Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

controlled and administered by Japan?

Who is/ are in charge of editing this wikipedia Senkaku page and this whole article is wrong and biased against the Chinese people in Taiwan and China? I know they are volunteer but can wikipedia fire and replace the people responsible for this Senkaku page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.67.179 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an uninhabited island. I thought no one's in control of it right now. Why does this article say it's controlled by japan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.131.84 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 September 2012‎

It is controlled by Japan because 1) Japanese patrol ships have never allowed any ships unauthorized by Japanese government to enter within 12 nautical miles of the islets; 2) No citizens from other countries have landed on the islets; and 3) there is no dispute in the sovereignty of the islets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.45.254 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, all 3 of those statements are wrong. Have you not watched the news for the past two months? In any event, though, the basic sentiment behind 173's point is correct--sources show that, as a general rule, Japan maintains physical control over the islands through the use of its navy, enforcing its claim to ownership; China currently does not do or attempt to do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny that you said "China currently does not do or attempt to do that". "Have you not watched the news for the past two months?". Thanks for pointing out "basic sentiment behind 173's point is correct". But can you even tell what it is, my dear native English speaker? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.45.254 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Coast Guard protect the islands, while ships from both Taiwan and China do not, it is as simple as that. News reports of the events that unfolded correspond to the fact that Japan does and currently administer the islands, while the incursion from Chinese vessels lasted only a few hours. Now nobody is ignoring the fact that the islands are currently claimed by three nations in the area, and this is not even a unique case since the world is littered with hundreds of islands being claimed by several competing nations from all over the world, but there is no question that Japan administers them at this point in time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

173, China has not, as far as I know, ever attempted to use its navy to control the Senkaku Islands (at least, not within the past 30 years). Yes, last week they sent some ships, but they only briefly entered the EEZ, and did not attempt to conrol the islands or the waters in any way. My guess was that your underlying sentiment was that Japan is the controller of the islands because China has not actually "controlled" them in any sense, while at least Japan has controlled them in the sense of kicking out the citizens of other countries who try to come on them or near them. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither Japan nor China controls the islands. Both send ships there from time to time, usually leading to diplomatic protests from the other side. The islands are essentially neutral territory as far as any zone of control goes. Neither side can enter the territory without a protest from the other side. I think any claim of the islands being "controlled" by one side or the other is essentially injecting the perspective of that party into the article at the expense of the other side of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.117.247 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 107.6.117.247. After reading the introduction of this page, I questioned the neutrality of the article almost immediately. The "Sovereignty dispute" section clearly explains the "control" debate without bias and the info bar and the intro should be updated to be consistent with the content of "Sovereignty dispute." In its current state, I don't think the article is credible for 1. It is clearly missing citations for "are a group of uninhabited islands controlled by Japan." and 2. In the intro, it is clearly leaning towards one side of the debate which is not appropriate given recent events. Mlehner616 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation is ridiculous (no personal offense). The isles are controlled by Japan, because the US gave control to the Japanese (legitimate or not is different question). The Chinese could go there anytime with their entire navy. But that would start a war. Yet, it does not mean they can't. Control here does not mean "I have more guns and you cannot do anything about it." --Habahaba1234 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Japan's coast guard patrols the islands and arrests any non-Japanese who land on them without permission. Also, they detain any non-Japanese fishing ships caught operating in the waters without permission. So, Japan treats the islands as its territory. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of dealing in hypotheticals, Wikipedia articles are supposed to deal in reality. As an administrator (see my userpage), I'm warning you now that if you're not careful you're going to run afoul of the discretionary sanctions on this article; carefully read the header of this talkpage before proceeding further. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 22:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

When asking this question ask yourself when Japan "lost" control or administrative authority historically if Japan does not currently administer. If Japan has NEVER administered how did private Japanese citizen(s) come into an ownership position? Where are the Chinese allegations that Japan has "stolen" the territory coming from in Japan is not currently in possession (rightly or wrongly)?--Brian Dell (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see some reference to Japan arresting trespassers and evicting non-japanese fishers, as claimed by user 173.76.45.254 to back up the "japan always controlled the island", otherwise the article should be changed to reflect that no country (or some other country if there are references) controls the island. 50.99.131.84 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC) preferably post WWII 50.99.131.84 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is an article from the NY Times, from 2004, when China protested Japan for arresting Chinese Nationals that landed and trespassed on the island. [1]. If you do a simple search on news sites from any news organization in the world, you will find similar stories that show Japan administering the islands and you will not find one showing either China or Taiwan doing the same. Again, there is no dispute, outside China, who actually administers the islands. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands Recent News-

As you all know this Year 2012 tension between China Japan And Taiwan has been more hard. It all started when Taiwan ship been water attack by the japanese. According to Taiwan news It all happen at 8 am when 2 fishing ship were operating 3 miles far away from Diaju also know as Senkaku island. The two fishing boat was protected by to guard ship from Taiwan. According to Taiwan Japan start telling the Taiwanese to leave inmediatamente the area clamming that they have enter to japanese territorial According to Japan the Taiwanese say that they were in Taiwan Economic zone. --Adri Valdez Diaz. 15:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Adri Valdez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adri Valdez (talk • contribs) 09:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

All of this information belongs in Senkaku Islands dispute; check, because I think it's there, but if not, provide reliable sources on that article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the event you're describing is already mentioned at Senkaku Islands dispute#2012. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

You can Find the Information about the water attack on this page! http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aIPL&ID=201210010024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adri Valdez (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhh... you've been replied above. Otherwise, I'm going to have to remind you that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 November 2012

Please change "name = Senkaku Islands" to " name = Pinnacle Islands" because the islands are claimed by both a Chinese and the Japanese Government. To be neutral, we should use the name Pinnacle Islands, named by a british marine in March, 1845.

JMCY (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please note that "Any discussions regarding the naming of this article or moving this article to a different title are forbidden until January 1, 2013" per the notice at the top of this talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese names and pictures

There are two minor linguistic errors which should be rectified if the article wishes to meet an academic standard of quality.

Tiaoyutai is an incomplete rendering of Tiaoyüt'ai. Only seeing "Tiaoyutai" one would believe that the pinyin was Diaoyoudai. Yu in Wade-Giles is "you" in pinyin, not pinyin "yu" which is "yü" in W-G. Regardless of how the technically illiterate may treat the name, the diaeresis may not be omitted here in standard usage of Wade-Giles.

The Chinese word given for the "Diaoyu islands" appears to have been simply copied from the name of the wikipedia article and while valid and used in official language is not a representative reference to them in Mainland media nor is it idiomatic Chinese. It sounds long and awkward. It means "The Diaoyu Island and its Adjunct Islands." I would edit the article to have 釣魚島 be the norm, and put 釣魚島及其附屬島嶼 second after "or more formally" and add "l" to its zh tag to make it sufficiently clear that it means more than "the Diaoyu islands."

