Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

BRD cycle, crystal clear

I've been asked by Tenmei once again to weigh in on this dispute, so I'm happy to do so. This page has gone nowhere over years, and this is a last resort before I go beserk and drag all of you to Arbcom. Tenmei in particular should feel lucky I haven't blocked him for violating the WP:BRD cycle not once but twice in the most recent edit war, although Oda Marie and Lvhis are in the same boat.

• I am being bold in my administrative ability here: first off, I am returning the page to its predispute version per WP:PREFER. I don't particularly care who gets mad about it; I'm doing what I can to keep all of this stupidity the hell out of Arbcom and/or a block.
• The next person who I see break the WP:BRD cycle on this page will be blocked on sight. And, in case this needs any sort of explanation (which it probably does), a revert of a revert of a revert is still a violation of the BRD cycle, even though it restores the previous version. The only exceptions will be reversions of unconfirmed editors, and reverts by editors who weren't watching this page when I put up this message.
• I also reserve the right to revert any part of the page to the pre-edit war version. This will surely make some people mad; in this case, it's the "I don't want the NPOV-title" tag people (a truly stupid edit war IMHO, seeing as you're all not even edit warring over content, but over the description of the content). In other cases, it may make the pro-Japan pro-China pro-Wikipedia pro-whateverthehellitis crowd mad.
• As you all may or may not have noticed by this point, I don't particularly care about the edit war. I have absolutely zero skin in this debate - nada, zilch. So don't bother with arguments concerning the evil agenda of the other side, logical fallacies of the other side, etc. I don't care anymore - this is the sort of behavior that can and should be reported (to ANI, my talk page as a separate matter, or Arbcom) but which is going to be totally separate from my post here.
• If anybody wants to appeal what I'm saying here or any of my actions, feel free to bring it to ANI. I'm sure there may even be a few people who may think I'm taking it a bit far (I admit I may even be carefully breaking some rules in the issue), but I guarantee not a soul will have any desire to watch over this thing instead. As such, if you want to get me uninvolved, fine, but it'll probably mean you guys end up at Arbcom.

OK, that was my not so succinct and not very polite post on the issue. I hope it's clear, and I hope that people stop acting like pre-historic primates on this issue. To clarify, the size of your country's collective penis will not grow any smaller based off a few words on Wikipedia, and it's not worth forcing editing the thing every time.

Good luck on coming to an agreement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How very rogue of you! I'm usually not a huge fan of rogue actions, but given how much we've failed to accomplish so far, maybe it's time for a little WP:IAR. To be honest, I would like to see this page (and related pages) placed under 1RR and General Sanctions, which is close to what you're doing here unilaterally. I'd much rather see the article under sanctions than just have it fully protected at all times. Would you be willing to discuss this at ANI to make it "official", since I see that the community can invoke such sanctions without actually involving Arbcom? Do you think the issue will be sufficiently clear to "new viewers" such that they can see why this is needed, or does the dispute seem too "small" to warrant such a measure? Alternatively, there's always ArbCom... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Given how quickly Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Senkaku Islands - admin COI intervention went off track, I think the structure of Arbcom will be necessary to get anything done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I support Magog the Ogre in this. The dispute here (similar the one over at Liancourt Rocks dispute) is really pathetic. This is why I have tried to stay out of both disputes. However, I'm prepared to back-up Magog in his attempt to stop the petty disputes that seem to crop up all too often here. I will, however, point out that mastadons are not primates (rather, proboscidea). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since John Smith's opened up an ANI discussion about Penwhale's readdition of the NPOV Title tag on Senkaku Islands dispute I figured I might as well bring up this issue as well. Note that I indicated full support for this action; I just think that if we can get a fully stamped "Community Approval", then nobody gets to cry "Admin Abuse!" later on. Comments there will be great. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate and apprize admin Magog the Ogre for his such decisive action at this moment very much, more than just saying support it. I'd like to say it would be better if such action had taken earlier. As for the dispute itself, even I am on one side but I can say I am quite open, not only including open for either of dual name D/S or S/D, or pure/real English name, but also including let the tag be on if there is dispute even the title can be moved into a one which I think is NPOV . I am not going to take advantage of status quo by stubbornly removing out such tag when the title is the one I accept but the dispute has been raised and ongoing. Admin 日本穣 mentioned Liancourt Rocks dispute, that remind me that the mediation started going to a deadlock. When I mentioned the precedent Liancourt Rocks which has been demonstrated as example in the the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, Qwyrxian expressed "Please drop it" and then actually shut a door or way as a possible solving approach. I am not critisizing anyone here, instead, I just hope we should be more open in the future DR no matter it will be through AbrCom or the extensive community. Anyway, currently under such sanction set by admin Magog the Ogre, I am willing to do some substatial edit contributions on the page content which I wanted to do before but lost my interesting under previous POV pushing situation and the page(s) got locked. --Lvhis (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Magog's actions are justifiable. I advocated the locking of both pages in the past for the very same reason. Since Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is ill-equipped to deal with editors who engage in tendentious editing (i.e. look at how the mediation that took place last month ended up), I think this is the best course of action that can be taken. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Restatement

My contributions to this not-very-complicated thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point in a predictably escalating drama:

• 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?

• 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?

• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?

• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

Lvhis, I'm sorry, but your edits are not helpful. It doesn't matter how many sources you put in, because they're not that relevant to what the first line of the article should be saying.

Yes, Japanese people know the islands as the "Senkaku Islands". Yes, Chinese people know them as the "Diaoyu Islands". But Taiwanese people are not Chinese, and they do not know the islands as "Diaoyu". More importantly, you're still limiting the recognition of the names to Japan and China. Why? This whole dispute is over what names are most common in English. So why are you making these changes? John Smith's (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I LOVE IT when my British friend chooses to presents his view on Chinese issues as expert opinions. Let's seeee......

On "[Taiwanese people] not know the islands as Diaoyu": I believe it's already established that Diaoyutai was known to be used in media from PRC and Diaoyu was known to be used in media from ROC. In case that isn't clear enough, this is an RS [1] from [Post], which is a media based in Taiwan.

On "Taiwanese people are not Chinese": According to [[2]], 98% of people living in Taiwan are Han Chinese and so this statement does not make sense. In the event the term "Taiwanese" is used to refer to aboriginal people living in Taiwan, then please note that these aboriginals are minorities and do not in fact run the country. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So Taiwan is China then? Oh what a wonderful POV world we live in...time to step away from the big red button.

If one is born in Taiwan one is Taiwanese, not Chinese. One can not be Han Chinese unless you are born in China, so basically you are saying that 98% of the population of Taiwan moved there after being born in China, rather than people born in Taiwan who are of ethnic Han Chinese descent? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are an expert in Chinese? Then perhaps you should correct this page: Chinese_people

(out of chrono order) One does not need to be an expert in Chinese matters to see the validity of being born somewhere being ones country and nationality after a generation or two, and where ones people originally came from being ones ethnic identity. Maybe you could correct the Australian article? There you would be saying that Australians are in fact mostly British? Chaosdruid (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you to read the link I pointed you to before making the next response (if any). Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

>If one is born in Taiwan one is Taiwanese, not Chinese
When the day comes when the government on Taiwan ceases to use the name Republic of China and officially uses the name "Taiwan" (and "when" is quite a question), then again depending on interpretations, your statement might be considered true; however it is currently not. "Chinese", and to some interpretations, "Taiwanese" are nationalities, but Han Chinese is an ethnicity that encompasses the two. Keep in mind that 78% of Singaporeans are Han Chinese - that does not mean that their nationality is no longer Singaporean. Same goes for the 24% of Malaysians that are ethnic Han, and 40% of Thais that are either full or part Han.
>There you would be saying that Australians are in fact mostly British
However, Australians call their country the Commonwealth of Australia, not the "British protectorate of New Holland". Taiwan, however, is part of what is known as the Free Area of the Republic of China, "free" as in "not under Communist Party of China control", along with Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and Taiping Island. In addition, "British" is a nationality and not an ethnicity; Australians, New Zealanders and some Brits can be Anglo-Saxons, whilst some Brits can be Scots, Irish or Welsh. This is an example of apples and oranges. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Benlinsquare, that's rather disingenuous of you. You know full well that the only reason Taiwan's government is titled the Republic of China is because it was forced on them by the KMT when they occupied the island and because now it's virtually incapable of changing it (for the moment). It is one clear factor that China says will cause it to invade. Only a tiny minority of Taiwanese people identify themselves as being Chinese. The rest identify themselves as being Taiwanese or Taiwanese/Chinese (in as far that they know their ancestors came from China). John Smith's (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They call their written script Traditional Chinese, their language "Chinese", their pop music C-pop, their airline China Airlines, their postal service Chunghwa Post, etc etc. It's not that different from Singaporean Chinese calling their language Chinese and their script Simplified Chinese. Jay Chou doesn't call his music "T-pop" or variants of that name even though he is from Taiwan; his works are classified as either C-pop or Mandopop, and one of his particular musical styles is known as "中國風" (Chinese wind). Similarly, JJ Lin doesn't call his music "Singapore-pop" or a variant of that name even though he is Singaporean; his works are classified as either C-pop or Mandopop. (In fact, most popular "C-pop" artists come from Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong since the music recording industry in mainland China is, simply put, shit.) Also its difficult to gauge public opinion on political issues for a variety of reasons, and its best not to jump to conclusions like you have. In essence, you are pulling something out of nothing with the unsubstantiated claims you've made; what the political flavour of the year is has nothing to do with whether or not Taiwanese have a Chinese cultural and ethnic identity or not. In addition, what you have said does not apply to Fukienese who have never been under long-term occupation by the Empire of Japan nor the People's Republic of China, since Taiwan is one island of many of the ROC. Also, we're going off a slight tangent to the main topic here. I've replied to Chaosdruid, but a reply of a reply of a reply of a reply might be getting off-topic. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Canadians, Americans and many others use the language "English". Does this mean they're English themselves? No. The airline and post service were named by the KMT when they had a monopoly on power. The KMT also blocked any change of name for the postal service. As for public opinion, find me a poll that shows a majority of Taiwanese identify themselves as Chinese (exclusively). We're not talking flavour of the month, more flavour of not having the KMT ram Chinese nationalism down your throats at the end of a gun. Even President Ma is trying to claim he's Taiwanese to curry favour with the public. John Smith's (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My friend, your are not an expert in Chinese culture and yet you appear to think you know more about it than several well-educated native Chinese individuals and proceeded to deride them to be disingenuous. While it's certainly possible that you, in fact, do know more about Chinese culture than the people you label to be disingenuous, the arguments you employed do not support such a notion. The term "Chinese" is usually used to describe people who are ethnically Han Chinese, just as "German" is often used to describe people who are ethnically German (i.e. do Austrians consider themselves to be Germans? How about Saxons in pre-Franco-Prussian war?). I think you have fallen into the fallacy of equating the terms "China" and "Chinese" with the regime known as "People's Republic of China". Now, please, if you are going to insult other people's knowledge, do try to make sure your criticisms make sense at all. Thanks.

