thus, in this fact, they have it easy--we're the ones stuck because both names (and many variants) get used in English. Again, the similar topic I always go back to is that the Italian article is, Firenze, while our article is Florence.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Island images
When I scanned our article on my laptop, the three images in the geography section caused a large blank space in the area above the table. This format problem did not appear in the wide-screen monitor of my desk computer. Two of the island images are moved farther down the page. Alternately, one of these could have been positioned in the "Names" section? IMO, there is room for all three images. I have no preference about their locations in the article. My only concern had to do with fixing a problem I hadn't previously noticed. --Tenmei (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't like where they are now, because on my current computer, it looks like picture 2 specifically goes with the dispute section, and picture 3 specifically goes with the Collision incident, which is not what I think is intended. However, I also don't like have large blank spaces, so moving them wasn't wrong.  Maybe someone here is more used to playing with image layout and has a better solution for both issues? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The images are repositioned three sections? Does this look better on the page? --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What should the title of this article be?
Problem : What name should be used for this article and the related Senkaku Islands dispute article? The quick summary is that the ownership of these islands is in dispute between Japan, China, and Taiwan. As such, each side applies its own name(s) to the islands. The question is, what should the title be in English Wikipedia?

Background : In the sources, sometimes the name Senkaku Islands (Japanese name) is used, sometimes Diaoyu or Diayoutai or Tiaoyu or Tiaoyoutai Islands(Chinese names, various different transliterations), sometimes both are used, as in "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands", and, very rarely and primarily in very old texts, an English translation of the name, Pinnacle Islands, is used. There is a dispute among the various regular editors about how often each naming variant is used in various sources (scholarly articles, encyclopedias, general internet, news articles, etc.). Furthermore, there is dispute about how to interpret these results in the context of the relevant policies for naming places and article titles, the most notable of which are WP:Article titles (in particular, the section Considering title changes), WP:NPOV (in particular, the subsection Naming), and Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and Multiple local names).

Past discussions on this topic, along with some (incomplete) data, can be found at Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 3, Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5 and other places throughout this page and the talk page archives. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have notified the Wikiprojects listed above, as well as WP:EASIA, per the rules of WP:CANVAS. If there are other relevant wikiprojects, feel free to notify them, too.

Summary on Previous Discussions:  To help keep this discussion to a manageable scale, I took care to avoid bringing up issues that were not actually used to justify the naming of the article.

The original adaptation of the current article naming was initiated by User:Delirium 4 years ago on the grounds that the Japanese 'controls the islands' and that 'They are Japanese territories right now as far as international law is concerned'.

Numerous debates were conducted (1)(2)(3) on whether or not the islands should be renamed "Pinnacle Island" (the pure English name of the islands). The proposals were all defeated. Smaller-scale articles also occurred sporadically.

The main supporting arguments were: - NPOV due to the level of controversy dealing with sovereignty. - Liancourt Rocks, a similarly contested territory between South Korea and Japan, was given a similar treatment - Relative frequency of name usage in practice based on search engine results - "Senkaku Islands" was the most commonly used based on some search engine results.

The main opposing arguments were: - CIA world factbook uses Senkaku Islands as the official name - "Pinnacle Islands" is rarely used as a name - "Pinnacle Islands" is not the same as "Senkaku Islands". - The are notable differences between Liancourt Rock's scenario and this situation. The specifics of the differences were not explained in the thread, however. - "Diaoyu" had very similar or greater number of hits based on other search engine results.