Finally, in response to your request for photos. I have noticed in the grocery store that Baodi, a Chinese processed meat company, is selling "Diaoyu flavor" fish sausages made with salt and seafood from the sea surrounding these islands. Would a picture of this be something appropriate to include in the article? Also, a friend of mine has a picture of a red banner hung in a village saying that the "Diaoyu islands are China's." With his permission, I could probably upload that if you like as well, just let me know, though I should tell you in advance my response may not be so timely. -Devin Ronis (d.s.ronis) (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013

The two countries are still in dispute on these islands. Giving the page title to the Japanese name of the islands clearly shows that Wikipedia is biased and in favour of Japan over China and Taiwan. The page title was originally "Pinnacle Islands". This is a neutral name and should be employed instead of "Senkaku Islands" until the dispute is permanently settled. Kindly make this amendment for unbiased information to be provided to eager learners world wide. Much Appreciated. 41.174.3.244 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the message box at the top of this talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

History

This article seems to be overly simplified by eliminating history. What's the ownership of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands prior to 1895? 1895 happens to be the year that China lost its war with Japan. With the Treaty of Shimonoseki, China ceded claims to the islands including Taiwan. Was Senkaku/Diaoyu islands part of the compensation agreement? If they were part of the treaty, should the islands belong to China since current world community recognizes Taiwan and the other islands as a part of China? If they were not part of the treaty, did/does China own the islands since it owns the rest in the area? After it was first recorded by China in the 15th century. The question is who owned the islands since its discovery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.57.229 (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

According to China/Taiwan, China/Taiwan owned them prior to 1895, probably starting some time around the 15th century. According to Japan, they were terra nullius prior to 1895, meaning that no one owned them (as odd as it may sound today, lots of the Earth used to be unowned). More information can be found on Senkaku Islands dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

While many places unowned due to circumstances during that time, many places and territories were claimed/owned. Correct me if I am wrong, but a place is "owned" (not physically occupied) once it is "claimed" during those times. If the islands were "claimed" based on your own research (not which party claims to be), do you agree it was "owned"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.57.229 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My research doesn't say they were claimed. "My" research says that after 1970 China began claiming that they had always claimed these islands. Japan claims that that is not the case--Japan claims that no one claimed the islands prior to 1895. Our article accurately reflects that, especially in the dispute article.

China/Taiwan say that they have proof of the "claim". Does your research go beyond 1895 and prove or disprove of those "claim"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.57.229 (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We made the news now what?

I jus tread what i could from the article embedded up above, my thoughts is that I had no idea that this article was getting so many hits and that it is broad in it's coverage (Great job on that =) ) I guess my question is now how do we keep the article edit dispute free while maintaining it as semi protected? Are the current restrictions in place enough? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We've only just begun. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu kencf0618 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that is the news article I was talking about =p - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article is actually under more "restrictions"--not technical, but behavioral ones. That is, the page was placed under discretionary sanctions as a result of the prior Arbcom case. That means that any uninvolved admin can sanction users for poor/contentious behavior, either on the article or on the talk page. Such sanctions can include blocks, topic bans, page bans, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2013

please change Senkaku Islands to Diaoyu Islands because Diaoyu Islands is the correct name of those islands.

Zhangyileo (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This is not an edit request but a move request. The situation is very disputed here, and I don't think there is any consensus to move the page. Also, Diaoyu Islands already redirects here. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 19:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor nit

Pinnacle Islands is an equivalent of Senkaku Rettou, but not the Chinese name, which has to do with fishing, so I would change this sentence accordingly: The name "Pinnacle Islands" is used by some as an English-language equivalent to "Senkaku" or "Diaoyu". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.98.94 (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is not quite objective in language - in Wiki it should simply list the claimes of three regions equally and that's it. The judgement call should leave to the readers instead by the author. Again both claime, control and history are simply supporting evidences but can not be deemed as the only "true" fact. No any biase here - need a group of authors from three regions to write together rather than a single country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.29.7 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Attention. This article does not link with Diaoyu Islands. Why not? It is a current event dispute with neither side agreeing and both sides presenting evidence for their sides with no clear decisions as of yet.... This article should be referenced by both Diaoyu and/or Senkaku in the headline..... Just going by Senkaku seems like clear and extreme bias. 108.247.104.253 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree until the dispute is solved, the title should refer to the island as Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands. James Wong 05:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJae (talk • contribs)

I agree also until the dispute is solved, the title should refer to the island as Diaoyu/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, with two separate page redirects with title Diaoyu Islands and another called Senkaku Islands. Gtkrab (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2013

There are several biased errors in the content of this page, which necessitates a serious reconsideration of editing this article.

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

This sentence offers the incorrect impression that the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) had not put forward the disputation as to the sovereign of Diaoyu Islands before and they aimed for the oil reserves.

• Name History

The Japanese official name "Senkaku Islands" is borrowed from British Captain Edward Belcher's account of "Pinnacle Islands" in his 1845 report. The Chinese name of Diaoyu Islands reflects a long history of more than 500 years.

• Historical Switches of Control

After China (Qing Empire) failed to resist against the Japan-waged war in China's East Sea from 1894 to 1895. Treaty of MaGuan (Treaty of Shimonoseki) was signed in 1895, in which Taiwan and the surrounding islands were ceded to Japan. Diaoyu Islands were not specified in this Treaty according to the original document stored in Japan.

In the Second World War, Japan joined German and Italy and was ultimately defeated in 1945. According to Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender and Treaty of San Francisco, Japan, as a country that agreed to the unconditional surrender, should return the previously occupied territories to China. Hence, although these two official documents do not mention Diaoyu Islands, the Islands herein, together with other previously occupied territories, should be reverted to the Republic of China (ROC).

Therefore, Japan's claiming over the sovereignty of Diaoyu (Senkaku) Islands either violates the universal principle of the international law that who discovers and uses first owns the territory or tries to challenge the established justice system after the Second World War.

Justinhe1 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I hope you don't mind that I made a slight formatting change to your entry, to make it easier to read. I'm now going to read and respond to each part. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, on the oil issue, the source immediately after the sentence explicitly connects the finding of oil to the Chinese claims, asserting that, in fact, there were no prior claims. If you have some good sources that say otherwise, please let us know. On the name...that's exactly what the article already says, so I'm not sure what your concern is. On the last two points, you're arguing the Chinese position well, but it does not correspond with the Japanese position. Japan claims that the Senkaku Islands were not part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, and that Senkakus were independently incorporated into Japanese territory several months early (January, compared to the treaty dates of March) after Japan determined that the islands were terra nullius. Of course, our article Senkaku Islands dispute explain both perspectives, as we should, since we don't take sides on why the islands "really" belong to. I hope that answers your concerns. Of course, if you have new sources (please note, we need secondary sources, not primary sources like the treaties, since their meaning is obviously disputable), please bring them to our attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, you are biased towards Japan's position. As you have said, Wiki should take neither China's or Japan's position. Many people feel the title is leaning towards Japan's position. Why not take the its native English name? Secondly, you said "...you're arguing the Chinese position well, but it does not correspond with the Japanese position...", could you please explain why Japanese position is taking priority? The sentence *"After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4] Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan) following the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in 1971." should be clearly tagged with "Japan's Position" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Japanese POV from the lead

Regarding the sentence "After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands, Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the PRC and the ROC ...", the source (Boundary and Territory Briefing Vol.3 No.7, page 10) is stating "From a Japanese prospective" at the beginning, and is under the sub-section 3.1.1 The Claims of Japan.

It is clearly a Japanese POV and should be removed from the lead to maintain neutrality. STSC (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the section 2 of the same book. (Emphasis added)

2. Geographical and Historical Background of the Dispute over the Senkaku Islands[2]

The question of the disputed Senkaku Islands remained relatively dormant throughout the 1950s and 1960s, probably because these small uninhabited islands held little interest for the three claimants. The Senkaku Islands issue was not raised until the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (hereinafter 'ECAFE') of the United Nations Economic and Social Council suggested the possible existence of large hydrocarbon deposit in the waters off the Senkaku Islands. After extensive surveys in 1968 and 1969, it was reported that the shallow sea floor between Japan and Taiwan might contain substantial resources of petroleum, perhaps comparable to the Persian Gulf area.25 This ECAFE survey, made by a group of scientists from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States found that the continental shelf in the Yellow and East China Seas might be one of the richest oil reserves in the world. A spokesman for the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, which conducted the UN survey, also said that 80,000 mile2 of the Taiwan basin has late Tertiary sediment which is more than 2,000 metres thick.26 The Senkaku Islands lie in an area that holds promise of oil resources.

This development prompted vehement statements and counter-statements among the claimants. Subsequent notable developments and events relating to the status of the Senkaku Islands are represented chronologically in the following table.

And a chronological table follows after this description. This description is the author's analysis not a Japanese POV.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I also added the following sources.