Oh by the way, here's an innocent question: Were Canadians and Australians considered to be British before the British Empire fell apart? I suppose they were still considered not to be British even though the two colonies were part of the now-defunct Empire. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "Chinese" is usually used to describe people who are ethnically Han Chinese, just as "German" is often used to describe people who are ethnically German (i.e. do Austrians consider themselves to be Germans? I think Hitler liked to refer to Austrians as German, but most people call Germans German and Austrians Austrian these days. As for the matter in hand, I don't see why ethnicity is some overriding factor. I have "Chinese" friends who are English and American. Sure, they know where they come from, but they identify with where they live and/or where they were born. That's how a majority of Taiwanese seem to approach things (I've never met a Taiwanese person who introduced themselves as Chinese, though I guess there must be a few who do that). So I think it's better not to try to lump Taiwanese together with Chinese. John Smith's (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you read up on set theory and tell me what's a super-set and what's a sub-set? As well, look up the definitions of "Chinese" in your very own Webster dictionary. It'd answer your post. Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

>That's how a majority of Taiwanese seem to approach things
No, that's how a majority of Pan-Green Taiwanese approach things. Identity politics varies between those with Pan-Blue and Pan-Green sympathies, and is all in all a political issue. Those who associate with Pan-Green view themselves as Taiwanese (and "definitely not Chinese"), and their country as "Taiwan", whilst those who are Pan-Blue view themselves as both "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" (you're essentially making an irrelevant correlation by claiming that no one from Taiwan would solely refer to themselves as "Chinese" - its obvious that they would point out their geographic origins to demonstrate that they're not from "that China". You know, the evil one that uses red colours alot and they say on Fox News that they murder poor children all day every day withe Melamine and send scary, nasty soldiers into Tibet (oh dear, poor them) all day every day. Similarly, ask any Hongkonger where they are from, and they will say "Hong Kong". The current global environment makes it unlikely for someone from Taiwan to solely refer to themselves as "Chinese". Also repeat the line on set theory listed above), and refer to their nation as "ROC", with their geographical origin being the island of Taiwan. Individuals, companies, all have their identities subject to their political views. Pan-Green leaning companies tend to write things such as "台灣製造 Made in Taiwan" and "台灣產品 Product of Taiwan" (I have a packet of 超级99棒 brand biscuits in front of me that does exactly this), whilst Pan-Blue leaning companies tend to write things such as "中華民國台灣" or "Made in Taiwan, R.O.C" (my LCD monitor has this printed on the back). Then there's the "degree of severity", so to speak - if you're Pan-Green "enough", you'll call your homeland "Formosa", not Taiwan; after all, the word "Taiwan" is apparently the Chinese corruption of "What is that?" in a Taiwanese Aborigine language, or so they say; if you're really Pan-Blue (though few people actually do this), you'll even drop the "Taiwan" from the line "Republic of China (Taiwan)". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating, Benlisquare. It's baffling that non-experts would come in, pretend to be experts, and then dismiss the things that knowledgeable people had said or provided links to. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Chaosdruid, media in Taiwan refers to the islands as Diaoyutai (Islands)... And regarding the arguments about Taiwanese/Chinese people... Uh, not appropriate here. Due to the Chinese Civil War, you can easily argue that many people living in Taiwan right now would share ancestors with people in China due to the ROC government retreating to Taiwan Island at the end of the war. People in Taiwan can have an ethnicity of "Chinese", but are "Taiwanese" due to being physically born in Taiwan. I would strongly, STRONGLY stay away from that argument in any case (it can only get messy...)

In any event, I am proposing the inclusion of the original names in the lead section by adding 尖閣諸島 next to Senkaku Islands, and the simplified/Traditional Chinese writing of Diaoyu/Diaoyutai next to Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands. We're already doing this in the main SI article, and I'm (more or less sure) that this makes sense. But I'd figure that people may want a say regarding what I'm proposing here... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said "time to step away from the big red button". I have posted some figures on the dispute talk page on the common name issue, this one caught my attention - though I am probably not going to comment further due to not wishing to get involved in a time wasting series of "discussion" (as per the other pages and comments). Chaosdruid (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I will input my thought later. --Lvhis (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I input the version I revised for the lead section as follows for discussion:

---

The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands which are known as the Senkaku Islands to the Japanese, and also known as the Diaoyutai Islands or simply Diaoyu Islands to the Chinese. These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 and holds a neutral stance on the dispute. The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.

References:

---

Everyone above has made a lot comments, and I agree with Penwhale, Bob, and benlisquare. What I want to say is let us stick on related RS, otherwise we will go out of topic and make this discussion like a forum far beyond the lead section of this wp page. When I say "related", it means the RS stated directly these islands with their names. Instead of pointing the related countries, here it is pointing the language: "... to the Japanese, ... to the Chinese" . Regarding the name in Chinese Language (Taiwanese language is one of the many branches of Chinese language, regardless political things), here is described as said in the RS book written by a Taiwan scholar. For the official stand from both side across the Taiwan Strait, it was said in this book, on Page 37: (V. The PRC and ROC's Positions and Evidence Supporting The Chinese Claim.) "While the governments of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have ... each separately issued numorous official statements reiterating their claims over the islands, their positions are essentially identical since they are based on a shared historical past". If one has different views, please provide related RS. The words from one's friends cannot be accepted as RS by wiki. The three wikipideans whose opinions I agreed on have also provide some meaningful RSs. --Lvhis (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're still trying to push the same edits you made previously. You make no account for Taiwanese and, more importantly, these terms are known outside of Japan and China. Can you please explain why we must limit recognition to two countries? Why not just leave it as currently drafted, where all three names are identified as existing?

Also we can't quote a US newspaper article from 4 decades ago to quote a current US position (though I can see this is not a new edit). John Smith's (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised that Benlisquare and I have replied to your allegations that (1) Taiwanese are not Chinese and (2) Taiwanese do not know what's "Diaoyu". Since you've accused the former of being disingenuous, it'd not be very nice to ignore his reply. In the event that he is completely wrong and you were, in fact, completely right, you should correct him on his mistakes. In the event that he is right and you were, in fact, pretending to be an expert in an unfamiliar subject, then you should acknowledge the mistake and tell him that he was not, in fact, disingenuous as you've previously proclaimed. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to go around and around in circles with either of you. Most people around the world refer to others by nationality, and at the very least it is confusing to in this circumstance refer to people by ethnicity. If you can't accept that, too bad. But it's not that important an issue. The main issue is why Lvhis feels the current text is so wrong and why he wants to focus on what words are used by Japan and China, ignoring the rest of the world. John Smith's (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, I see you are a spokesperson for "most people". I did not realize you have such authority. As I've pointed out earlier, German is an example where both nationality and ethnicity applies. If you are unable to comprehend such a notion, then there is a very serious problem since you are an European and your educational background is History. Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Germans (and please correct it if you think it's wrong).