Other points to consider : (1) Was the renaming of the article to the current name (Senkaku Island) backed by compelling reasoning? If not, is there any reason for the name to remain? (2) Were the past reasons used to advocate status quo or change in fact applicable? (3) There are a few possible options to consider. One is to keep the article name as Senaku Islands. Another is to rename it to Diaoyu Islands. A third option would be to use a dual name such as Senkaku Islands. And a fourth option would be to use Pinnacle Islands as proposed in the past. — Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Senkaku Islands. The islands are currently possessed by Japan, and so the Japanese name should be used.  The alternate names should be listed in the intro and have redirects pointing to this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was considering clarifying this above, but thought I could wait. Please take a look at some of the policies, and you will note that possession of the islands is not actually the sole factor when Wikipedia determines what an article should be named (the classic example is that even the Italy possesses the city of Firenze, and uses that name exclusively, the Wikipedia article is title Florence).  So while ownership of islands may be somewhat important, it's not as important as other things. We do not want this RfC to devolve into an argument over who rightly or currently owns, posseses or otherwise controls the islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Endorse final sentence summary of Qwyrxian's diff here, e.g., ... do not want this RfC to devolve into an argument over who rightly or currently owns, posseses or otherwise controls the islands. --Tenmei (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Name as Is. I was looking at several folding maps in my possession, including one by National Geographic, and there is no mention of either of these names in any of the maps. These are exceedingly tiny and uninhabited islands. Further, in my humble opinion, the islands are terra nullis (not claimable by any nation.) That being said, I believe that we should keep the name as is, as it would appear based off of the 2010 collision incident that the vast majority of English language coverage not connected to one of the claimant states uses Senkaku. Then again, the literalist in me would just say "Contested East China Sea Micro-island Chain" and call it a day... Sven Manguard  Talk  04:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as Senkaku. It's been fairly well established that Senkaku has a distinct edge over Diaoyu as far as popularity in English does, and it leaves the near-unused exonym "Pinnacle Islands" in the dust.  Like it or not, possession is nine-tenths of the law, and Japan does control the islands.  For other datapoints, see Pedra Branca, Singapore, which was moved to that name on Wikipedia pretty much the same instant that the ICJ adjudicated in Singapore's favor, and Kunashir Island, which uses the name used by the controlling party (Russia) despite Japan's claims over it. Jpatokal (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a quick comment on Bobthefish2's summary above--while I admit to not being here at the time, his summary is not what I would consider a neutral summary of the issues, at least as the debate has occurred recently. For one, what the article was named originally, or when it changed, actually has no bearing on the issue (I think perhaps he's confused with the rules that govern things like spelling, e.g., WP:ENGVAR, that cares about what was done originally). Second, those arguments, while they may have been used previously, aren't necessarily the strongest or most current.  I do encourage those truly interested to review some of the linked discussions.
 * More importantly, I, like Btf2 and Tenmei, encourage (as I said above), everyone to try to focus on what policy says about naming articles. Though I support the use of Senkaku Islands as the article title, that support is only a little based on current possession of the islands.  Our policy actually doesn't really care who possesses the islands--rather it cares about what name is regularly used in English.  In cases where there are multiple competing names (as there are here), we can look at subtle details, but we always want to focus on the name that is most commonly used.  Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg the differ. If the arguments that rationalized the previous move to "Senkaku Islands" are not appropriate, then the move should be reversed unless stronger arguments are found to keep it. This is simply WP:COMMONSENSE. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Senkaku Islands - The question of possession is largely irrelevant. Generally WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:NPOV. NickCT (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Senkaku Islands - First, this has been discussed many times, including one recent page move request. No one discussion will forever resolve this, so I don't see the need to keep asking the question. A cynic could say that the question will be asked until the "right" response is given, but I wouldn't accuse Qwyrxian of being motivated in such a way. But as we have the discussion, I agree with others that we should keep the name due to the fact it's more common in the English language. Possession is an issue, but not necessarily the overriding one. It would be inappropriate to use "Pinnacle", especially given that it's so rarely used. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we examine the data first? e.g. for those who claim Senkaku or Daioyu is an "English name" (neither of them sound "English" to me), shouldn't they look at the evidence, such as google scohlar or goole search result first? As we know, the previous searches were fundamentally flawed. It looks rather hasty when one reaches a conclusion without even looking at the data. The wiki principles, as I understand, ask for data to support any claim. Otherwise, there is no difference from just another discussion forum. San9663 (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur...there's a point or two above that relates to actual usage, but not as much as I would have hoped. Should we not get clear input, then perhaps we'll have to move to mediation.  While, as you know, I believe the data supports the use of Senkaku (that is, the data is close, but the alternative of Pinnacle is significantly worse, so the slight favor for Senkaku seems like our best choice), I will without hesitation agree to mediation (either formal or the Cabal).  Qwyrxian (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You should accept that at least a few of us are NOT suggesting "Pinnacle Islands" as the principle alternative. This is another issue, in fact, since we haven't outlined all the possible/feasible alternatives in the introduction. Guess it's me that has to do it? Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can examine data if you like, but you can't force people to go about a RfC in any particular way. It is a referral for comment - people leave their comments. If you want to make a point and then ask people to revisit their views, feel free. But don't be surprised that people have been fairly brief (so far) in their comments. Not everyone has the time or interest to get into in-depth analysis. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's indeed a problem. My observation of the past discussions is that people like to give their input or "vote" however they like and often disregarding good analysis of issues. This is why this would likely go to a mediation or ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, bob. That really goes to show, despite what you say, you don't read my comments. I've said over half a dozen times that ANI is solely for resolving editor behaviour that breaks the rules. It is not to give judicial judgment on article content or titles - not even Wikipedia arbitration does that. Please drop this idea of seeking a solution through admins. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, you've only made such a comment in the context of arbitration and not ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then for your information ANI is no different from arbitration in that it deals with editor behaviour and not article content disputes. It's just that arbitration makes a final decision, whereas ANI is more about individual admins taking action. There is no way to get a binding decision on article content for a situation like this. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct, but mediation can sometimes be a way to get all parties to accept some version or another. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for sticking to data and adopting some wiki-endorsed rule is to have something such that we do not have to come back every few months in future. The past discussion (as I read) said that if google searches yield one result with thrice the amount over the other then the former is prevalent, but it did not say what to do if the result is not "overwhelming". Maybe let us decide this first (just in case the results differ in future we will still have a rule to refer to). Shall we?San9663 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy, in short, says to pick the most common name. The 3 times rule says that if you get 3 times as many, then it's obvious what the most common name is, and no more discussion is necessary.  If the results are closer, the rules still say to pick the more common one.  However, the problem is when we can't actually tell which is more common.  Note, also, that we cannot decide based only on search results of any type--we also have to consider the importance of the sources.  For example, the policy implies that how other encyclopedias call the thing matter more than other sources, just like how the least preferred results are plain google searches.  There's more details, of course, and you can review all of the policy links I previously posted.  But the end result is that policy says that our primary concern is which is more common in English.