• Pan, Junwu (2009). Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of China's Territorial and Boundary Disputes. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 140. ISBN 9004174281. Obviously, primarily regional interests in oil and gas resources that may lie under the seas drive the two major disputes. The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands issue did not re-surface until 1969 when the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East of the United Nations Economic and Social Council reported that the continental shelf of the East China "might contain one of the most prolific oil and gas reservoirs of the world, possibly comparing favourably with the Persian Gulf." Then both China and Japan had high expectations that there might be large hydrocarbon deposits in the waters off the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. The Law of the Sea at that time emphasized the theory of natural prolongation in determining continental shelf jurisdiction. Ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands would permit the owner to a large area of the continental shelf that may have rich sources of gas and oil. Such a dispute is obviously related to the awakening interest by the world's states in developing offshore energy resources to meet the demand of their economies.
• Takamine, Tsukasa (2012). Japan’s Development Aid to China, Volume 200: The Long-running Foreign Policy of Engagement. Routledge. p. 129. ISBN 0415352037. The islands had temporarily come under American control after the Second World War, but the sovereignty over the islands, was handed over to Japan in 1972 with the reversion of Okinawa．However, the PRC and Taiwan governments both made a territorial claim to the Senkaku Islands, soon after the United Nation Economic Commission issued in 1969 a report suggesting considerable reserve of submarine oil and gas resources around the islands.
• Drifte, Reinhard (2012). Japan's Security Relations with China Since 1989: From Balancing to Bandwagoning?. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 1134406673. The dispute surfaced with the publication of a seismic survey report under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECSFE) in 1968, which mentioned the possibility of huge oil and gas reserves in the area; this was confirmed by a Japanese report in 1969. Greg Austin mentions that Beijing started its claim to the Senkaku Islands for the first time in 1970, after Japanese government protested to the government in Taiwan about its allocation of oil concessions in the East China Sea, including the area of the Senkaku Islands.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Phoenix7777 on this matter (which is why I reverted the changes); it seems clear from the balance of the sources, many of which are not from a strictly "Japanese POV", that the first time the matter was raised internationally was after the oil and gas survey. This isn't saying that China hadn't privately made claims, or hadn't always assumed it to be theirs...but it is the first record we have of China openly, publicly laying claim to the islands. STSC, are there any similarly "neutral" sources that state that China raised the claim earlier? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Not claiming" is certainly not the same as "not disputing". I would propose the rewording of the sentence as follows:

"Apparently after it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands, the sovereignty over the islands has been actively claimed by the PRC and the ROC." STSC (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How exactly had China and Taiwan been "passively" claiming sovereignty before then? John Smith's (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm only interested in discussing the construction of neutral sentences according to the sources. Please we don't go back to the bad old days, John Smith's; and read Rule 6 of the Rules of Engagement above. STSC (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

STSC, John Smith's is asking for sources that support your proposed rephrasing. That's perfectly acceptable per both general WP editing rules and the specific rules here. Also, just to add, we would not use the word "apparently" per WP:WEASEL. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources for what? Sources for "actively claim"? Do you have problem with the wording "actively claim"? STSC (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's bad English, so I would prefer not to use it. Adding a word that has no meaning (since one cannot claim "non-actively" is poor writing). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Actively claim" is sending ships and warplanes to the area which China has not done before. STSC (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, well, that didn't occur until the last decade, so that certainly doesn't go in that sentence. Plus, that's not what the word "claim" means; a "claim" is a verbal/written statement (in this case, a statement of ownership). To take the stereotypical example, a hypothetical European explorer/conqueror lands a ship on a less developed island 300 years ago. The ship landing is not a "claim". When the person says, "The island belongs to King XXX of YYY", that's a claim. And this is why saying "actively claiming" doesn't make sense--all claims are, by definition, active. Finally, just to remind you of what you reminded others: this article is under sanctions. That means when someone rejects a selected change, you discuss it on talk until you have consensus for change. Not start the discussion then keep changing the article.

Oh? Would you like to choose "resolutely", "vigorously", "forcibly", "robustly" or "strenuously"? STSC (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this or shall we ask for 3rd opinion?

"Since it was discovered that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands in 1968, China and Taiwan (Republic of China) have actively asserted their claims on the sovereignty of the islands following the transfer of administration unilaterally from the United States to Japan in 1971." STSC (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

STSC, your recent three edits[3][4][5] were reverted by three different editors. All of your three edits are trying to suggest there were disputes before late 1960s without any source. If you continue these tendentious edits, you will be blocked and banned from this topic. Please note that you have a history of topic ban.[6]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just been awhile, so you've forgotten, STSC, but when people object to your edits, particularly on a controversial page like this, you do not make them until such time as you show consensus on the talk page (or enough time has passed without any objection, in some cases). All of your suggestions fundamentally change the meaning in contradiction to the sources currently available. We should not be adding any adverb to qualify how they "asserted" without evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, would you like a 3rd opinion on my edit? STSC (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You can start an WP:RfC, but per the instructions on the page WP:3O can only be used for disputes between exactly 2 people. If you start an RfC, just set it up at the bottom of this page with the right template; be sure to ask the question neutrally (i.e., don't ask "Should the Japanese bias in the lead be removed..."). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not necessary just between two people, we can get a 3rd opinion on two points of view as to how the sentence is constructed neutrally, i.e., you represent the other side that rejected my edit. STSC (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't. The instructions on WP:3O say so directly: "If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." The emphasis is in the original. Any time there are more than 2 editors, you must use an Request for Comment or a noticeboard (here, for instance, since you're claiming the sentence is POV, you could use the NPOV noticeboard). If you post a request at WP:3O, they will just reject it since there are 3 editors involved. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ no.4; we can find a third party to request it. STSC (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar problem in current sentence

Huh, I didn't notice this til replying to STSC, but the sentence as currently written is grammatically incorrect. We can't use "after" with the present perfect "has been" (this is a pretty standard grammar rule, though one often made by even good writers). We either have to change "after" to "since", or "has been" to "was". Any preferences for which? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Since...have" sounds better. STSC (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait for 2 more days to hear any objections, but if there are none, I'm going to change "After" to "Since", for purely grammatical reasons. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I support the use of "after" and the clarification is needed. I suggest the sentence like this. "After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands, both the PRC and the ROC first claimed the sovereignty over them and the dispute has begun." Oda Mari (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the description should clearly state that the dispute never happened before the oil exploration so that a tendentious editor cannot alter the meaning simply by adding an adverb.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

While I prefer "since...has been claiming", I am willing to accept "after...first claimed"; if you want to add the final clause, it has to be "and the dispute began"; personally, I don't think it's necessary, but not enough to argue about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Too Simple A Solution?

The Potsdam Declaration says Japan controls "such minor islands as we determine," where "we" were the US, UK and Chang Kai-Shek's China.

In 1972, one of those entities relinquished control of the islands to the Japanese. That would seem like the end of the matter, to me.