You know... it isn't really nice to call others disingenuous, then proceed to lose the argument, and then proceed to accuse others of talking in circles. Although nobody in Wikipedia is obliged to be open-minded and cooperative, these are certainly desired traits. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't even understand why you're wrong, do you? You raised the issue of Germany and Austria. I pointed out that even if Austrians could be considered "German", no one bar ultra-nationalist nutters refers to them as German. They're referred to as Austrains. I don't care about whether we call Chinese people Chinese because they live in China or they're Han. It's Taiwanese we're talking about, i.e. the people that don't live in the place called China. John Smith's (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

John Smith's, the point Bob pointed is quite important: when you spoke out like spokesperson for "most people", you need to provide RS. The reason I proposed to make such changes is to give encyclopedia readers the fact that the disputes even started from the islands naming. There is or was a misleading that "SI is the English name" for the disputed islands. And what I proposed is based on RS, particularly an RS written by a Taiwan Scholar or expert in this topic. Let me repeat this here: please provide related RS for your points. That is the way that we can avoid to go around and around. --Lvhis (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, are you being serious? You're saying that I have to provide a source that people generally refer to others by nationality instead of ethnicity? So, in fact, people don't refer to Americans (bar native Americans), they call people that live in North America "English", "German", "Caucasian", etc? John Smith's (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are being serious. The fact North Americans do not often identify themselves based on their ancestry (which are often quite mixed anyway) doesn't mean people do not refer to others by ethnicity. Examples of people being referred to by ethnicity include Serbs, Germans, and Hungarians. While I would assume this is common knowledge to European historians, I wonder if it is taught in every history curriculum in major universities. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, our British friend appears to be trying to edit the Chinese people page after I've cited it as part of my counter-argument. Specifically, there is a listing of people who fall under the category of "Chinese people" and our friend tried to remove [3] the line that contained "People who hold citizenship of Republic of China (Taiwan) (See political status of Taiwan)". Interestingly, his change has already been reverted [4]. It will be interesting to see how the BRD cycle will go with that. Don't forget to invite us when that happens. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Lvhis's edit is unnecessary because this article is about a dispute not about the islands. However if you insist to include the edit, I will propose a more accurate wording, "The islands are known as Diaoyu Islands to the Chinese and Diaoyutai to the Taiwanese" with the following reliable sources.

• "China is involved in a territorial dispute with Japan and Taiwan over the sovereignty of islands known in China as the Diaoyu, in Taiwan as the Diaoyutai, and in Japan as the Senkakus."[5]
• "the Senkaku islands, a group of five islets and three barren rocks that lie between Taiwan and the Japanese island of Okinawa known as the Pinnacle Islands in English, Diaoyu Islands to the Chinese and Diaoyutai to the Taiwanese."[6]
• "China calls them the Diaoyu Islands, Taiwan calls them the Diaoyutai, and Japan calls them the Senkaku Islands."[7]
• "The PRC uses Diaoyudao (Diaoyu means “fishing”; dao means “island”), and Taiwan uses Diaoyutai."[8]
• "In mainland China, the islets are usually referred to as the Diaoyu Islands. As this article is about the movement organized by Chinese students from Taiwan, it uses “Diaoyutai Islands,” which is the name better known in Taiwan."[9]

This claim is proved to be true by the following Google site search results:

• "Diaoyutai Islands" site:gov.tw 1200
• "Diaoyu Islands" site:gov.tw 228
• "Diaoyu Islands" site:gov.cn 1870
• "Diaoyutai Islands" site:gov.cn 2

Providing an example of the exception doesn't prove the two names are equally called in the countries. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor morphological variations among the two Chinese names are not important. Both the inhabitants of PRC and ROC are familiar with both names and so a more accurate way to express the sentences would be to say "... known as Senkaku Islands in Japanese and Diaoyu or Diaoyutai Islands in Chinese". As someone who regularly reads Hong Kong newspapers, I can confidently say "Diaoyutai" is very commonly used in Hong Kong and Macau. Needless to say, Hong Kong and Macau are both cities within the PRC. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix or Phoenix7777, although you listed several reference links there, you still just went around and around. We have discussed this at here and what Bob's comment above is reenforcing what his and my comments there. If several of us said you Phoenix7777 now kept some stand on the Diaoyu Islands issue with us or "our DI side", and you yourself argued against us and said "No", could we or others else refuted you with "you are just providing an example of the exception that doesn't prove your real stand"? It sounds so ridiculous. Back to the topic, once again the change I proposed is to clarify a misleading that "the Japanese name 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" and the territory dispute over the Islands even starting with the naming. As for the naming, what I proposed is only indicating the language, Japanese and Chinese. "Diaoyutai" and "Diaoyu" are mandarin pronunciation of Chinese, no matter which one is used more in the mainland China or Taiwan. If you want to emphasize the Taiwanese as the Taiwanese language, Hokkien, the Islands name is called "Tiaoyutai" or "Tiaoyu", which are much less used in English. Also again, Taiwanese/Hokkien is one of the many branches of Chinese language. If you complain that Taiwan (ROC) is not given a place in this lead section, your complaint is groundless. See the second sentence, "These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China [3] and the Republic of China (Taiwan).[4]". It is still there and I did not change it. Regarding whether the Mainland China and Taiwan are two countries or just two regions of one country, I give you an advice that do not push Wikipedia to take sides before the out-wiki world make this issue clear cut. Your attempt and attitude on this is very POV pushing. I used a very reliable and related source written by a Taiwan expert on this Islands dispute which clearly stated that "While the governments of the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have ... issued numorous official statements reiterating their claims over the islands, their positions are essentially identical since they are based on a shared historical past" with listing related RSs in his book. Up to date things are still like these. When there was a conflict or collision over these Islands happened between Japan and Taiwan (ROC) , the Mainland China (PRC) only and always condemned Japan; and same when conflict or collision happened over these Islands between Japan and the Mainland China, Taiwan only condemned Japan. If you do not agree, please give direct and official reliable sources. --Lvhis (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I think we should also wrap things up with our friend User:John Smith's. He and User:ChaosDruid endorsed one or more of the following points:

• Chinese people know [the islands] as the "Diaoyu Islands"... [Taiwanese people] do not know the islands as "Diaoyu"
• Taiwanese people are not Chinese

Since these form the basis of John Smith's arguments and that he has been unable to provide convincing counter-arguments when he has been unambiguously refuted, I think you should ask him in his talk page once more for further opinion from him in the event that he is no longer providing more arguments. I've previously raised the concern of indefinite filibuster to User:Magog the Ogre regarding his new BRD policy. I believe this will be a pretty good test case. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Then I have to post this again. The islands article in zh treats the names separately. The first sentence of the lead is "钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿，台湾称为钓鱼台列屿，日本语称为“尖閣諸島[1]...", "Diaoyu Islands , they are called as Diaoyutai Islands in Taiwan, as Senkaku Shoto in Japan...". Lvhis, you know that well as you were the most recent editor of the article as of this post of mine. And the dispute article in zh does not refer to the names. Oda Mari (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What I read when I clicked on your link is "釣魚台列嶼，或称钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿，日本語稱爲「尖閣諸島[1]」，琉球語稱為「魚釣諸島」（ユクン･クバジマ）[2]", which is reasonable and almost exactly as what I suggested. It's possible that there are discrepancies between the four versions of zh articles (PRC-simplified, HK/Macau-trad, Malaysia/Singapore-trad, and Taiwan-trad). And as you've pointed out, none of the names listed in the zh articles are exactly like the ones being widely referred to by RS and by us. This is due to the fact that the names like 釣魚台列嶼 and 称钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿 are "official" names, much like the "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" where we tend to refer to as the "United Kingdom" or "Britain". For people who are not proficient in Chinese or Kanzi, I'd also point out that 釣魚台列嶼 (Diaoyutai island chain) and 称钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿 (Diaoyu island and associated islands) basically mean the same. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(Oho, (edit conflict)) I saw Bob's post last night and was preparing a revised version but did not have time to post here. Oda Mari, I will reply you after posting my revised version. I take Penwhale's and Bob's suggestions and revise the proposed edit as follows:

---

The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, and also known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese. These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 and holds a neutral stance on the dispute. The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.

References:

---

Oda Mari, I have given the reason at least 3 times above why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that "'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands. Penwhale, Bob, and benlisquare agreed on this change. When you cited zh-wiki page of "zh:釣魚台列嶼" (Diaoyutai Islands), you did not cite a correct version. There is a non/simplified/traditional version of Chinese conversion function key on the left top of the page, and you should choose the "不转换" (non-conversion) to see the very original version of this page. Under this non-conversion version, the lead sentence is "釣魚台列嶼，或称钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿，日本語稱爲「尖閣諸島[1]，琉球語稱為「魚釣諸島」（ユクン･クバジマ）[2]". And in the "命名(Naming)" section, it states "在官方文件中，該群島在中華民國稱作「釣魚臺列嶼」；中華人民共和國的官方新聞稿有時寫「釣魚島及其附屬島嶼」；在民間和傳媒中，「釣魚台」及「釣魚台群島」均可泛指整個釣魚台列嶼。「釣魚台」／「釣魚島」一詞既可以僅指主島，有時亦可全部群島。其中主島「釣魚島」在日本稱為「魚釣島」。" There is no naming fighting about the title/name in zh-wiki even the page title is used 釣魚台列嶼 but not 钓鱼岛群岛 or 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿. If your Chinese level good enough, we can have a discussion on the talk page of zh-wiki there. In zh-wiki, no one believes or can be misled that "Senkaku Islands 尖閣諸島" is the English name. But if you prefer, I can add such things with RSs in zh:釣魚台列嶼主權問題. Here again, "Diaoyutai" and "Diaoyu" are mandarin pronunciation of Chinese and the expression in English with minor morphological variation, no matter which one is used more in the mainland China or Taiwan.