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, Well, in that case, the "most common name", by any search so far (including all the search experiments you did in the past 2 months), is "senkaku/diaoyu". I think that should be highlighted in your introduction paragraph? I have no problem using that for the time being. San9663 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that the guidelines say we don't do joint names. One policy says explicitly that "Wikipedia articles must have a single title, by the design of the system." Another says, "Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first" and "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one." Yes, that second gives leeway ("unsatisfactory" and "recommend" are not binding), but I don't see that alternate approach as working. I still don't believe that deciding between S/D or D/S will be any easier than what we're doing now.  Furthermore, I'm not even sure that an RfC is sufficient to allow us to bend such a strong recommendation in a guideline (we might have to go to something like the WP:Village pump (policy)).  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been through this discussion already, Qwyrxian. S/D or D/S is a name that less problematic than simply using 'S'. Even though it is not a perfect solution, the guidelines did not forbid it being adopted as a solution. At the same time, you should ask yourself why partial solution should not be taken when it clearly improves upon the current state of the issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear in that previous discussion. I don't think S/D is better--I actually think it's worse—by far. In fact, it's so much worse, that for me it's not even an option. The name of these tiny little islands is not so important that it's worth being literally the only exception to the rule that articles have a single title (as far as I know; someone tell me if I'm mistaken). It's not a partial solution—it's a total failure. I seriously doubt you could get consensus to have a dual article name. And by consensus, I mean you need consensus at WP:Article names, and probably a larger venue, because you're talking about going directly against the strong recommendations of a guideline which were made for very good reason based on past experiences. If I have to personally rank the possible choices, it's 1) Senkaku, 2) Pinnacle, 3) Diaoyu. S/D or D/S literally isn't even on my list.  Yes, if you could get consensus at a very large venue to show that breaking the strong recommendations is worth it in this case, I will, as always, bow to that consensus.  But if Londonderry, Macedonia, Liancourt Rocks, and Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that a compromise is 'total failure'. If our argument is based on common name usage (which was a main argument of concern), then it lends little support to "Senkaku Islands" since we've already observed that Diaoyu and Senkaku Islands are on the same order of usage for this geographical entity. In fact, if you've paid attention to the arguments I've outlined below in the collapsible block or in previous discussions, then you might discover that I've shown the utter failure of previous arguments that were used to rationalize the use of "Senkaku Islands" over all other names. At the same time, the renaming to "Senkaku Islands" that took place 4 years ago was not a result of consensus either - It stayed because users who wanted WP:NPOV lost either the edit-wars or their patience in trying to do things the right way.
 * So, tell me this: Why should a rename supported by dubious reasoning be allowed to stay? At the same time, why should only one of two equally qualified names be chosen when the choice of name has notable real world consequences? I have my hypothesis for this. Do you? Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While I respect your personal opinion (that you do not like S/D), but I found no where in the guideline that says this cannot be used. All it said is that it is less preferrable? It is still an option, especially if it is THE MOST COMMONLY USED term in all searches. It is not invented by us here. We shall not rule out anything before we even start a discussion, right? San9663 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @btf2 & san: To me, while it's a "compromise" (obviously that's how the news agencies using it feel), it's not a compromise that is fitting for Wikipedia. I don't think that any decision we make locally can or should be able to override what is a clear, site-wide consensus.  One thing I'm opposed to across Wikipedia is local groups just assuming that their situation is special, and that means they can just bend or break the rules because "obviously" their case is "special."  I think that a local group (whether it's a nexus of articles controlled by "owners", an individual article, or a Wikiproject) needs to get a wider consensus to make changes that don't meet general site-wide precedence.  You're both correct that the guidelines says one name is preferable, but I'd argue that the clear precedent is that one name is mandatory.  Otherwise, a dual name solution would have been used in other, far more contentious situations. To me, it's no different then the rules that we can't invent our own name, or use a non-English name.
 * As far as proceeding with that option--I guess that if we got a consensus here that a dual name was the best, then we would have to take that dual name to the rest of Wikipedia. Wait, actually, first we'd have to agree on the order of the two names.
 * And finally, two other thing Btf2 mentioned. One, that the article was "renamed" to Senkaku.  This is not a real issue. If that rename had happened last week, or last month, or whatever, it might be argued to have been done in bad faith or against policies.  But, at 4 years ago, it has literally no relevance to deciding the name today.  The consensus held for 4 years--that's enough.  As for the two names being equal...well, yes, I agree that they're almost equal, but policy says we need to pick a name, and it even says that we can pick the one that is slightly higher even by slightly arbitrary reasons.  We have to have a name.  As a side note, I really wish someone would look at other modern encyclopedias and see what they say.  I'll have the chance to do that, but not for more than a month.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd have to differentiate between a compromise that fits Wikipedia and a compromise that fits your preference. As San9663 has pointed out, Wikipedia did not forbid this type of dual-name usage. As a result, no rules are bent or exceptions made. Since this point has been repeated for numerous times, I want this to be made clear so that we don't have to waste time going at it again.
 * To repeat myself: The use of dual names do not bend or violate Wikipedia policies.
 * You don't need to be sarcastic about the dual name options. Of course, we know the dual name options will not have a consensus. Let us be frank: A great number of people would want nothing less than "Senkaku Islands" being used for no better reason than their cultural preferences. As for the name-ordering, it is already made clear that at least some of us (including San9663 and myself) here do not care. At the same time, you need to be aware that "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" is much less suggestive of Wikipedia's position on sovereignty than say "Senkaku Islands". Even though future editors may still dispute the ordering of two names, the usage of this dual name decreases the degree of WP:NPOV violation which is GOOD. Can you tell me why it is not a good idea to make an existing problem smaller?
 * I don't see a problem scrutinizing a decision made 4 years ago. No, there was no consensus. It was simply moved despite a lot of opposition (for reference, please check archives). If something's done incorrectly, there's no reason to let the mistake remain regardless of how long ago the event happened.
 * Finally, please don't get into the "my name is more common because I skewed my search parameters" crap because I can pull the same to support my favourite name and San9663 can pull the same to support his favourite name. The data from all of our searches already suggested they are approximately equal with no clear dominance of one name over another. In addition, if you think encyclopedias support your claim, then please also consider CNN, BBC, CBC, Reuters, and Google Earth.
 * Really, you seem to suggest that it is bad to lend approximately equal importance to terms that are practically used equally. I find that puzzling. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than continue to debate this point here based solely on our (local) interpretation, I've asked for input on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). I asked them not for help on the actual name of this article, but merely to get some input on what that policy actually means, especially since it's so negative towards dual names but seems to be explicitly not forbidding them. If "non-local" editors are willing to say that the dual name can be considered, then it is fruitful to consider it in our discussion here.  As I said over there, part of my thinking is that I don't want to waste time hashing out an agreement on a dual name and then do the move just to have someone from "outside" come in and say that we can't because of what the guidelines say. See, part of the issue to me, and what I asked for clarification for, is that guidelines and policies aren't just what's explicitly written, but the implied consensus based on standard practice.  If no article anywhere uses dual names, and if other articles in the past have tried to use dual names and failed, then that's a pretty good indication that the overall consensus is that they shouldn't be used.  Maybe Bob and San are right--maybe the way the dual name is used in news sites is sufficient to make our case an exception.  I don't see it, but I need to understand, at a level outside of this article, just how "special" our article needs to be to be considered an "acceptable exception."  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, let me quote myself:
 * To repeat myself: The use of dual names do not bend or violate Wikipedia policies.
 * With that said, we are not talking about any kind of exception.
 * For reference, here's a relevant section of the Naming_conventions_(geographic_names):
 * [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Multiple_local_names|Multiple local names