I have a hard time hearing claims that reach back to 1895, because, more recently than that, Tibet was de facto independent. Certainly the PRC wouldn't want to that kind of argument thrown in their faces. JoshNarins (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This type of discussion is not helpful here. Our job is not to figure out the "truth", merely to report what reliable sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Change of info in "Administered By"

First time trying to give input to wiki :)
Just a little input on "Administered By"
I cannot say on the issue before, but from the new article it is reported that Chinese government vessels have been send to the islands to "show that the islands is administered by the (Chinese) government"
For some reason, the reference link is not working. so I'm simply going to post the direct link here:
http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/special/diaoyudaozhengduan/content-3/detail_2012_09/14/17618041_0.shtml
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtkrab (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC) So, by that reference the islands are at least claimed to be administered by the Chinese government also.
Which in turn, I believe, should have wiki change the field on "Administered By" on the right side of the page.
I can find more news saying so if needed. But I'm generally lazy.
Gtkrab (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Invite more than one editor

Since the article is locked for editing, we should invite more than one editor with more diversified background. Qwyrxian might think he is objective, however we can clearly see he has been unknowingly standing on Japanese position. Of course, this page should not be solely edited by someone who have been influenced so much by Japanese culture (he lives in Japan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at the ones who have edited the article and replied to the feedbacks: The Blade of the Northern Lights speaks Japanese, Hoary is clearly a Japanese (or culture fan), Nihonjoe is a Japanese, Phoenix7777 is a Japanese (or Fan, look the photos in his homepage), Kwamikagami is clearly a Japanese name, Qwyrxian lives in Japan. Seriously, how can this claimed to be unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually it's true however the assumption can only be maintained if the practice has been followed consistently. In this case, all Chinese positions have been ignored but Japanese positions have been tagged as "facts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.213.46 (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this article is about the islands and information about geography, names (which are in all languages), history, and its "current" administration are facts, backed by various sources and documentation (currently 203 refs with sources from the U.S., U.K., Japan, China, Taiwan and others). The article and its approved editors are striving to be unbiased as possible; if their is any particular sections that is incorrect or need expanding upon, then it should be brought to attention here for now. The most typical request is simply the name of the islands, which has been addressed countless times now (it is also the reason why the article has been locked down in the first place). As for everything else regarding the current dispute, those should be redirected to the Senkaku Islands dispute article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of "facts" that have been ignored, whatever on this page, for example, those claims were merely Japanese suggestions rather than so-called "facts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the lockdown period for discussion of the article name has already passed: "Any discussions regarding the naming of this article or moving this article to a different title are forbidden until January 1, 2013 per this notice by NuclearWarfare." If editors decide bring up the issue again, it is more than reasonable that we can move back to discussions on the issue. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That is correct, though I am not familiar what actions need to be taken regarding that discussion. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What are the facts? Facts are unbiased and free of speculation. Is the title Senkaku Islands unbiased? As you have said "if their is any particular sections that is incorrect or need expanding upon, then it should be brought to attention here for now.", that's what exactly happened. Quite a number of requests have been made previously to correct a few points. However, they are all knocked back by Editors, majority of which is Japanese background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.186.10 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I've admitted before that I'm biased on the topic...but I also hold that I am unbiased on article editing. In fact, as several of the other regular editors would agree, I've often taken stances against the "Japanese position" on this and the dispute article. Also to correct one other fact: the current name was not decided by myself or even the small list of people you compiled; rather, we held a community wide RfC, twice (at least; I'd have to search the archives to count exactly) on the name, and each time the community held in favor of the current name. However, as was pointed out above, the moratorium on discussing the naming is now over, and a new discussion can begin. If you believe the name does not follow our rules, I recommend that you start a new section, present the reasons why you believe the name is incorrect (be sure to refer to both our policies/guidelines and to clear evidence from reliable sources), and then we'll all join in. If we can't come to an agreement amongst ourselves, we'll run up the dispute resolution tree again as needed. However, if you do start this discussion (IP address), please log in to whatever your current or previous account was. You must be a returning editor to know as much about the history as you do, and given that there are a number of editors topic banned on this topic or with a relevant history of poor behavior, it's only appropriate that we know who you are. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your concern is very valid; I shall be tagging these articles to invite other fair-minded editors for their contributions. STSC (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing of potential Japanese POV from the lead

I propose to change:
"After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4][5][6][7][8] Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan) following the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in 1971. The Chinese claim the discovery and control of the islands from the 14th century."
to
"The Japanese claim that it was only after 1968 when discovered that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan) following the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in 1971, which both the PRC and ROC government denies. The Chinese (both PRC and ROC) claim the discovery and control of the islands from the 14th century."
English is not my first language, but I feel the second way of writing it out is more neutral, as it clearly states in the beginning that it is the Japanese claim that bla bla, and it also states the denial of such claim by the Chinese at the end of the sentence.
You could also say this is a little bit biased towards the Chinese side, but I believe this reflect current event. Which the Chinese denies the claim made by the Japanese.

Gtkrab (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the references: they're not the "Japanese side". Independent, neutral observers clearly state that China never publicly raised the claim until after 1968. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. What I'm pointing out is what wiki call "Impartial tone".

I can't really provide reference to what I'm going to say, but

The way you structured that paragraph, it gives the reader a wrong expression that the Chinese is only doing it because there's is oil.

Which I would agree personally to an extend.

However, the Chinese disagree with the above, with reasons already stated in the dispute article in wiki.

So from a neutral point, I feel it is better to at least add the "The Japanese claim" at the beginning.

Gtkrab (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, the neutral, reliable sources directly connect the oil finding to the start of Chinese claims. Being neutral doesn't mean that we don't take sides, it means we "take the side" of what the preponderance of reliable sources say. For instance, even though some people don't believe in human-caused global warming, per the overwhelming consensus of international scientific bodies, our article states that it is, in fact, caused by humans. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

First, it would seem that you agree with me that your paragraph implies(give user impression) that:"the Chinese is only doing it because there's is oil", am I right? If no, then there's no need to read further.

Second, it could just be me, but I would not call any research from either side(Chinese or Japanese) called neutral. In issues involving nation states, any "evidence" can be manipulated. Remember the second Iraq war and the Americans showed "evidence" of WMD in Iraq to the UN? Also, even in the reference article, the author did not provide any evidence that the dispute claim was because of the oil. The author simply made a guess/connection(I personally would say educated and probably right). Thus his conclusions should not be treated as fact. If you agree with this point, then read further.

Third, in the dispute wiki article, it states that " the Chinese argue that the sovereignty dispute is a legacy of Japanese imperialism and China's failure to secure the territory's prompt return following Japan's military defeat in 1945 was due to the complexities of the Chinese Civil War". Now I know wiki should not be treated as "source", but when I was following the issue back in Sep/Oct, I know that I saw a news article stating the above. If you agree with me to treat this as an official statement from the Chinese government, then please read further.

So, if you agree with the above three points, then I would think it is logical that you would agree that the paragraph needs change.
Gtkrab (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Add historical events to the Islands

40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885. Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”.

The planned survey by Meiji government was then suspended by miscommunication and bad weather till the first Sino-Japan war. After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.

When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name “Senkaku Islands” itself was first introduced in 1900 by academic Kuroiwa Hisashi and adopted by the Japanese government thereafter. Half a century later when Japan returned Taiwan to China, both sides adopted the 1945 administrative arrangement of Taiwan, with the Chinese unaware that the uninhabited “Senkaku Islands” were in fact the former Diaoyu Islands. This explains the belated protest from Taipei and Beijing over U.S. administration of the islands after the war.

Qing period (1644-1911) records substantiate Chinese ownership of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands prior to 1895. Envoy documents indicate that the islands reside inside the “border that separates Chinese and foreign lands.” And according to Taiwan gazetteers, “Diaoyu Island accommodates ten or more large ships” under the jurisdiction of Kavalan, Taiwan. (Source: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/) Kezhu2012 (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This source has been raised before. The problem is that it's an opinion article, which generally, though not always, cannot be used to substantiate factual claims. We would need evidence that Han-yi Shaw, the author, is a recognized expert in the field, and that his statements can be taken as well-researched, factual claims that are widely accepted by other neutral scholars. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I knew you would say that. Tell me, then sentences “After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4][5][6][7][8] Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan) following the transfer of administration from the United States to Japan in 1971.” were derived from articles from Seokwoo Lee, Junwu Pan, Tsukasa Takamine, Reinhard Drifte. What proofs do you have for them being "a recognized expert in the field, and that his statements can be taken as well-researched, factual claims that are widely accepted by other neutral scholars."

Regardless whether the wordings from that articles are neutral, the included images from Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library should be facts and therefore should be included in this article.

Kezhu2012 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

More proofs, this is from a Japanese researcher, named Unryu Suganuma of University of Hawaii. On page 106, titled Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations, “..., In fact, the Japanese could have annexed the Diaoyu Islands if they were sure or confident that these islands were terra nullius when the governor of Okinawa asked to build this landmark in the Diaoyu Islands in 1885. The Japanese government repeatedly rejected petitions from the governor of Okinawa in both 1890 and 1893. There fore, the Japanese government clearly knew that the Diaoyu Islands were not terra nullius because they possessed Chinese names.