Bob, I will wait for a reasonable time after this revised version posted. If there is no meaningful argument with related RS on this draft, I will check or consult with Magog the Ogre if I can finish the "D" of this start the "B" of next cycle of "BRD" (or as start the "B" of a new cycle?). Last time I indeliberately broke R→D and was reported by John Smith's and blocked by Magog the Ogre. I saw your question in Magog the Ogre's talk page and his answer, I trust him. --Lvhis (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) {{collapse top|title="Unhelpful off-topic content"}

Acknowledging Lvhis' diff here.

WP:VNT constrains us again to investigate, e.g.,

• 1. What is the quality of the sources used?

• 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?

• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?

• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

No, for example -- The so-called "Taiwan scholar" Han-yi Shaw is a too insubstantial for the argument Lvhis proposes -- see WP:Weight, e.g., Shaw, Han-yi at WorldCat/OCLC.

No, for example -- In this 2010 context my research introduced here and here, the misleading NILOS citation stands out as a WP:Red flag in the "new" framing" Lvhis contrives -- see WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Once again, a too familiar gambit falls apart when subjected to meaningful scrutiny.

QED ≠ Wikipedia:But it's true! --Tenmei (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I notice that you underline the word meaningful. A persistent opinion which is expressed succinctly by STSC here is meaningful, but not persuasive:

" ... the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute."

Do you perceive this as axiomatic? --Tenmei (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of the first part of Tenmei's post is that he thinks that particular scholar is unreliable. In this case, he has not provided any evidence. Without reliable evidence against the credibility of a particular source, such claims are meaningless and do not deserve to be paid attention to. As for the second part of Tenmei's post, it is incomprehensible to me. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. Tenmei, there are two RSs for that sentence. One is from the Taiwan scholar and one is from CNN. Again (I am almost tired to have to repeat this again, again, and again ...), the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name. and of course at the same time the Chinese names need to be mentioned. Tenmei's post is out of focus or topic. --Lvhis (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Expressed with specificity and simplicity, these are conventional issues in the evaluation of proposed changes:

• 1. What is the quality of the sources used?

• 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?

• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?

• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

Although expressed in the form of open-ended questions, these aspects of article credibility are not arbitrary. These issues are not diminished when you use the word "meaningless" as a derisive smokescreen -- compare WP:RS/AC + WP:SYNTH. --Tenmei (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be another set of incomprehensible text that resembles some sort of accusations. Unfortunately, no supporting arguments spotted. I will give Tenmei one last chance to clarify his position before ignoring him completely in this thread. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Mirroring the same sentence pattern here: These issues are not diminished when you use the word "incomprehensible" as a derisive smokescreen -- compare WP:RS/AC + WP:SYNTH. The conclusory comment of Bobthebish2 misconstrues and misallocates responsibility for what must be done next -- see WP:Burden --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)--Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction strategy

Mere contradiction as a strategy is deprecated at WP:DR; and it is inadequate in our specific context. A one sentence comment John Smith's added here in mid-October 2010 has proven to be prescient and on-point:

"It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the 'right' answer."

Summarizing the history of serial assaults on the status quo in threads on this active talk page and in archived talk pages:

OPINION: "... why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands." and "... the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name."
Credibility question	Answer	Analysis
Are unsourced assertions being used?	Yes
Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?	No
What is the consensus of scholars in the field ...?	Senkaku Islands is the commonly used English name.	Do cited sources reflect that consensus? Yes -- here and here
What is the quality of the sources used?		Bobthefish2 wrongly asserts: "Without reliable evidence against the credibility of a particular source, such claims are meaningless ...."

OPINION: " ... the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute."
Credibility question	Answer	Analysis
Are unsourced assertions being used?	Yes
Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?	No
What is the consensus of scholars in the field ...?	Senkaku Islands is the neutral English name.	Do cited sources reflect that consensus? Yes -- here and here
What is the quality of the sources used?		Phoenix7777 correctly asserts: WP:NPOV dispute = "simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient"

As a context, perhaps it will be helpful to revisit Bobthefish2's words here from December 2010:

"I still do not see a convincing argument coming from any party here that suggests "Senkaku Islands" must be the name to be used. The fact that it has been the status quo for 4 years isn't a good excuse."

Characteristically, this conclusory observation misconstrues and misallocates responsibility for what must be done next -- see WP:Burden --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I treat this post of Tenmei as a one irrelevant to the discussion above "Lead section" as nothing related to the draft. As for the claim he insists on that "'Senkaku Islands' is the commonly used English name", it has been discussed pretty well during the mediation. "'Diaoyu Islands' is the commonly used English name" too and is even slightly more used in English than "SI". Recently this topic was continued in the "SI" talk page . --Lvhis (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

• I took the liberty of collapsing this chunk of text. Tenmei was given 3 chances to clarify his position and support his arguments in a concise manner. Unfortunately, he chose not to listen. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis and Bobthefish2 -- No, mere contradiction as a strategy is deprecated at WP:DR.

No -- defending the credibility of our project and this article is not meaningless.

Lvhis devalues the serial, substantive diffs of John Smith's, Phoenix7777 and Oda Mari as not "meaningful" here. The derisive label is a variant of contradiction, and it remains only a label, a hollow word. It does not engender constructive engagement.

A steamroller in China -- used for road building in Peking, 1934

No -- disagreement is not incomprehensible.

Bobthefish2 denigrates my words as "incomprehensible" here; but this is only a descriptive word. It is only contradiction, not invalidation.

No -- careful reading and engagement is not irrelevant.

Lvhis dismisses my words as "irrelevant" here; but this too is only a knee-jerk reaction, indistinguishable from contradiction.

No. The steamroller-like pattern of diffs from Lvhis and Bobthefish2 do not augur well for a a process which identifies elements of consensus.

In contrast, the bibliographic reference sources cited at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute reflect the current consensus among published reliable sources.

Bottom line. Senkaku Islands is (a) the commonly used English name; and (b) the neutral English name -- see here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous

A one sentence comment John Smith's added here in mid-October 2010 deserves repeating:

"It's ridiculous to keep proposing name changes until people come up with the 'right' answer."

This does not need to be the problem it has become. The following show that John Smith's perceived the issues accurately:

A. " ... the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." -- STSC 12:12, 3 May 2011

B. "... why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands." -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011

C. "... the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011

These words deserve the emphasis this diff creates for them. --Tenmei (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• As Bob pointed out for more than one time, Tenmei your recent posts are really incomprehensible. However, to make the point very clear, please answer the questions below in a very straightforward manner:
  

1) Is the "Senkaku Islands" the Japanese name for these Islands? Just answer "Yes" or "No".

2) Is the "Pinnacle Islands" the real English name for these Islands? Just answer "Yes" or "No".

If your answer is "No" for both questions above, do provide direct RS. For the answer "Yes", I am giving one more RS written by a Japan scholar Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍), his book "Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations -Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands". I will add this RS in the proposed draft. If you answer "No" but cannot provide direct RS, your point is just an OR which wp cannot accept, and you may be assumed to intend to keep misleading the encyclopedia readers that the "'Senkaku Islands' is the English name". If you want to keep arguing for "SI is the commonly used English name", your argument shall have to direct to the SI talk page there, but is irrelevant to the discussion in the section "Lead section" here above, i.e. not meaningful. I think I have make the point very clear. --Lvhis (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis -- stop. I simply won't take the bait; but at the same time, I am not failing to acknowledge the tactics and strategy which are too familiar.

Bluntly, you are gaming the system, are you not?

I can do no better than to adopt the words of Qwyrxian as if they were my own. Your edit history compels me to acknowledge that

the problem is that any comments I make like this are useless ... and really, even if you could be blocked (say, if this went to ArbCom), you have nothing to lose, since you're not really interesting in actually editing Wikipedia, anyway.

Bottom line: I don't know what to do. My words are measured; and your escalating urgency draws attention to itself. --Tenmei (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Unryu Suganuma -- new article created. --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflated issues

The development of arguments and counterarguments at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and here in the mediation venue have conflated

(a) disputing what is the English-language common name for our articles about disputed islands in the East China Sea; and

(b) disputing what is a "neutral" name.

These are conceptually distinct subjects which must be parsed accordingly.

For example, "Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view ... [and] Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles" according to Wikipedia:Search engine test#Neutrality. --Tenmei (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation/synthesis

The misinformation/synthesis of Lvhis needs further discussion -- see here

• diff 01:05, 1 August 2011 Lvhis (68,363 bytes) (finished the "D" of a cycle of BRD.)
• diff 01:18, 1 August 2011 Lvhis m (68,360 bytes) (fix)

Changes in opening paragraph require rigorous scrutiny because of the purposeful "framing" which has been made explicit, e.g.,

A. " ... the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." -- STSC 12:12, 3 May 2011

B. "... why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands." -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011

C. "... the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011

For these reasons, the changes proposed by Lvhis are problematic. --Tenmei (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis's edits were reverted here -- see also here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis -- Let's re-visit an unanswered diff here. As you will recall, you have not responded to the issues and questions which are underscored anew by the revert just made.

Perhaps now would be a good time to answer a question which remains unaddressed for many months: Can you please explain where you don't see consensus for the current name? As you know, several previously uninvolved editors commented that the name as it stands is the correct English name.

Now would be a good time to acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented by other participants in our talk page threads. Please recognize the mild language and non-provocative tone in the diffs posted by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777; and I would hope you will reply in the same way.

Please remember that what we are looking for is not the "neutral" name, but the name which is most commonly used in English.