There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine.

Experience shows that the straightforward solution of a double or triple name is often unsatisfactory; there are all too many complaints that one or the other name should be first. We also deprecate any discussion of which name the place ought to have.

We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems; one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive. This has been done, for example, with the communes of the province of Bolzano-Bozen, based on an officially published linguistic survey of the area (see Italy below).

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.]]
 * To give you an example, here's a dual name: Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen
 * However, I agree that it would be prudent to double check policy first. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Several discrete time points are meaningful and related: A. Qwyrxian's explanation above is consistent with an earlier restatement here. B. In an attempt to engage discussion on this very point, it was made explicit in a dispute matrix or wikitable format here. C. It was re-emphasized in a second spreadsheet context here. In other words, Qwyrxian distilled a core concept in colloquial wording: Policy says we really really really shouldn't use Senkaku/Diaoyu or vice versa.

Bobthefish2 directly engaged this pivotal premise here by proposing a new spreadsheet line in the "Talking past each other Table 2":
 * Context: 3b. Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

This re-focused policy proposition was not accepted. The question was answered in the negative here and here. IMO, The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. --Tenmei (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tenmei's requests for commentary
 * The following diff and response were copied from User talk:Tenmei.
 * I noticed you posted requests for commentary on a number of users' talk pages regarding the Senkaku Islands naming issue. My caution is that the selection of users you chose already have a pre-defined opinion on the issue (especially for John Smith's, who had already made clear his position). Since this RfC is about getting opinions of new people, I'd suggest you to instead get the attention of other non-regular users from Project China or Project Japan that you trust to be able to make objective analysis.


 * At the same time, you'd also want to see if WP:canvass applies to RfC's. If so, you may want to avoid doing that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bobthefish2 -- No, this illustrates a common English idiom &mdash; barking up the wrong tree. If you review the RfC thread, you will notice that each of the ones I contacted were contributors in only one narrow section of Talk:Senkaku Islands. If you re-visit the edit history of Talk:Senkaku Islands#What should the title of this article be?, you may notice that the blandly written messages were serially posted in the same chronological order as each of the participants' initial edits. No, there was nothing wrong. This was a good thing to do. Yes, I am aware of WP:Canvass, but this was not canvassing in any sense. What is more relevant are these factors:
 * Bobthefish2 -- You have rightly complained that the RfC comments thus far were too limited, too superficial.
 * Bobthefish2 -- You arguably anticipated more engagement and greater dialog; and I had hoped for more, too.
 * Bobthefish2 -- In response to your express concerns, I invited further involvement from those who might have been inclined to think that, having already posted one diff, there was no need to re-visit any issues which might have been overlooked.
 * Please re-read the carefully drafted message which invited explicitly constructive responses to a question you have identified as an alternate way of expressing a core issue . I invite no specific action other than expanding the scope and quality of discussion.  My overview comment is neutrally presented, identifying only the history which underscores this as one crux of disagreement. On further reflection, perhaps you will come to see that this is precisely the kind of timely invitation which enhances our prospects for developing a broader consensus. As an acknowledgement of this misunderstanding, I can do no more than to copy this to the RfC thread.  This creates an opportunity for others to help me make better guesses about how this perceived problem might have been avoided.  Perhaps there will be suggestions about how I could have written differently --Tenmei (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I requested comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Oda Mari (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More Recent Analysis
It is strange that this RfC was simply brought up without a follow up on the latest discussions about the topic (which are a major reason for this to be brought up in the first place). It would've been good etiquette if he at least have notified us of his intent of submitting the RfC to ensure readiness of other parties, given this was supposed to be a joint effort between Qwyrxian, myself, and a few other editors. Since I am a chief opponent of his position on the issue and I've clearly stated that I am busy for this week, it makes me wonder if this is really set up to fail.