Suddenly, however, after Japan won the Sino-Japaneses War in 1895, the Japanese cabinet decided to annex the Diaoyu Islands and build this landmark. Evidently, the Japanese had some kind of conspiratorial "game" in mind when the governor of Okinawa requested on the building of the landmark in the Diaoyu Islands in 1885. ... In fact, Japan's encroachment on Diaoyu Islands was simply an extension of the expansionist policy of the Meiji government, which had successfuly annexed the Liuqiu Kingdom in 1879, and a long premediated act based on Sino-Japanese War. ... Third, the Imperial Edict No. 13 does not support the sovereignty claims over the Diaoyu Islands"...

Everything I quoted above is not trying to argue the sovereighty of the Islands as of Today. However, these sources clearly demonstrates, before 1895, the Japan cabinet has acknowledged: 1). The islands have a chinese name Diaoyu, 2) Claiming sovereignty at that time will provoke the Chinese emperor as China consider it owns the islands as of 1895. 3) The islands were quickly annexed and claimed by Japan after China was defeated in the first Sino-Japan war. Kezhu2012 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

More proof, the islands were not included in the Map of Great Japan in 1876.

And More, In in Japan's own 1783 historical document Sankoku Tsuran Zusetsu published by prominent Japanese military scholar Hayashi Shihei clearly stating the area a part of China .

Again, More and MORE, published by Joyman Lee, History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011. According to Chinese sources the first mention of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands is in a 15th-century document now held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. Early sources tended to mention only the islands’ location on the voyage to the Ryukyus from China, but by the 17th century Chinese sources clearly named the maritime boundary between the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and the Ryukyus as the Heishuigou (‘Black Water Trench’), an area of high turbulence which we now know marks the edge of the continental shelf. In 1720 Xu Baoguang, the deputy Chinese ambassador sent to confer the royal title upon the Ryukyuan king, collaborated with the local literati to compile the travelogue Zhongshan Chuanxin lu (Record of the Mission to Chusan), which demarcated the westernmost border of the Ryukyuan kingdom at Kume-jima south of the Heishuigou Trench. Deputy ambassador Zhou Huang likewise identified Heishuigou as the boundary in 1756 and later the envoy Li Dingyuan noted the practice of sacrificing a live goat or pig when convoys crossed the trench. In the late 19th century the reformer Wang Tao, who had had experience of travelling in Europe, responded to the Japanese annexation of the Ryukyus by referring to Japanese sources which listed the Ryukyus as a separate country in 1670. He argued that even though the islands were vassals of both China and the Japanese state of Satsuma, the former relationship was more formal; the conquest of an inner tributary (Ryukyus) by an outer tributary (Japan) of China was a cause for outrage.

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

Therefore, I request to add following sentences to the article.

Evidently, as contrast to Japan's claim that the islands were terra nullius, various historical Japanese sources suggested the islands were within China's boundaries before 1885. The planned survey on the islands were delayed as the Japanese cabinet do not want to provoke the Chinese Emperor. Quickly after the Chinese defeat in Sino-Japan war, Japan annexed the islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Kezhu2012 (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, starting at the beginning, the difference between the Shaw source and the other sources you ask about is that the Shaw article is explicitly in the "opinion" section of the newspaper. As a general rule, opinion sections of newspapers are not vetted for factual quality, and thus don't meet WP:RS. Most of the rest of what you're doing is conducting original research. That is, you're looking at primary sources like maps, parliamentary commentary, etc., and drawing conclusions from it. Wikipedia, however, does not allow such research. The one source I spot in what you said that might be helpful is the Jyoman Lee, which you say appeared in History Today. Could you provide a full reference for that? If it focuses on the ownership dispute, the content will probably be more appropriate at Senkaku Islands dispute, but we can figure that out after we have a chance to examine it in more detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2013(UTC)

First thing first, the Joyman Lee article is at http://www.historytoday.com/joyman-lee/senkakudiaoyu-islands-conflict.

Secondly, why the book published by Unryu Suganuma of the University of Hawaii, titled "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations", cannot be used as an external reference?

Kezhu2012 (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please reply. You are very fast at justifying Japanese POV as "neutral" but now you have ignored my question. Why the book published by Unryu Suganuma of the University of Hawaii, titled "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations", cannot be used as an external reference? You have claimed your view is neutral and I believe you truly are, at leasat from yourself point of view. However, your personal biased view has been subtly influencing yourself and you can hardly notice that. Also, as you have said, the author of the resources must be "a recognized expert in the field, and that his statements can be taken as well-researched, factual claims that are widely accepted by other neutral scholars." So far, you have failed to answer me what evidence you have for those authors ( Seokwoo Lee, Junwu Pan, Tsukasa Takamine, Reinhard Drifte) being "a recognized expert in the field, and that his statements can be taken as well-researched, factual claims that are widely accepted by other neutral scholars." (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Joyman Lee article looks like a reliable source with useful information. The Suganuma book is definitely a reliable source. Neither of them belong in this article however. Several years ago, a consensus decision was made (by people on "both" sides of the debate, as well as neutral editors) to split the article into two: this article discusses the islands themselves, such as their physical properties, locations, etc., and includes only a very very short summary of the ownership dispute. The other article, Senkaku Islands dispute contains a very extensive discussion of both sides claims, historical events and documents, the US position, and the more recent clashes between the two/three countries. In fact, the Suganuma book is cited in that article 6 times. If there are facts from the Lee article you want to propose adding to that article, Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute is the place to do so. Note, though, that we've got at least 3 active disagreements going on there now, which means changes are likely to take time. Finally, you're misunderstanding my "expert" issue. The rule requiring expertise refers specifically to the use of opinion articles from magazines/newspapers. In general, for opinion articles in newspapers, editors do not exercise editorial control. Thus, we must rely strictly on the trustworthiness of the author, and thus why we seek evidence that they are recognized experts before using them. However, for books published by university presses, articles in scholarly journals, and even normal newspaper articles, the editors have a responsibility and practice of fact checking and oversight. Thus, in those cases, we also consider the trustworthiness of the publisher. So, for example, Suganuma's book is clearly a reliable source, because the researcher is essentially famous for specifically this work 'and it's published by a University press. However, we have no such evidence from the editorial work. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, in this case, the claims that Chinese only claim the islands after the oil discovered should also go into the dispute article. You would argue this is a fact rather than POV. However, there will be people - like me, or like STSC -, would argue it is definitely a Japanese POV. The fact that we are arguing is already establishing the basis that people do not completely agree it is a fact, therefore, it is a disputeKezhu2012 (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting misconception. In fact, it's a misconception shared by another editor to this page, one who caused a bit of disruption before, and who refused to participate in good faith efforts to get community consensus on various issues. In the extraordinarily unlikely chance you are not this returning user, I'll explain it to you: just because Wikipedia editors dispute something does not mean the issue is disputed in the real world. By that argument, we'd have to make every single page on Wikipedia "disputed" or "potentially NPOV" every time one editor raised a complaint. But that's not how this works. The question is, is the matter disputed in reliable sources. And this point you've just raised, well, it's not. But, anyway, please take that matter to the other talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is directly related to this page. The 1969 statement is exactly the same statement as 1895. They should both stay or both go. Is the 1895 statement disputed in the reliable sources? again, it's not. Kezhu2012 (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, add the 1895 statement as following. Pre-1985, Japan delayed an initial attempt to annex the islands till China was defeated in the first Sino-Japan war. Kezhu2012 (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, what is your source for that claim? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