Your active engagement with specifics is needed. If not now, when ...? -- Tenmei 20:30, 24 May 2011

This old diff suggests that there is a recurring non-responsive pattern. Change is within your ability to control. --Tenmei (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Tenmei's reversion

Tenmei, your reversion was very non-constructive. Last time I asked you two straightforward questions but you was not able to answer them buy making such excuse "I don't know what to do." Now you reverted the version which has been undergone and sustained discussion in which questions and challenges had been discussed, answered, and clarified as shown in the section "Lead section". You complain that this version is with misinformation and synthesis (why did not you complain such before?). Now I list the two versions, one you reverted (let's call it version A), one you reverted to (version B), as below and compare them:

Version A :

The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, and known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese.[1][2][3] These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China[4] and the Republic of China (Taiwan).[5] The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 and holds a neutral stance on the dispute.[6] The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.

Version B :

The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, the Senkaku Islands, which are also known as the Diaoyu[1] or Diaoyutai Islands[citation needed]. These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China[2] and the Republic of China (Taiwan).[3] The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 and holds a neutral stance on the dispute.[4] The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.

So the only difference between version A and B is this part:

Version A:

..., known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, and known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese.[1][2][3] ...

Version B:

..., the Senkaku Islands, which are also known as the Diaoyu[1] or Diaoyutai Islands[citation needed]. ...

You disagree the version A with your so called reason "misinformation/synthesis". You must pinpoint which part and which word in version A is misinforming and made by synthesis. straightforward! --Lvhis (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for Tenmei (couldn't, if even I wanted to), but Version B is correct, so long as the article title(s) remain "Senkaku Islands (dispute)". Should that change in the future, then Version A will be correct. I don't know about synthesis, misinformation, or whatever, but it's just stylistically wrong. The title of the article is "Senkaku Islands dispute", so we don't need to phrase it as in A. Speaking of which...I suppose it's time for me to return to Talk:Senkaku Islands... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Stupid minor note: my last edit summary was incorrect; I meant that B is correct for now, just like the text says above. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am very.. very glad you have recovered from your stress. "Senkaku Islands dispute" is "Senkaku Islands dispute" and not "Senkaku Islands (dispute)". The difference is that this page should technically not be a sub-category of "Senkaku Islands" but rather a page that details a dispute - a dispute which we gave some arbitrary name to (?), in fact. As a result, the stylistic issues you raised are not applicable. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fun and all, but you're twisting words. Currently, the working name for the islands on Wikipedia is Senkaku Islands. That's why that's the name of the article, not the other way around. For example, if there were an article "List of islands in the East China Sea", you couldn't call it Diaoyu there (this issue comes up, for instance, when people try to change the name of the islands from "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" to "East Sea (Sea of Japan)" in articles like Japan-Korea disputes. Things come in their proper order; the order here is determining Wikipedia's name of the place first. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not very sure what you mean by "twisting words". Nobody said we have to rename the island names in "Sea of Japan" at the moment. Rather, we are simply talking about how to introduce these islands in a page about a dispute that we currently called the "Senkaku Island dispute". I am not very sure why you are having problems with the issue of "proper order". As far as I can see, introduced the Japanese name first followed by the Chinese names. Are you very certain that I am "twisting words"? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- In view of the reasoning expressed in your edit here, will you join me in asking Feezo to mediate the persisting disagreement we have about the harm you caused with your contributions at Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972? --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that I understand the premise Lvhis puts forward in this thread. And yes, I think I understand the crisp analysis offered by Qwyrxian. I do not reject either when I describe both as premature untimely.

The new emphasis on BRD causes us to focus first on a "strategic" mis-statement by Lvhis: "All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified." This short sentence shows that Lvhis understands that there are significant "questions and challenges" which stand in line before the ones which are now urged. For example, among the diffs which are inconsistent with Lvhis' strategic assertion include:

1. Oda Mari, I have given the reason at least 3 times above why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands. -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011
2. Tenmei's post is out of focus or topic. --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011
3. I treat this post of Tenmei as a one irrelevant to the discussion above "Lead section" as nothing related to the draft .... --Lvhis 19:44, 30 July 2011

To be very very clear: Questions and challenges raised from other editors are

• not answered
• not clarified

I am willing to wait patiently in line behind John Smith's, Phoenix7777 and Oda Mari. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to appear cooperative, let me just point out that WP:Synthesis + WP:RS are on point in explaining the mismatch between the two columns below:

"A" FACTOIDS

• "... why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands." -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011
• "... the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011
• "... gaming BRD cycle to prevent revision of the lead section, and intending to misleading readers the "SI" is the English name." -- Lvhis 22:36, 1 August 2011

"B" SOURCES

1. Shaw, Han-yi. (1999). "The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC, and Japan," Contemporary Asian Studies.
2. Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands," CNN World.
3. Suganuma, Unryu. (2001). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, pp. 89-92.
4. Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS). (2000). International Organizations and the Law of the Sea, pp. 107-108.
5. Lee, Seokwoo et al. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, Taiwan and China concerning the Senkaku Islands, pp. 11-12.
6. Finney, John W. "Senate Endorses Okinawa Treaty; Votes 84 to 6 for Island's Return to Japan," New York Times. November 11, 1971.

Our conventional editing practices deprecate "synthesis." The extraordinary claims in "A" above are not supported by the list in "B" above. --Tenmei (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that according to WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, extra caution is reasonable in specific instances, including:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions

This was explicitly referenced here in advance of the revert. --Tenmei (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tenmei, for your comments of this one and the above one at 16:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC), regarding finishing the "D" of last cycle of BRD and current disagreemnt, just remind you to pay proper respect to admin Magog the Ogre, who is also a witness of the discusion here. --Lvhis (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Discussion between Q and L

Qwyrxian, welcome back. Regarding your comments above, despite that you said "I'm not speaking for Tenmei", effectively you were. Sorry I don't think you have given enough specific justifications to support Tenmei's reverting version A back to version B. Let us start the questions that Tenmei was not able to answer in straightforward manner:

1) Is the "Senkaku Islands" the Japanese name for these Islands? "Yes" or "No"?

2) Is the "Pinnacle Islands" the real English name for these Islands? "Yes" or "No"?

3) Which part and which word (need to pinpoint) in version A is misinforming and made by synthesis?

For question 3) we can leave it to Tenmei. Please answer the 1) and 2), then we can go next step to clarify further. I hope we can calmly discuss this as we did there "Talk:Senkaku Islands#Pinnacle neutral?". Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, you know that my stance has always been that "Senkaku Islands" is the real English name for the islands (probably, almost certainly, but not 100% sure; it definitely was the English name 20 years ago, there's a small chance that in the last few years the name has changed, that's what we're trying to decide in DR), and that "尖閣諸島" is the name in Japanese (which is usually transliterated to "Senkaku-shotou" or "Senkaku-rettou"). So I guess my answer to questions 1 & 2 is "No". I didn't say that version A is synthesis (that was Tenmei's words, and, I believe, wrong); I did say that the current English name in Wikipedia is "Senkaku Islands", though, as always, y'all are hoping and arguing that will change (and may actually prevail...who can say for sure before the final RfC and/or Arbcom?). So long as we're saying SI is the name, then that's how it should be represented in each sentence, not just in the article titles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tenmei, I don't care what you said in a pile of words but only care whether you have answered those questions in straightforward manner. If you cannot answer, you fail. Also, now I want to discuss with Qwyrxian calmly first. Qwyrxian, I will reply you tomorrow, now it is too late. --Lvhis (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Qwyrxian, I knew your stance saying that "Senkaku Islands" was the English name, but after the unsuccessful mediation and our unfinished calm discussion in that "Pinnacle neutral?" section I thought you might changed a little bit. It was a sort of something beyond my expectation that you answered "No" for questions 1) and 2). Maybe something out-of-topic has made you change back. Okay, now as I asked for Tenmei before (see here), please provide direct RS for your answering "No" to "'Senkaku Islands' is the Japanese name for these Islands" and "'Pinnacle Islands' is the real English name for these Islands", or for your "Yes" to "'Senkaku Islands' is the real English name for the Islands". I think you understand that I emphasized "direct" here. You are also very clear that Wikipedia cannot accept "OR". For answering "Yes" to the two questions mentioned, the RSs in version A gave direct sources and support, that one was from a Taiwan scholar, one was from a Japanese scholar Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍) (you checked his book when you input your comment or question there a week ago), and one was from CNN that was firstly provided by Penwhale. Regardless that the part of the Japanese name "shotou 諸島" or "rettou 列島" has been translated into "islands", the whole name is still the Japanese name expressed as in English form or Romanized form, same as the part of Chinese name "qundao 群島" or "lieyu 列嶼" has been translated into "islands" for the Chinese name "Diaoyutai Islands". (BTW, Version A has RSs which Version B is lack. When Tenmei reverted Version A back to Version B containing [citation needed], he was very gross in deleting RSs for such reversion. His such reversion can be called, using a word he uses quite often, "anti-wikipedia". Version A was also a sort of consensus after discussions). Back to here, I am waiting for your RS, and then we will go next step. --Lvhis (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change because the mediation never came to any conclusion, despite your repeated claims of proving every single point of your own and disproving all of mine. As I said over on Talk:Senkaku Islands, I think mediation proved 1) DI may have a small advantage, currently, in some Google searches, but 2) Google searches are extremely flawed and provide almost now valuable information, and 3) I'm not certain that the parameters chosen for those searches represented fair treatment of the matter. I still hold, as I always have, that the encyclopedia and almanac evidence is far stronger, and that major non-Japanese/PRC/ROC governments use the term SI. I hold that what we need to do is try to see if major news publications have a "style guide"; i.e., if, for example, CNN always uses SI, or Time magazine always uses DI/SI, or The Guardian always mentions both in long detailed prose. In other words, I still see the weight of evidence favoring SI, though I admit that there is more work to be done to see if there is other, contrary evidence, particularly from news sources (I mean, I would prefer scholarly sources, but I don't have the necessary access to actually read the journal articles, so there's not much I can do on that end). I'm hoping that, once everybody is satisfied that they have gathered enough evidence, and gotten their arguments into a good shape, that we can hold an RfC and be done with this. I expect it will be several weeks to months before we're all ready for that, though. Meanwhile, until such time as the name changes, the sentence must be written with respect to Wikipedia's current choice of name. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A friendly reminder (that you will pretend not to hear): It was shown that catalogue searches in Library of Congress, WorldCat, Google Scholar, HathiTrust, and JSTOR all favoured "our" side. Since most of them were all about scholarly articles and published materials, dismissing that as some "Google searches" is quite grossly misleading... especially when you and others had very enthusiastically supported these searches (up until they no longer supported "your side") and they were the basis of the current article name's legitimacy. I'll leave the rest to Lvhis. :-p --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you have mixed up or confused two different questions or issues here: one is "which name is/was from which language", and another is "which name is more commonly used in English". For the later one, we know there is no any RS directly to tell which name is more commonly used in English, and we have discussed what way and what search method, search engine, and so on even involving statistical analysis in certain extent should be used. Bob responded some above and he also made some arguments against your points in SI talk page. But this one "which name is more commonly used in English" is nothing to do with the Version A vs Version B and the two questions I asked then you answered. To answer "which name is from which language" does nothing with "your stance" and "my stance". It can only get from direct Reliable Sources. No matter what stance you take for these Islands dispute and wiki page naming dispute, a name from that language is from that language, and there are a big amount of Reliable Sources telling this in a clear cut and straightforward manner. "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name, and the real English name for the Islands is "Pinnacle Islands". This is not "my stance" but the clear cut naming historical knowledge unanimously described and recorded in many, many RSs. Here I give you one more RS from another Japanese writer in addition to Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍), Kimie Hara (原貴美恵, now living in Canada), her book "Cold War frontiers in the Asia-Pacific: divided territories in the San Francisco system", page 51. Let me re-list the RSs for such text that "For these Islands, 'Senkaku Islands' is the Japanese name, 'Diaoyu' or 'Diaoyutai Islands' is the Chinese name, 'Pinnacle Islands' is the real English name":