 * My apologies--I didn't notice/remember that you said you'd be busy this week. In any event, the whole point behind an RfC is to get comments from non-regulars anyway.  Since the only purpose of the announcement is to provide a neutral summary, and I had the approval of several other editors, and since one editor was anxious to get under way because of other issues that are contingent upon this RfC, and, to an extent, the dispute article is fully protected until this is resolved, I felt we needed to go ahead.  My apologies if you think I did something wrong...but I don't see how you could be being "set up to fail", since RfCs "run" for 30 days, and they aren't votes.  And I don't even know what you need to be "ready" for, since RfC's are just a way to make a question that's bogging down between a limited number of editors more visible to the wider community. or that matter, I don't even know what "failing" means, since the question is "What should the article title be?"   If we get a strong policy-based consensus answer, that's a success, no matter what the result is.  If we don't get a clear policy-based consensus, then I guess we move on to some other phase of dispute resolution.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are acting this on the basis of one editor's needs, then I'd suppose you could've also accounted for the preferences of other editors. As I've commented previously, if you are anxious to get this over with, you could've given a definite deadline on this, although again, a better way of doing this is to ask for readiness.


 * I understand you really want to finish this up and that I am taking time with my preparation, but you have to understand that similar motions have failed in the past due to lack of professionalism and organization. As well, since there is a history of bad arguments being endorsed as the reason to oppose the motion, it is all the more important for good sources to be found and references (which take time). On the other hand, your favoured position on this issue (which we both already know) is the current status quo and there's really nothing you need to add or prepare for.


 * Okay, say you had neglected all of that, then wouldn't it still be important for you to at least talk about the recent debates on search engine results? As far as I know, it constituted a large part of your intent to make this RfC proposal. However, for some reason, you didn't bring this up! So, I wouldn't say it is at all ridiculous for me to suspect this whole thing is set up to fail despite my trust of your character and professionalism.


 * Anyhow, I've some time to spare for this tonight. I'll try to add at least part of what I planned to discuss. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, I opened this sub-section for the purpose of presenting the more recent arguments/analyses of involved editors who are regulars of this talk page and have been discussing about this topic for a while.

The following is my piece and I will more add to it over the next few days. Other regulars are welcomed to present their own ideas in this section as well. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On "Pinnacle Islands" is not the same as "Senkaku Islands":

This argument was the principle rationale of the opposing the name change in move request #2 and about half of the "oppose" votes cited it as the exclusive rationale for their votes. However, subsequent discussions (1)(2) suggested this argument may not in fact valid. If one is interested in the specific sources used to refute this controversial argument, they can be found in the discussions I've cited. For our convenience, the results from Google book search is more than enough to contradict the false notion that Pinnacle Islands and Senkaku Islands are not aliases of each other.

While one can say that the refutation of this false notion is insignificant to the greater issue, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight it was the chief reason used by many naysayers in the past in an RfC's like this - Hopefully, participants of this RfC will not exercise efforts that show similar perfunctory quality.

On 'Japanese control of the Islands':

The question of whether or not Japan controls the islands is not as clear as what some would assert. As an user pointed out, the islands are currently uninhabited. While Japanese naval ships occasionally patrol those waters, naval vessels from both Chinese governments had entered those waters on their own accord (1)(2). Chinese civilians (mostly fishermen) had also made numerous trips to the dispute territory without acknowledging the authority of Japanese coast guards, which includes the most recent incident.

While some may want to equate this circumstance to that of the Falkland Islands in terms of their status, it is not actually proper to do so. Despite the conflicting claims of the Argentine and British governments, the Falkland Islands differ from the islands in questions on several important factors: - The Falkland Islands are inhabited - The islands have been under British control for many decades before the World Wars - The Argentine government has not contested the islands' sovereignty through physical action since its last defeat 20 years ago. - Britain, unlike Japan, was a victorious power of World War II

Similarly, the circumstances of the Kuril Islands are also not the same due to the following: - USSR formally annexed the territory during World War II - USSR, unlike Japan, was a victorious power of World War II - Russia is the successor state of USSR and has suffered no unauthorized sojourns by Japanese military

With this said, the degree at which Japan controls these islands is not strong at all since they are unable to prevent Chinese ships from entering and neither the Chinese governments nor fishermen acknowledged Japanese authority. More importantly, the islands are uninhabited and there is a distinct lack of official recognition of Japanese control by any other nation (including the U.S.).

Since this argument of "territorial control" is the original rationale of changing the article's name to "Senkaku Islands" 4 years ago. I'd advocate special attention to be given to this. After all, if this idea of "territorial control" is a weak argument, then the original renaming of the article should not be allowed to stay.

On "search engine results" and "common name usage":

Numerous discussions have been made about the relative degree of usage for "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyu Islands", "Pinnacle Islands", and other synonyms (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). They are almost all search engine based. While some favour one name, others favour another. One can look through the references I linked to if interested, although they overlap significantly with the more recent analyses made by regular editors of this page.