page 106 of "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations"　Kezhu2012 (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Suganuma is represented on the Senkaku Islands dispute page. It says that the Japanese government delayed take over of the islands, but does not attribute the cause of that as being "waiting until the Sino-Japanese conflict" finished. In order to be willing to add that, I'll want to see at least one whole paragraph from the text in question where that comes from. If you don't have access to the book, I can ask for it at the resource exchange. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And actually, no matter what it says, it doesn't belong in this page. We need to keep the dispute stuff here to a bare minimum. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Then what makes you to determine the 1969 claim is not disputable? Just because it is listed in so-called reliable source (same as the 1895 statement) doesnt mean it is not disputable in the real world. What makes your personal point of view being neutral?　60.225.213.46 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And also, what I typed above was exactly what his paragraph was like. He DID suggest the reason. talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.213.46 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to see exactly what the source says. The history of this article, as you know, is fraught with editors either misunderstanding or misrepresenting sources. Furthermore, this specific source is already used quite a number of times on the other page, and yet no one ever added anything similar to what you're suggesting here, which is surprising if accurate. As for the 1969 claim, it's because it's because there are five separate, neutral, reliable sources that all make the same claim...and thus far, no neutral source claiming the opposite. As for me, I have admitted that I am not neutral on the subject matter, but I believe that my editing is impeccably neutral. Heck, you can go over to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute right now and see me disagreeing with editors who are allegedly on both sides of the dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As many people already mentioned above, for political reasons and US interventions, China was not in a position to "Actively" claim the sovereignty. It's like your neighbor said the corridor is owned by him, as your neighbor's friend is a threatening aside, also because your neighbor is not doing anything to the disputed corridor other than "saying", you might just shrug off and say, well, let's wait and see. This does not mean at any point you have given up the ownership. Whereas the statement is suggesting, your were like, OK, the corridor is yours, OH wait, there is treasure, now I want it. How could a neutral POV subtly gives this impression to people? Obviously, this needs to be moved to the disputed page under Japanese POV. 60.225.213.46 (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't suggesting anything: it's very explicitly linking the finding of petroleum products to the initial claims by China. And your analogies don't mean anything--what matters is the very large number of reliable sources linking the two events, and the lack of sources saying anything to the contrary. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, these so called fact is cherry picked from the articles. Answer this, why the opposite statement in the same paragraph of the article is not included? That sentence reads "the pre-1895 historical records for China is very strong". 60.225.213.46 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And, you still havent explained why other facts in the "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations" book is regarded as different nature than your 1969 claim. 60.225.213.46 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The logic goes like this, Source A is reliable, A claims Statement1, Statement1 must be reliable fact. A claims Statement2, Statement2 must be reliable. If Statement2 is not reliable, then Source A is not reliable, thus Statement1 is not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhu2012 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, my apologies if I'm not being clear. I'm stating that I don't believe that the book says what you claim it says. What you say is inconsistent with how the book is represented in the other article. I do not believe that you've suddenly understood the book where no one ever has before. Of course, it is possible—others may well have misinterpreted the book, or overlooked the value of that phrase. But it is possible. So, the easy solution is to provide a copy of the page that the information you wish to cite is on. At the bare minimum, a quotation, like you see in the references now. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have repeated many times, the passage is manually typed by me, word by word. I'm going to do again here “..., In fact, the Japanese could have annexed the Diaoyu Islands if they were sure or confident that these islands were terra nullius when the governor of Okinawa asked to build this landmark in the Diaoyu Islands in 1885. The Japanese government repeatedly rejected petitions from the governor of Okinawa in both 1890 and 1893. There fore, the Japanese government clearly knew that the Diaoyu Islands were not terra nullius because they possessed Chinese names. Suddenly, however, after Japan won the Sino-Japaneses War in 1895, the Japanese cabinet decided to annex the Diaoyu Islands and build this landmark. Evidently, the Japanese had some kind of conspiratorial "game" in mind when the governor of Okinawa requested on the building of the landmark in the Diaoyu Islands in 1885. ... In fact, Japan's encroachment on Diaoyu Islands was simply an extension of the expansionist policy of the Meiji government, which had successfuly annexed the Liuqiu Kingdom in 1879, and a long premediated act based on Sino-Japanese War. ... Third, the Imperial Edict No. 13 does not support the sovereignty claims over the Diaoyu Islands"... 60.225.213.46 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct Japanese name of Senkaku Islands and proposal of new map

I can't to edit this article now. Then I'd like to point out correct Japanese name of Senkaku Islands on this talk page.

1. Uotsuri-shima, 2. Taishō-tō and 3. Kuba-shima are correct name. The others (4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) are correct. Source is:

Cabinet Secretariat of Japan (2011). "排他的経済水域等の基礎となる 低潮線を有する離島に関する調査報告書" (PDF) (in Japanese). p. 9-10. Retrieved 2013-02-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The title means "Survey Report on the isolated island with a low-tide line underlying the exclusive economic zone, etc.".

No.53 魚釣島(うおつりしま) --> Uotsuri-shima, No.54 久場島(くばしま) --> Kuba-shima and No.55 大正島(たいしょうとう) --> Taishō-tō

And I also propose "File:Senkaku Diaoyu Tiaoyu Islands.png" instead of "File:Senkaku-Diaoyu-Tiaoyu-Islan.jpg".

Thank you.--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I corrected island names. Oda Mari (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) --ジャコウネズミ (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Error in lede

If you click through the link to Taiwan, the lede is saying that the PRC recognises the Senkakus as belonging to the ROC. 216.8.154.254 (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Which link are you referring to? I'm not seeing it in #3 (the one right after the first mention of Taiwan). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Both governments agree..." Then click on "Taiwan". 216.8.154.254 (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan doesn't say anything about the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. So I still don't understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It says that both the PRC and the ROC agree that the Senkakus belong to the ROC, which is false. The link to Taiwan is now a link to the ROC, since the recent page moves. 216.8.154.254 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Taiwan should be changed to Taiwan Province. Also I found the description "Japan does not officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state," and "The Japanese government has not allowed Ishigaki to develop the islands." are unnecessary. I propose to change as follow:

"Despite the complexity of relations between the PRC and ROC, both governments agree that the islands are part of Taiwan Taiwan Province as part of Toucheng Township in Yilan County of their respective divisions. Japan does not officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, and regards the islands as a part of Ishigaki, Okinawa Prefecture and acknowledges neither the claims of the PRC nor ROC to the islands. The Japanese government has not allowed Ishigaki to develop the islands."

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? Is this Wikipedia I'm still on? Have I yet to wake up from a bad dream, or did I misclick and somehow end up on a Communist Party of China website? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake. There are two "Taiwan Province", Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and Taiwan Province. How about changing to [[Geography of Taiwan|Taiwan]]?

P.S. Benlisquare, please be civil. Also Taiwan Province is a part of ROC.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I misread your post. The phrase "Taiwan Province" is associated with the PRC's delegitimisation attempts against the ROC, and I made a hasty conclusion just then. Linking to Geography of Taiwan seems fine. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Severe Biasness Towards the Japanese Side

This should not happen as the article should be neutral or more towards the Chinese side. The American should not support the Japanese. In my opinion, Wikipedia should encourage more Chinese to join Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBZ.LVLV (talk • contribs) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The fix for bias is to bring in more sources. For example, what does the UN say about Taiwan's claims? Hcobb (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

After it was discovered in 1968 that oil reserves might be found under the sea near the islands,[4][5][6][7][8] Japan's sovereignty over them has been disputed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan)

~ It is incorrect, dispute of Japan's sovereignty were not present over the (Senkaku/Diaoyutai/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands) until year 1971, administrative control were gain by the Japan in the later 1971 which only includes "Ryukyu Islands & Daito Islands" (Daito is West side of Okinawa), how can Japan claims for it's sovereignty in 1968?

~ Because the dispute were started when US decided to "transfer" administrative right to Japan, at that time, it wasn't agree that Japan has the sovereignty over the(Senkaku/Diaoyutai/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands ).

~ In addition, if Japan have had full sovereignty over (Senkaku/Diaoyutai/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands) an purchase agreement is not necessary in place back in August 2012 by the Japanese government.