1. Shaw, Han-yi (1999). Contemporary Asian Studies, No 3 (ed.). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC, and Japan. Baltimore, USA: School of Law, University of Maryland. ISBN 0-925153-67-2. (On page 10) ... a chain of tiny islets commonly known today to the Chinese as the Diayutai (or simply Diaoyu) Islands 釣魚台列嶼, and Senkaku Islands 尖閣列島 to the Japanese.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)

2. Ogura, Junko (10-14-2010). "Japanese party urges Google to drop Chinese name for disputed islands". CNN World. US. CNN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

3.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. 89–92. ISBN 978-0824821593. {{cite book}}: Invalid |nopp=318 (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)

4. 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.

When you say "No" for these, you need to provide Reliable Sources to support what you said, but not your "stance". If you use what you mentioned in your comment above to explain why you say "No" for these, it becomes your Original Research. Before you make a conclusion or judgement on the names involving naming history on these disputed islands, you need to do your homework better on this (a week ago you were even not clear which one came first, Senkaku, or Pinnacle?). If it is difficult for you to admit your such Original Research mistake, you can choose to keep silence. BTW, you did not change, so I just overestimated. --Lvhis (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you still have quesions on Version A, again, you need to provide Reliable Sources to argue. May I clarify one thing here: Version A is not "Lvhis' version" any more because it was an outcome of the discussion participated by several editors including John Smith's, Bobthefish2, Chaosdruid, Benlisquare, Penwhale, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari, and me of course. I had waited for a reasonable time for objection. When no objection input and I got positive approve confirmation from Magog, I then implemented this version A to the page. So this is sort of consensus of discussion, not my own version any more. You said this version was "Pro-Chinese", wrong! In this version, it still begins with "The Senkaku Islands Dispute" with bold format, and followed by the Japanese name first, and by the Chinese name second, and not mentioned the English name "Pinnacle Islands" at all. If your "neutral" standard is actually toward "Pro-Japanese", you will interpret any real neutral one as "Pro-Chinese" or "Pro-Whatever non Japanese". Please do not use Tenmei's BRD violation version as a reference, that is an extremely biased one. --Lvhis (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse top|title="Collapse to keep continuity of the discussion above with the section 'On Version A & B' below"}}

---

Lvhis -- Aha. I see.

A. Your reasoning here is consistent with a pattern of related arguments across a span of months. Your tactic is a variant bait and switch. The function and meaning of the edit which was reverted is explained by you in broad, "comprehensive" terms, i.e.,

• "... why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands." -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011
• "... the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011
• "... gaming BRD cycle to prevent revision of the lead section, and intending to misleading readers the "SI" is the English name." -- Lvhis 22:36, 1 August 2011

B. After the revert here responded to the premise you yourself had so clearly articulated, the switch to a different and narrowed topic ensued. The broad, "comprehensive" terms of analysis are ipse dixit derogated, marginalized, labeled "off topic".

C. This pattern mirrors the obstinate lack of interest in the issues raised by John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and others. Again and again, they each posted diffs with a narrow focus based on the perceived premises of a specific thread; and then the switch to a different and broader topic was introduced as a method of dissipating the potential consensus-building impact. This pattern in recent edit history is summarized in a "strategic" mis-statement by Lvhis. At a minimum, this short sentence shows that Lvhis understands that there are significant "questions and challenges" which stand in line before the ones which are now urged.

"All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified."

D. Yes -- the questions posed in this thread do have answers which are already developed and these were factors which informed the revert, but the bait and switch environment affects our ability to engage or investigate any of it, e.g,

1. No, not yet -- "... the RSs in version A gave direct sources and support, that one was from a Taiwan scholar, one was from a Japanese scholar Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍) ...."
2. No, not yet -- "... the Japanese name "shotou 諸島" or "rettou 列島" has been translated into "islands", the whole name is still the Japanese name expressed as in English form or Romanized form, same as the part of Chinese name "qundao 群島" or "lieyu 列嶼" has been translated into "islands" for the Chinese name "Diaoyutai Islands".
3. No -- "... Version A has RSs which Version B is lack. When Tenmei reverted Version A back to Version B containing [citation needed], he was very gross in deleting RSs for such reversion."
4. No -- "His such reversion can be called, using a word he uses quite often, 'anti-wikipedia'."
5. No -- "Version A was also a sort of consensus after discussions."

E. After the unanswered diffs of John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and others are given their due, perhaps we will have worked out a way to address these matters in a step-by-step, constructive, forward-focused process. --Tenmei (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

---

A Chinese scholar's rock may be instructive.

Lvhis -- -- I learned a new phrase -- "obstinate lack of interest." Across the span of months, parts of your editing strategy have been revealed, including "obstinate lack of interest". Your sentences here illustrate this narrowed focus:

"Tenmei, I don't care what you said in a pile of words but only care whether you have answered those questions in straightforward manner. If you cannot answer, you fail."

Responding to substantive issues, I do not fail. Acknowledging and setting aside the truculence, WP:V + WP:RS do not fail, have not failed, cannot fail, will not fail.

A. Each of the three questions is an examples of a trick question.

B. As a rhetorical construct, the only practical response is to reject these questions because of their form. Rather than trying to clarify using my own words, this problem is explained briefly in wiki-written prose which I copied using cut-and-paste:

Complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question which has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer. The presupposition is called "complex" because it is

• a conjunctive proposition,
• a disjunctive proposition, or
• a conditional proposition.

A complex or "trick" question could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.

C. In this thread, the pivotal issues are made explicit in Lvhis' own words. These words create a context for the revert.