In a recent discussion on the relative usage of the various aliases, a number of editors have collected some statistics on search engine outputs. In general, the results differ depending on how the search parameters were used (which is expected). The following is a listing of all the collected data from that thread formated as [Searching Mechanism] - [Keywords]: [Results] || [Time of Retrieval]

Google - Diaoyu: About 3,460,000 results (0.12 seconds) || 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google - Senkaku: About 842,000 results (0.19 seconds) || 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Diaoyu" and "islands": 72,200 hits || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Senkaku" and "Islands": 83,000 hits. || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Diaoyu" and "Island": 66,200 hits || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Senkaku" and "Island": 74,200 hits. || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Diaoyu Islands": 64,000 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Senkaku Islands": 72,800 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Diaoyu Island": 27,600 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Senkaku Island": 2,470 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Pinnacle Islands": 3590 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google (English) - "Pinnacle Island": 5450 || 04:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google News - "Diaoyu": 1570 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google News - "Senkaku": 1710 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo News - "Diaoyu": 2224 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo News - "Senkaku": 2367 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bing News - "Diaoyu": 2230 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bing News - "Senkaku": 2220 hits || 04:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar on items since 1991 - (Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu) AND islands: 1,700 || 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar on items since 1991 - Senkaku AND islands: 1,220 || 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar on items since 2000 - (Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu) AND islands: 1,700 || 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar on items since 2000 - Senkaku AND islands: 1,270 || 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Google News for English articles in India - "Senkaku Islands": 27 || 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Google News for English articles in India - "Diaoyu Islands": 17 || 07:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Google News for English articles in India - Both "Senkaku Islands" and "Diaoyu Islands": 13 || 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Google in Philippines - diaoyutai OR diaoyu -diaoyu-castle -guesthouse -hotel: 2,110,000 || 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Google in Philippines - senkaku: 895,000 || 16:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar - Senkaku Islands = 1270 || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Google Scholar# - (Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu) AND Islands = 1270 || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar# - Senkaku Islands -Diaoyu -Diaoyutai -Tiaoyutai -Tiaoyu = 434 ## || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar# - Islands Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu -Senkaku = 441 ### || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar# - Senkaku Islands Diaoyu OR Diaoyutai OR Tiaoyutai OR Tiaoyu = 837 || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Since Google Scholar doesn't support "OR" and "-", this was accounted for manually by User:Qwyrxian || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) (Note that at least 17 are non English (mostly Korean and Japanese)) || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) (Note that at least 32 are non English (mostly Chinese)) || 13:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of search results I've retrieved just now: Google - diaoyu -state -guesthouse -guest -house -fishing -fish: About 5,980,000 Google - senkaku: About 758,000

Anyhow, the general trend of these results is that both names are very frequently used. While one can cook up their own favourite type of results by tinkering with the search methodologies or doing their searches in India or Philippines, the Japanese name does not consistently dominate over the Chinese name. In numerous cases, the Chinese name is more frequently found than the Japanese name. In most cases where the Japanese name does happen to generate more hits, the difference in hits is usually small compared to the total number of hits returned.

So, suppose we are indeed following the Wikipedia guideline in Naming_conventions_(geographic_names), then the results that were retrieve do not seem to clearly suggest the "Senkaku Islands" is unambiguously the most commonly-used name for this geographic entity.

Now of course, one can legitimately raise a concern regarding the reliability of search engine results. My answer to that is: Search engine results are indeed imperfect and can be highly biased as a result of search heuristics (which, in Google's case, is a top secret). In addition, word-usage in web documents may not be reflective of the overall distribution of word-types/token frequency in the English language. Another factor compounding this issue is that some articles are generally more important than others (such as BBC vs a minor local newspaper in New Zealand). On the other hand, it is one of the only tractable strategies in approximating word usage in a language and is the method cited when the "common word usage" argument was first brought up.

With all this said, my inclination is that the argument that "Senkaku Island" is unambiguously the most commonly-used name is not really true especially if we look at the issue at a search engine level (which, again, was the platform of the previous debates). At the same time, it is important to note that practically all major English media outlets such as BBC, CNN, The Huffington Post, NY Times, and so on, have a habit of using both names. Not surprisngly, even Google Map now uses both names. While Wikipedia has no obligation in following the lead of any of these media or organizations, this observation is definitely worth noting.

On 'International Law':

(To be continued...)

—— Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Work in Progess...