Japan controlled the islands from 1895 until its surrender at the end of World War II ~ it is not correct as well; Meiji Japan occupied the island of Taiwan island and the surrounding islands after the Sino-Japan war until Imperial Japanese Army surrender at the end of World War II.

When the islands reverted to Japanese control under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty between the United States and Japan. ~ The Okinawa Reversion Treaty, includes only the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands,

http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/rev71.html << link to the treaty >> Ryukyu Islands do not includes (Senkaku/Diaoyutai/Diaoyu/Pinnacle Islands) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherpas828 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate the topic of who the rightful owner of the islands is--it's only for discussing improvements to the article. The article says the claims started after 1968 (starting specifically in 1971) in response to the oil findings because that's what the sources say. If you have other sources saying that the dispute started earlier, raise them, but first check Senkaku Islands dispute and its talk page and see if they have been used or discussed there. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Replace an [alleged] pro-Japanese bias with a pro-Chinese bias? This is better, why? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The San Francisco Peace Treaty did not specify which islands were included under the names of island groups that it use. The Okinawa Reversion Treaty did not either. The issue is whether Senkaku is understood as a part of Okinawa or Taiwan. The official position of the Nixon White House was that it was returning "administrative rights" back to Japan, but it took a neutral position on "sovereignty". However, the Department of Defence wrote to the Department of State in 1971 to inform them that their records show that the US considered Senkaku to be a part of Okinawa without question during the 1940s and from then until the issue of oil arose, there was no claim from the PRC nor the ROC regarding sovereignty or ownership. The question of what was or was not included in the US treaties therefore is entirely irrelevant. The only issue is the strength of the original claims. Japan's dates from 1895, when it planted a marker. This was based on a survey in 1885 which concluded that there was no evidence that anyone had ever been settled or based on the islands before. The claims of the PRC and the ROC date from the 1970s, regardless of what evidence they seek to produce from before that time to support their argument. There is no evidence at all that either country had any interest in claiming the islands until the potential discovery of oil. As such when stating the date of the respective claims, it cannot be intellectually honest to date that of the PRC or ROC prior to the 1970s without first presenting a credible source to that effect. To be clear that would require that the source pre-dates the the 1970s. A source from the 1970s simply back up the statement that the claims date from the 1970s, even if it makes a claim to an earlier claim. NB: Writing a pro-China propaganda piece in order to attract more Chinese people to the site is intellectually dishonest and plain ridiculous. Let's be charitable and assume that was a joke.

50 Years from San Francisco: Re-Examining the Peace Treaty and Japan's Territorial Problems Kimie Hara Pacific Affairs , Vol. 74, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 361-382 Published by: Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557753

86.135.211.204 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

How can we stop Diaoyu Island redirect into this article

Note User:‎Ytht1984 created this as an empty section. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Since Diaoyu Islands is another name for these group of islands, it should redirect here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop to redirect Diaoyu Islands to here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninedegree (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Tiaoyutai Islands"?

Since Taiwan officially changed its romanization to Pinyin in 2009 (with a few exceptions), would the Taiwanese name for the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands be Diaoyu instead of the current "Tiaoyu"? I see quite a few official English-language publications using this spelling, but not anything using "Tiaoyu"

Examples: [7][8][9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfilmyer (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

QuentinUK (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we revert to the original location map ?

I came to this page after reading yet another article in the news paper and I am quite surprised by the location map. It's the first time I see a map on Wikipedia featuring distances to claimants. Furthermore, said distances seem to be quite biased to me, distances from Taiwan and China are coast to coast, but for Japan, it's distance to Naha. As it is highly unusual and there is nothing really backing the provided distances, should we revert to the previous neutral map ? I would do it but I don't want to create an account just for that.

-- Benoit

I do not see an issue using the milage map, which helps visitors have an idea where the islands are to the respective claiments. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing is though, where should the measurements be to? There are two to Japanese territories - Ishigaki and Okinawa islands. Perhaps the map should have the one to Naha removed? John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be inclined to remove the distances. Should we trace from closest land point to closest land point? If so, I'd want a source for that data. Alternatively, should we trace from "port to port"--i.e., the closest distance a seafarer would probably travel, especially historically? Should we trace center to center? Any such decision would probably be a POV one, and thus it seems better to leave it out. However, if we keep the distances, my preference would be to use closest to closest land point, and we'd have to verify the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The location map that this article using now has I made referenced on Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, and every distances of the map show coast to coast. The distances of the coast of Okinawa-Island and Naha City, and the coast of Ishigaki-Island and Ishigaki City are quite near on the map.--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole list of islands

• zh:釣魚臺列嶼#组成 lists a full list of islands names as used in PRC, ROC and Japan, and other informations.
• I propose to either remove Bei Yu/Oki-no-Kita-iwa, Nan Yu/Oki-no-Minami-iwa, and Fei Yu/Tobise islets from #Geography or provide a full list of islands, because these three islets are too small to be distinguished from other small islets. --202.108.128.130 (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody disagree with the removal of Bei Yu/Oki-no-Kita-iwa, Nan Yu/Oki-no-Minami-iwa, and Fei Yu/Tobise islets? --202.108.128.130 (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying the three islands should be removed because they're not listed in the article above that you linked to, or because they're too small? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Should be removed because they're too small - as there're dozens of islands in Diaoyutai, there's no reason to list 8 of them but forget others. So I suggest to list only 5 most notable islands and mention other dozens of islands and rocks in content. --124.16.148.71 (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct that the 8 islands listed in the table correspond to the map directly above it? If we remove the last three islands from the table I think we would also need to remove that map (or find a different one) as the 6, 7, and 8 pointed out on that map would make no sense then. --ElHef (Meep?) 18:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: At this point the request is incomplete as it does not address changes that need to be made to the map. Please feel free to re-open if these concerns are addressed. --ElHef (Meep?) 05:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagging POV-title

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

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

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

This template was removed by Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 9#Request for comment: Article naming closed on February 2012. The closer User:NuclearWarfare reverted the addition of the template by Lvhis with an edit summary No, this is what I meant.[10] Unless a new RfC decides otherwise, the previous RfC remains effective. Therefore the template should not be included. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

：For those users who have a relatively correct view of history, I want you to help contribute to the renaming of the Ryukyu Islands article [[11]] as its current name is derived from the Chinese Liuqiu Qundao and it was historically a Chinese protectorate. [[12]]Wikireader2000018:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC+8) ：A use of wider historical reference for article naming including Romanized versions of names of other languages would be more internationally acceptable. Wikipedia in other languages just isn't enough.

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

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

Confusing wording

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

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

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

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

Name change suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last "RfC" (post-Arbitration) [13] was done in the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [14][15]. It actually stifled voices from other side (opposing using "Senkaku"), so that none parties from the side opposing then Qwyrxian's side took part in that "RfC". Although I strongly oppose this "RfC", I did not touch or I did not think to be worth touching the two main pages regarding the Islands and the Dispute since then. Now I unexpectedly saw some positive changes from Qwyrxian's attitude toward this naming issue after many new comers raised questions to challenge the current name. I'd like to give full AGF to Qwyrxian. The last "RfC" (post-Arbitration) has been expired on January 1, 2013. Now it may be the time to open an RfC starting from a root question to solve this years-long naming issues. This RfC was unreasonablely prohibited to open or killed on November 24, 2011[16][17]. We need to get consensus that "Senkaku" is a Japanese name or a English name for these Islands first. Then we can make effort to see which way we can go to satisfy wp's NPOV, NOR, and other related naming policies. Now I re-post my suggestted RS as follows, and the draft anyone can revises is here User:Lvhis/xI RfC. --Lvhis (talk)

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

(rfc template was here) This name is currently used for the Wikipedia article about a group of islands in East Asia, whose ownership is disputed. The name/title "Senkaku Islands" currently used for this article and its related articles has also been disputed for quite a long time. The main Romanized Chinese name for the islands is Diaoyu or Diaoyutai. The main Romanized Japanese name for the islands is Senkaku. There is another name, Pinnacle Islands, from English language, though far less frequently used than above mentioned Chinese and Japanese names. Is the name "Senkaku Islands" the Japanese name, or the English name? This is a basic or essential question or dispute for the naming dispute on this article. The question is, per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which definition on this name is correct. Previous discussions, which have included discussions on relative article's talk pages, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to reach consensus to settle the question. The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, involved parties will present their arguments for the definition of this name.