• "... why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands." -- Lvhis 18:34, 29 July 2011
• "... the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." --Lvhis 05:11, 30 July 2011

D. The revert was informed by core policy, including WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

E. Senkaku Islands is the most commonly used English name for this geographic feature in the East China Sea

The edit history which pre-dates this thread is part of the context for the revert here

• Archive 1: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
• Archive 2: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, hre, and here
• Archive 3: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
• Archive 4: here and here,
• Archive 5: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
• Archive 6: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here,
• Archive 7: here

F. There are significant issues which are not addressed. I continue to be willing to wait patiently until after the diffs of John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and others are given their due. --Tenmei (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Section Break

Um, so, can someone explain to me (as I'm utterly lost) as to why Version B (version without the Kanji/Chinese Characters for Senkaku/Diaoyu) is preferred at the moment? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Some one showed preferring Version B by blatant Original Research, ignoring that Version A had got consensus as supported by RSs and NPOV. --Lvhis (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't Original Research, like I've told you. We'll take it up at WP:NORN later. But I will not hold this discussion while Arbitration is going on. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

On Version A & B

Starting this up again per discussion on User Talk:Lvhis; I'm responding here to the comment that Lvhis made on August 4 which said, in part, ""Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name, and the real English name for the Islands is "Pinnacle Islands"." This is the part I still disagree with, but I think it's because you're misunderstanding what I mean by "real English name". The "real name" of something is the name that is currently used for that thing, not the name that was originally used. For example, the "real English name" of New York City is, in fact, "New York City", despite the fact that the original English name was "New Amsterdam". Similarly, the "real name" of Mumbai is "Mumbai", not "Bombay", even though as late as the mid 1950s the official English name was "Bombay". So, when I said earlier that the real English name of the islands is "Senkaku Islands", that's what I meant--the current, regularly used name is "Senkaku Islands". Probably--there's still a possibility that either there 1) is no regularly used English name, or 2) the regular English name is something like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". So, for me, the correct phrasing of your version would be "known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese and English, and known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese." Alternatively, since we don't agree on what the "real" English name "is", we could say, "known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese, and by various names in English, including the romanized version of the Chinese and Japanese names as well as several different combinations of them." That's awkward, but perhaps clearer. If We (e.g., Big We--the Wikipedia Community) should ever agree on what the common name is (via the theoretically upcoming RfC, God willing), then we would adjust the article to match the consensus name. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Lvhis:Please clarify the definition of "English name". And "Chinese name" and "Japanese name" too. Oda Mari (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, you are not able to provide RSs to support your OR that "'SI' is the real English name". You gave two improper analogies here, "New York City" and "Mumbai". Can you please answer whether there ever have been name disputes linked to territory disputes in history on your these two "analogies"? It is not good having a habit preferring using analogies to using RS directly when there are RSs. I can only say the possible reason is that unfortunately the RSs here are against your opinion. This is question 1 for you. Question 2: for these disputed Islands, that what is the "English name", Chinese name", and "Japanese name" for them can be easily found out from RSs including the RSs I listed in Version A, plus the one by Kimie Hara (原貴美恵), two from Japanese authors. This is not "misunderstanding" by me at all. @Oda Mari, you can find clarification you need from these RSs too. Question 3 for Qwyrxian: your definition "real English name" is still "the name is more commonly used in English no matter originated from what non-English-language", fearing to face RSs as I mentioned in Question 2. The big problem for you here is you cannot prove that the Japanese name is more commonly used in English. After all, Wikipedia is the place to provide readers knowledge with reliable sources per its policies and guidelines "WP:SOURCE", "WP:NOR", and "WP:NPOV". Why do you try to hide the content supported by balanced sources? Misleading readers? --Lvhis (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Lvhis: You are the one who started to say "Senkaku is not an English name". It's your duty to clarify the word when asked the definition. If you don't/can't, your argument would be groundless and probably a POV pushing. Oda Mari (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure Lvhis will provide a satisfactory argument, so you don't need to be all so impatient about it. At the same time, I really like your post, I shall remember to quote it when the opportunity arises in the future. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Oda Mari, I gave you the RSs already. Okay, gave you more specifically here. Japanese author Unryu Suganuma (菅沼雲龍) described starting at page 93 through page 96 in his book:

"The Kuroiwa's Survey and the Naming Senkaku Retto. Where did the Japanese get the name Senkaku Retto, used to identify the disputed islands today? The Japanese began to call the islands Senkaky Gundao at the end of nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries (i.e. Yoshiwara's article and the Japanese navy record in 1886). ... The name Senkaku Retto originated with Kuroiwa Hisashi, an instructor at the Okinawa Normal School ... in 1900. ... ... In short, Japanese knowledge of the Diaoyu Islands during the Meiji Era relied on sources from British naval record in 1884, the name Senkaku Retto or Senkaku Gundao was translated into the Japanese language from the English name 'Pinnacle Islands' or 'Pinnacle Group'. Later, when Kuroiwa visited the Diaoyu Islands in 1900, he named them Senkaku Retto, which identified the Diaoyu as a whole. Moreover, the first official document recording the name Senkaku Retto was by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nihon Gaiko Monjo ..., which was published in 1950s."

And at page 95 Suganma listed a table (Table 5) showing "The Identification of the Diaoyu Islands from various historical documents" including the names of the Chinese, English, and Japanese for each island of the Islands. (OMG, cost me so much time to type in). Another Japanses author Kimie Hara (原貴美恵) wrote at page 51 in her book:

"The Islands disputed between Japan and China, called 'Senkaku' in Japanese and 'Diaoyu' in Chinese, are also called the Pinnacle Islands in English."

These two RSs are just two of many RSs. So, it is very clear that the real and only English name is the "Pinnacle Islands", and the "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name. If you argue against this and say the "Senkaku Islands" is the English name, that it is your turn and duty to clarify your argument. "If you don't/can't, your argument would be groundless" and definitely an original research and POV pushing. --Lvhis (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, you're trying to indirectly argue the "name of the islands" issue here. Currently, the best consensus we have had is that the English name of the articles is Senkaku Islands. That was the result of the RfC had back in November. I accept that that RfC is (still) disputed, and that new evidence may alter some people's opinion, thus necessitating further dispute resolution. However, until such time a new RfC occurs (which, if you've been following the discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands, you know is going to be some time due to criticisms of the last RfC), the consensus is as stated. If the consensus changes to find that there is no common name, then your new version will make sense. Until that time, your new version is an implicit undermining of consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the dispute over the name/title of the wiki pages including this one in question has not been resolved yet. The main discussion is still ongoing in the main page there. Version A here is not dealing with that at all, neither directly nor indirectly. You are oversensitive and overreactive, or some problem else, and have distracted the discussion. Although the name/title is still disputable, the content of the wiki page shall be no doubt kept according to wiki's policies at least WP:SOURCE" and "WP:NOR. Please review "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". For the name/title of the wiki pages, you can put something based on the consensus (which can be changed depending on new or updated dispute) from a group of Wikipedians such as the participators of RfC. But for the content, in wiki, it is not allowable to keep what is from original thought or researches, no matter that is from one wikipedian or from a group of wikipedians. The bottom line is: the content of wiki page needs RSs support. As for Version A, we do not need to care about the current page name/title, we just need to care about if the content of Version A supported by balanced RSs. The answer here is "Yes, it is". If you can find any RS saying "'Senkaku Islands' is the English name", then we need to balance among these RSs and decided how to express the opinions from the opposite sources. But now the issue is very simple: you can only find RSs clearly saying "'Senkaku Islands' is the Japanese name for these Islands" or like. No RS or no direct RS saying "'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" can be found. I have given the RSs, now it is you onus to provide RS, direct RS, to support what you want to express in the content. You have failed to do so. So your argument is groundless, is your original thought or research, and POV pushing. If you feel Version A fully supported by RSs agitates your ground for your argument for the current name/title, that is your problem, but not this version's or wiki policies problem. The last words for this reply is: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. --Lvhis (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I can produce hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, books, etc., in English, that use the term "Senkaku Islands", and only Senkaku Islands, to describe this place. You know that--I just put up some in my analysis of Guardian news articles on Talk:Senkaku Islands. This clearly means that they consider that to be the "English Name"--i.e., the name used in English writing. If an article says, "called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China", that implies that they don't know what the English name is (this is, as far as I know, the primary basis of the whole argument to move the title). But if they write, "Conflict broke out at the Senkaku Islands yesterday..." and never mention any other names, that means that they consider that the English name. Just like if a source says, "Numerous protests were held in Beijing yesterday", that means that the source considers the English name of 北京 to be "Beijing", not "Bejing" or "Peking" or "Northern Capital". Use of a word without any qualifications ("Called ___ by the X-ese"; "referred to as ____ by some"; "sometimes called ____"; etc.) means that that is the English name. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I didn't ask you the origin of the name Senkaku. I didn't ask you why Senkaku was not an English name. Sorry if my question was vague. I'd like to know the general definition of Chinese names"/"English names"/"Japanese names" ( in geography). What is an en/ja/zh name and what is not? How about Liancourt Rocks? Is it an English name or not? What about Iwo jima and Bonin Islands? What about translated names like People's Republic of China and Sea of Japan? What about 日本 in China/zh? The characters are the same, but the pronunciation is different. Is it a Chinese name or a Japanese name? I think now you understand what I wanted to know. Please give me the answers. Oda Mari (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian and @Oda Mari, please explain what is the Romanized non-English names or Asian characters?? Check Romanization of Japanese. Following Qwyrxian's logic, "Diaoyu Islands" is also the English name!? Don't deliberately mess up the concept here. Both of you explain word by word what Kimie Hara (原貴美恵) wrote at page 51 in her book:

"The Islands disputed between Japan and China, called 'Senkaku' in Japanese and 'Diaoyu' in Chinese, are also called the Pinnacle Islands in English."