 * We are not the judge so I do not think we can do this based on reference to international law. People will not agree to this unless it is decided by the ICJ. I suggest we simply list the search results (with links for readers to verify) as the first step? i.e. simply a list of search results, without any comment first. Once we agree to the results we can proceed on the discussion around the interpretation. San9663 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have listed practically all the search results we've done. They can be found in my collapsible block. As Qwyrxian has noted, this RfC is not a voting session, so I encourage everyone to read my comments (which are still in progress) and provide feedback. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Joint Name (Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku)
Okay, feedback at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) indicates that the editors there seem to think that an exception could be carved out to allow a dual name. Based on comments I made which seemed to be well received, the key reason that we could (note: not have to, just could) use it here would be if that specific name itself is used in the relevant reliable sources. That is, we shouldn't choose it as a compromise name, but we can choose it if, in fact, it appears that the name itself is "Senkaku/Diaoyu" or vice versa. So, that brings us back to the question of whether or not that specific name is used. Note that this is not the same as asking if articles regularly use both names ("Called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China."). I just did a quick Google search; I got 13,100 hits. However, a quick check shows that this also includes results like "Senkaku, Diaoyu" (like this) and "Senkaku (Diaoyu)" (like this). That doesn't seem the same to me (the first is a grammatical issue, the second clearly gives precedence to Senkaku that the slash-version does not). We'd have to go through and count by hand. But, a further search: I search Google News Archives with "Senkaku/Diaoyu", and I only get 161 hits. That's only about 5% of the hits that we get for either Senkaku or Diaoyu separately. This makes me question: is this hybrid name really a common appellation? What am I missing here? Did I do something wrong in the search results?01:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting your time into this. I didn't participate because I overlooked your link. As for the discussion in the naming conventions page, I don't think any of the editors who replied requested such a course of action. On the other hand, they've already noted the applicability of the compromise that was proposed by San9663 and myself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your message confuses me. What course of action?  And none of them commented on this name being okay for this article--they simply commented on whether dual names were correct when there are sources supporting them. Qwyrxian
 * Let's see.
 * For me it's not so much the possibility of arguments over the order that's the problem; it's the possibility that once we start, people will start proposing this "solution" for all sorts of cases where there isn't really a problem to solve (Gdańsk/Danzig, Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna, Londonderry/Derry, Burma/Myanmar, Oder/Odra and so on - thousands of other places have alternative names) - I suppose we could name articles like this, it wouldn't be an entirely bad style, but we must be aware that once we start it will be hard to stop.--Kotniski (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A reasonable exception; let us know if compromise is attainable on those grounds. In fact, I have included a very limited statement on the acceptability of Biel/Bienne, since nobody seems to be disputing it on any grounds outside this guideline. If anybody can think of more restrictions, feel free to pile on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this is a warning, not a prohibition. If you think you can get genuine consensus on a dual name, without perpetual move requests, and with a clear answer to newbies who want the name they were taught in middle school, there's nothing here to make it pointles to suggest it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 08:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bobthefish2 -- The word "compromise" has a mutable meaning, but it doesn't follow from any general observations posted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) nor Wiktionary that "they've already noted the applicability of the compromise that was proposed by San9663 and myself." Please clarify by pointing out the specific sentences which inform this clause. It is possible that I may have misread or misconstrued something.  Alternately, is is not also possible that your interpretatoin misallocates one or more of the significant decision-making factors which were identified in this relatively short discussion thread? --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a hybrid name as being common or especially helpful - it would just lead to arguments about which way around the names should go. Best to stick with what we have an move on. That was the view of almost everyone who participated in the RfC. (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case this page would need three names, since the name "Diaoyutai" and not "Diaoyu" is used in Taiwan. I think it's unworkable.--Jiang (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My thinking was very much affected by one sentence John Smith&#39;s added here in mid-October:
 * "It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the 'right' answer."
 * IMO, the word "ridiculous" was obviously off-target, wrong in every significant way; but my strong reflexive response only served to focus attention on the rest of the sentence. The sentence solidified my belief that, in fact, the tactical step of "proposing name changes until people come up with the 'right answer'" was strategically sound; but I didn't really "get it" until San9663's subsequent edits clarified the insight.  In simple terms, our "name change" discussion about Senkaku Islands is a moving target -- not a static issue.  Google algorithm .  The Google search algorithm is based on "hits"; and this is the crucial factor which explains why the numbers have changed as they have in the past six months. A. The argument put forward by Bobthefish2 and San9663 is based on an appealing and generally accepted premise -- that Google search results are a useful indicator of current English usage and that the algorithm is not being manipulated to achieve any specific goals.  This arguable proposition is dubious. B. Qwyrxian appears to have accepted the theory that previous Google searches were somehow flawed and that we need to repeat them ad nauseam in order to resolve those perceived mistakes.  This arguable proposition is also dubious. In the context which has evolved, the word "compromise" is misleading.  It may be ridiculous too. It is constructive and timely to acknowledge this openly. --Tenmei (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree in part with what you say/imply (that there needs to be a limit to the act of proposing name changes), the previous search results were fundamentally flawed, not because of changes in the internet over time, but because of searching methods--they didn't correctly exclude or include the right terms. While the small changes are certainly part of the expected fluctuation over time, that wasn't what we saw.  The previous results showed an almost 3 to 1 numerical favor for Senkaku.  Current results show a slight favor for Senkaku.  That can't just be the result of changes in Google's algorithm.  Furthermore, we actually identified the mistake in the previous results; unfortunately, I don't remember what that was (something about using the wrong term).  So, yes, it's not appropriate to just keep redoing results until one side is satisfied, but it is appropriate to make sure that we have at least 1 accurate set of results.
 * As a side note, I mentioned before (here or on my talk page) that in about 1 month I will have access to a university library. At that time I'll see what information I can get about print encyclopedias, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, @Jiang, your comment about Diaoyutai is not correct. I mean, it's correct that that is the name used in Taiwan, but it has no bearing on this discussion, because that name is used much more rarely in English.  The only reason we're even considering (and, again, I'm still not comfortable with this, especially given my numbers above) a dual name is because articles in reliable English sources themselves use a dual name.  I don't recall ever seeing an article that says "Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai" or even "islands called Senkaku in Japan, Diaoyu in China, and Diaoyutai in the Republic of China." We're not considering the name as a compromise between various possible choices, we're considering it as an actually used name. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not insinuating that I am "redoing results until my POV is satisfied", because in that previous discussion we had, you were the one who were "unconvinced" with the search results provided by others and had to keep redoing the searches with all sorts of parameters until you found some output from India that somehow supported whatever position you preferred.
 * I'd also caution you that there is nothing called an "accurate set of results" when it comes to search engine output. If there is, then linguists in the field would've based their corpora entirely on Google. Since I've commented on this with a great deal of detail in the past, I assume you should be able to remember what I said
 * At the same time, I still do not see a convincing argument coming from any party here that suggests "Senkaku Islands" must be the name to be used. The fact that it has been the status quo for 4 years isn't a good excuse. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, San9663's argument was convincing and conclusive about the significance of earlier mistakes . We don't need to revisit it.
 * Yes, I do not dispute that San9663's research was constructive, persuasive, appropriate; but there was also another significant factor which was given inadequate attention in the context of questions about methodology.
 * Yes, I do not dispute that Qwyrxian was correct to investigate further based on this demonstrated, relevant problem with the data on which earlier consensus had been reached.
 * However, please recall that I did try to introduce this factor into our discussions at Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#Logical fallacy. No harm is caused by delay in pressing this issue; and in fact, it may still be premature. --Tenmei (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You should be careful about supporting one's "questions about methodology" when he has yet to make any actual arguments to support such allegations. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by google hits as the basis for "most common in English" we would be using "Diaoyu Island" as the sole name for this article. Keeping Senkaku would be for the sake of political compromise, and for the same reasons, Diaoyutai would also fall into place. There are 8 million hits for diaoyu, and 400 thousand for Senkaku, wikipedia excluded. I suspect though that this is a function of how much text each country throws onto the internet. What does a Jstor search reveal?
 * I think this name change is more trouble than it's worth and should be avoided.--Jiang (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost any controversial issues is a lot of trouble with little actual reward for those who'd try to promote WP:NPOV there. Guess we should all avoid battleground topics then? Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jiang, please redo those searches and search only for Diaoyu Islands and Senkaku Islands, because Diaoyu also refers to some cities, parks, and other things beyond just the islands (as far as I know, Senkaku isn't used for anything other than the Islands, but I could be wrong). Plus, I don't know where you're searching.   Google gives 532,000+ hits on Diaoyu, 366,000+ on Senkaku, 75,500 on "Diaoyu Islands", and 555,000 on "Senkaku Islands".  Proving, if nothing else that, once again, main Google is not the best place to do a search (it obviously makes no sense that Senkaku + Islands gets more hits than Senkaku alone).  I'm not going to redo the searches, but in a collapse box above BtF2 has a list of what we found before using other terms, on Google News, Google Scholar, etc.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To BobtheFish2: Not sure if you meant me or Tenmei, but I'm certainly not implying you're redoing the search results until you get the result you want. I don't think Tenmei is either, but, alas, it's harder for me to tell, there.