Policies and guidelines

• WP:VERIFY
• WP:ORIGINAL
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and Multiple local names)

Arguments from involved editors

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name

1. Reliable sources have clearly stated/asserted that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. The following is just listing part of these reliable sources. A number of them were written by Japanese authors. I avoided using sources from Chinese authors.

• A UN General Assembly document [18] page 85, International Organizations and the Law of the Sea: Documentary Yearbook 1996 By Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea.
• Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands". CNN World. CNN (US).
• Hara, Kimie (原貴美恵) (2007). Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system. New York, USA: Routledge, c/o Taylor & Francis. p. 51. ISBN 9780415412087.
• Suganuma, Unryu (菅沼雲龍) (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–96. particularly p96 ISBN 978-0824821593.
• Kiyoshi Inoue (井上清). Senkaku Letto /Diaoyu Islands The Historical Treatise. (English synopsis [19])
• Daniel J. Dzurek, "The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute" at the International Boundary Research Unit web site, University of Durham, UK, October 1996 [20]
• Jeff Hays. "DISPUTE OVER THE SENKAKU ISLANDS (JAPANESE NAME)---DIAOYU ISLANDS (CHINESE NAME)" Facts and Details
• Koji Taira. The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands [21] This is an article that originally appeared in "The Ryukyuanist", spring 2004.
• Joyman Lee. Senkaku/Diaoyu: Islands of Conflict Published in History Today Volume: 61 Issue: 5 2011
• Jesper Schlæger. Senkakuphonia: The East China Sea Dispute page 4 of 31
• Peter J Brown. China ire at sea chase signals wider reach Asia Times Sep 16, 2010

2. The Naming history on this group islands tells that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. Names for this group islands are from three languages, that I have pointed out during the Mediation [22]. Per the order of their generated time, they are Chinese name, English name, and Japanese name.

1) Chinese name: the romanized Chinese name is "Diaoyu Dao Qundao" or "Diaoyutai Lieyu". For English use, they are adapted as "Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyutai Islands". Their original form is 钓鱼岛群岛 or 釣魚台列嶼. The Chiese name used for naming these islands was generated as early as 1403 .

2) English name: In 1843, the British naval battleship "Samarang" surveyed areas around this group islands and gave a name "Pinnacle islands" for them according to how the shape of one of the islands looked like.

3) Japanese name: Before 1886, at least some Japanese documents used Chinese name for these islands. Since 1886, the Japanese Imperial Naval Records used "Pinnacle Islands" with Japanese Katakana form (Transliteration). It was until 1900, a Japanese teacher Tsune Kuroiwa (黑岩恆) translated the "Pinnacle Islands" into Japanese "Senkaku Island". Its original form is 尖閣諸島. While the "Senkaku Island" was not yet officially used until 1950s by Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

3. No reliable sources tell that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name. On the other words, that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name is an unsupportable viewpoint.

Conclusion: "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name as defined by reliable sources, as required by important policies WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL. Both Chinese name and Japanese name are local names for this geographic entity per WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names. Indeed there is a real or pure English name for this group of islands: "Pinnacle Islands".

Arguments for that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name

Put argument here.

Other comments from involved editors

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

And an old discussion with a talbe[23] may also be worth being reviwed as follows:

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

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

Please: editors believing the current name as NPOV can edit NPOV side ONLY, and as the same, editors believing the current name as POV can edit POV side ONLY. By comparing the reasons from both sides, we may be able to gradually reach some consensus or compromise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are not honest. The arbitration has blocked or banned several of editors NOT DUE TO they "had long engaged in pushing for the use of an alternative name". The most serious ban from the arbitration was on a Japanese editor/user who firmly opposed the use of an alternative name but pushed very hard to stick on the Japanese name "Senkaku". Please be honest and do not mislead other Wikipedia users particular some new comers to here. Evidence has been there already and I listed some before [24][25]. You just like to deny them by playing "cherry-picking". When talking about naming rules, you seemed always to avoid this one "Multiple local names", and seemed to forget the most immportant Wikipedia:Five pillars the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, wikipedia users, even wikipedia community, shall not create some material in an original research way. Reliable sources show "Senkaku" is the Japanese name and "Diaoyu" is the Chinese name, no source says "Senkaku" is "the most commonly used name in English". That RfC was led and pushed by you. Using RfC created "the most commonly used name in English" is violating Wikipedia:OR, in addition to that RfC was running under the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [26][27]. It actually stifled voices from other side (opposing using "Senkaku"). Even that RfC has stood there, it does not mean it can stand forever. I'd like to point again that using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" or "Senkaku/Diaoyu" is not original research, it has reliable sources. From the point of no original research, this dual name is better than so called "the most commonly used name in English" that was actually created by several wikipedia editors led by you.--Lvhis (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Westwind273, thank you for confirming my points. Again, I appreciate the frank and honest way you expressed, but I need to clarify several points that I disagree with you. 1) The romanized name of the islands often (not always) used by official authority in Taiwan is "Diaoyutai"(see the official website), but not "Tiaoyutai", some times "Diaoyu [28][29][30]" or "Tiaoyutai" is also used. I will change the incorrect content in the article per the reliable sources. 2) Japan and Taiwan on April 10, 2013 signed a fisheries agreement, that is NOT due to these two parties are "two democracies, they have a much greater ability to work things out" as you think. Taiwan had 16 rounds of fishery negotiations with Japan regarding the waters around the Diaoyu Islands since 1996, that had taken 17 years for nothing to reach any agreement, or just failed for each time. While the dispute and conflict regarding the disputed islands has got heated up between Japan and PRC the mainland China as well as Taiwan since September 2012 when Japan made an official move to "nationalize" the Islands in order to make Japan sounded more "legally owning" the islands, Japan dislikes the potential possibility that the mainland China and Taiwan might joint together at certain extent to oppose Japan's claim. Japan then made this compromise to Taiwan in fishery issue only but not sovereign issue over the islands in this 17th round of negotiations held in this year and these two parties finally reached this agreement. This is actually due to mainland China's great efforts to oppose Japan's more and more aggressive moves and made Japan to have to give certain compromise to Taiwan the least capable independent party but a potential partner of the mainland China against Japan's claim, or Taiwan took some advantage of the mainland China's stronger efforts on the dispute. This is almost nothing to do with "democracy system" here. Otherwise, you cannot explain why Taiwan and Japan were not able to reach such agreement during past 17 year with 16 rounds of negotiation. 3) Wikipedia now is viewable or readable in the mainland China (PRC) at least for many articles I checked when I was there recently, but I did not try some article you mentioned. Theoretically, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are quite fair and in line with what it claims as a "free encyclopedia", particularly the Wikipedia:Five pillars. The problem is how the users to treat and interpret these policies and guidelines, as a typical example, what has happened for the naming issue of this topic of articles here. Some users have bias but pretend they do not have, and play some tricks to game the system of Wikipedia. Even if there is unavoidable bias from a language originated its culture, some user's bias has gone very far beyond that. Regarding this Wikipedia, if you want to educate the people in PRC to learn or accept "the freedom and democracy" from the free and democratic countries in the world, you should let them feel they are treated in way of fair and free, i.e. give them a good example of the freedom and democracy here.

Back to the naming issue, you listed two more English language sources. So by honestly following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the name for this article should go dual local name "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands"(as used by CNN [31] and Brookings Institution [32]) or "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands"(as used by The Telegraph [33] and BBC [34]). I prefer using "Diaoyu/Senkaku" one because just following the alphabetic order of English language .--Lvhis (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)