But back to something above. Can anyone point to convincing results (search results or anything else) that 1) shows that S/D or D/S is a common English name, at least as common if not more common than either S or D separately, and 2) helps us know which order is more common? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot locate searches above. Here are mine, redone as you requested: --Jiang (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * diaoyu island -wikipedia 840000
 * senkaku -wikipedia 422000
 * diaoyutai islands OR tiaoyutai islands -wikipedia 104000
 * Ah, I see the problem--it's the use of the "NOT" (-). Google does something very strange with "NOT" results when combine with more than one word that shows us, yet again, how difficult it is to use Google as our primary mechanism.  As an example, compare Diaoyu Island = 67,100 and Diaoyu Island -Wikipedia = 396,000.  Obviously, the "NOT" does not work right; if it did, every plain search would yield more results than a search with a negative term.  "NOT" does work Google News and Google Scholar, for some reason.  Yet another reason why we usually prefer other search mechanisms than plain Google. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names: "Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Search engine test" In our good faith efforts to identify a wiki-appropriate name for our article about disputed islands, the following restatements of wiki-policy are significant:
 * WP:Search engine test#Search engine tests and Wikipedia policies
 * WP:Search engine test#Verifiability
 * WP:Search engine test#Neutrality
 * WP:Search engine test#Notability
 * We can each recall reading news stories about manipulating search engine results. The subject is becoming noteworthy, for example:
 * Major/Systemic . Sawer, Patrick. "Wikileaks: Top Chinese officials ordered attack on Google, Wikileaks cables claim," The Telegraph (UK). December 4, 2010; excerpt, "Classified information sent by US diplomats to the State Department in Washington and published on WikiLeaks, claims that ... the attack on Google was orchestrated by Communist party leaders. ... The cyber assault was described to the Americans by a high-level Chinese source as '100% political in nature' and having 'nothing to do with removing Google... as a competitor to Chinese search engines'"; "Cables Discuss Vast Hacking by a China That Fears the Web," China Digital Times (US). December 7, 2010.
 * Cullifer, Bill. "China’s Internet ‘Hijacking’ Creates Worries," Webprofessionals.org (US) (World Organization of Webmasters). November 27, 2010; excerpt, " ... a congressionally chartered commission released a report about what China’s rise means for the U.S. economy and security. Included in the findings were the details of a little-known incident involving the hijacking of online data by a firm owned by the Chinese government"; "Report States China Hijacked 15% of Internet, China Rejects Allegations," China Digital Times (US). November 19, 2010.
 * Minor/Local . Segal, David. "A Bully Finds a Pulpit on the Web," New York Times (US). November 28, 2020; excerpt, "Google is just cagey about everything ... because the company is perpetually worried that the more it reveals about the vaunted mathematical formula it uses to drive search results, the more people will try to game it."
 * See also Wikipedia:Search engine test#Search engine limitations - technical notes As I explained in an earlier diff: IMO, no harm is caused by delay in pressing this issue; and in fact, it may still be premature. --Tenmei (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)