As for version A, actually expressed as "known as ... in ...". It is even less disputable. Wait, Tenmei made several edits there, I need to check. --Lvhis (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

@Lvhis, The reason I asked you the definition was your concept of the word "English name" seemed to be different from mine. I just want to know the definition clearly for the further talk. You cited a book by Kimie Hara, it can be RS when dealing with the dispute, but not when dealing with English usage as she is not a native en speaker nor a linguist. Is it correct that you think the name SI is not an English name as "Senkaku" is the romanaized ja word? If so, Tokyo is not an English name, is it? How about Los Angeles and Las Vegas? They are Spanish. The ja name of the islands is 尖閣諸島, not Senkaku Islands, and SI is the English name. Of course I think "Diaoyu Islands" is also an English name. Usually non-en proper nouns, namely geographical names in this talk, are not translated except common words like Sea, Mt., River, etc. They are just transliterated. Don't misunderstand that I deny the Pinnacle islands. Yes, the name was used in British naval record in 1884, but it is a nearly-obsolete, uncommon en name as the UK nautical chart use Senkaku today. I ask you again, what is the definition of "English names"? Oda Mari (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation-supported introduction paragraphs

This section was re-positioned as a constructive response to the collapsing edit of Lvhis here. {{collapse top|title="Collapse due to this discussion with its edits interrupted another ongoing discussion"}}

These introductory paragraphs may cause comments. --Tenmei (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns conflicting claims about territorial sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands at the Pacific edge of the East China Sea. or the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台群島)

The Japanese government identifies these islands as an integral part of Japan; but the islands are also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The PRC and ROC have a shared historical past, with similar sovereignty claims and brief official statements. The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 when they reverted to Japan. The US maintains an neutral stance on the issues of the dispute. The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences. Some of the complications in the dispute are related to a disjunction between pre-existing Chinese conceptions of control and the modern, Western legal systems which were adopted by the Japanese in the late 19th century.
_________

Yeah, I just reverted that. That's even more "Pro-Japanese" than Lvhis's version is "Pro-Chinese". I can list out the details if you need, but, really, isn't it obvious? I mean, just look at the first sentence of paragraph 2: it's obviously unbalanced to set "an integral part of Japan" alongside "also claimed by both PRC and ROC". There's other problems, but that's the one that jumps out at me and hits me in the face; no one reading that would think that it was written by anyone other than a supporter of the Japanese position

How about we all try a new plan: no one makes any major changes without getting consensus first? I know, that's not an actual requirement of editing, but it can sometimes be recommended practice in a highly controversial article. Both sides have to know that the other side will be sensitive to even the slightest hint of bias, so it seems like some restraint and discussion before big moves would improve the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- Your opinion needs to be expressed in different words. Please be specific by identifying any phrase or sentence you perceive as problematic; and then explain why your revert is reasonable and justified.

1. The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns conflicting sovereignty claims about a group of uninhabited islands at the Pacific edge of the East China Sea.
2. The Senkaku Islands are also identified as "Diaoyu Dao Island (釣魚島) and all the islands appertaining thereto" or the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台群島).
3. The Japanese government identifies these islands as an integral part of Japan; but the islands are also claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan).
4. The United States occupied the islands from 1945 to 1972 when they reverted to Japan.
5. The US maintains an neutral stance on the issues of the dispute.
6. The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.

Qwyrxian -- please review the explicit short excerpt quotes which underscore the credibility of carefully crafted sentences you have reverted. Please be specific; and then explain why you reverted each inline citation.

• Inline citation 1, PRC government position -- verified by PRC Foreign Ministry: Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS). (2000). International Organizations and the Law of the Sea, p. 107; excerpt, "The Diayou Island and all the islands appertaining thereto have been part of China's territory since ancient times, which has been justified by historical facts and international law."
• Inline citation 2, ROC government position -- verified by Government Information Office, Republic of China (ROC): "Ma Ying-jeou: Beijing’s Senkaku Claim isn’t Taipei’s Claim," China news Agency (ROC). July 22, 2011
• Inline citation 3, Japan government position -- verified by Japanese Foreign Ministry: NILOS, p. 108 at Google Books; excerpt, "In view of the history of the Senkaku Islands and in light of the relevant principles of international law, there is no question that the islands are an integral part of the territory of Japan, and that Japan has always been exercising effective control over them. It is thus the position of the Government of Japan that no question of territorial title should arise with respect to those islands."

Qwyrxian -- your revert is not "obvious," nor is the diff which fails to justify your decision-making. One sentence is especially surprising:

"I mean, just look at the first sentence of paragraph 2: it's obviously unbalanced to set 'an integral part of Japan' alongside 'also claimed by both PRC and ROC'."

Your use of the word "unbalanced" needs explaining. Please clarify what you mean by the phrase "obviously unbalanced." --Tenmei (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave one example, let's start with that. It is unbalanced to put one sides claim in terms of a claim of being an "integral part" while the other side's claim is described as just a claim. That is POV, as it implies something fundamentally different about the two sets of claims. After we address this point I will move on to more. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. This is a non-issue because these words which are explicitly supported by the short excerpt which has been explicitly cited. The sentence is not complex. It is subject + predicate only:

CLAUSE:"The Japanese government identifies these islands as an integral part of Japan ..."

INLINE CITE -- verified by Japanese Foreign Ministry: NILOS, p. 108 at Google Books; excerpt, "In view of the history of the Senkaku Islands and in light of the relevant principles of international law, there is no question that the islands are an integral part of the territory of Japan, and that Japan has always been exercising effective control over them. It is thus the position of the Government of Japan that no question of territorial title should arise with respect to those islands."

The only difference between MOFA language and the posted clause is the word "territory", which I deleted because MOFA asserts "no question of territorial title shall arise." In sum, this sentence is accurately reflecting what you can read for yourself in the NILOS text which is cited.

If anyone is troubled by another part of what I wrote, that is independent of this clause.

I have guesses and theories about your over-reaction; but they can wait for another day.

Is there another question or comment? --Tenmei (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Why won't you learn that just because something is verified doesn't mean it automatically goes in articles? You've been here a long time, Tenmei. In these pages alone, and I'm sure in other places, you have been told very clearly that just because a statement is verified does not guarantee it a place in an article; that's because WP:V is only one of our many many policies. Specifically, that sentence violates WP:NPOV, and comes close to being too-close paraphrasing. We don't just copy the exact words of a source. Instead, we take the underlying information, summarize it, extract it, and put it into coherent, neutral sentences. Obviously, if you were quoting the Japanese claim in the body of the article you would use their exact words. In the lead, our job is not to provide such quotes, but, rather, provide a neutral overview. I feel kind-of silly to have to keep repeating the word "neutral(ity)". As always, I am happy to take this specific question to the relevant noticeboard (here, WP:NPOVN); I'd also love the input of other editors. Am I really blowing that phrase out of proportion, or is it as obviously POV as I think it is? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- you struggle with a fundamental error, a misconception, a mistake. In the diff above, for example,

Invalid analysis

• No -- "... that sentence violates WP:NPOV"
• No -- "... [the sentence] comes close to being too-close paraphrasing."

Axiomatic

• "We don't just copy the exact words of a source. Instead, we take the underlying information, summarize it, extract it, and put it into coherent, neutral sentences."

One of the required elements of this article is a sentence which explains that "an integral part of Japan" is a concept used by the Japanese government to describe the Senkaku Islands. --Tenmei (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then put that in a quotation, and put it in the body of the article. It can't go in the lead lined up against the Chinese claim in those words. In other words, what I'm saying isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong, but that it's wrong when placed directly next to the simpler way you phrased the PRC/ROC claims. That parallelism implies some sort of difference in the quality of the claims (for one side, it's an integral part, for the other side, it's just territory); that implication is what we must avoid. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha, yes?

1. What you're saying "isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong," but that your precipitous revert was over-reaching.
2. What you're saying "isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong," but that your precipitous revert was "really blowing that phrase out of proportion."
3. What you're saying "isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong," but that your precipitous revert was throwing the baby out with the bath water.

In other words -- in your words

• No -- "... that sentence does not violates WP:NPOV"
• No -- "... [the sentence] does not comes close to being too-close paraphrasing."

Qwyrxian -- Please review the first of the explicit short excerpts which underscore the credibility of paragraphs you have undone. This stands on its own. Your complaints do not.

• Inline citation 1, PRC government position -- verified by PRC Foreign Ministry: Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS). (2000). International Organizations and the Law of the Sea, p. 107; excerpt, "The Diayou Island and all the islands appertaining thereto have been part of China's territory since ancient times, which has been justified by historical facts and international law."

Qwyrxian -- who's kidding who? Your sole contribution consists of personal opinions and whims. Where are the citation-supported sentences you yourself have added to Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute?

Now would be a good time to self-revert.

Now would be a good time to restore the good work you have undone; and then you can feel free to re-write every other sentence except the one which you highlighted as the urgent reason for your rash action. ...Or perhaps we could try work together? --Tenmei (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested draft addition highlighted in yellow in the box below and in the initial draft in a box at the top of this thread. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• To be added after Sentence #3 at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph:

The PRC and ROC have a shared historical past, with similar sovereignty claims and brief official statements.

Inline citation? -- Shaw, Han-yi. (1999). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC, and Japan, p. 41 (PDF 43 of 150); excerpt, "The brevity of official statements of the PRC and ROC, however, has compelled numerous Chines and Japanese scholars to supplement them by presenting more detailed accounts of historical evidence either mentioned in official statements, or those that may been left out or discovered later ... [and] scholarly works have proliferated ...."</ref>

• To be added after Sentence #6 at end of 2nd paragraph:
  

Some of the complications in the dispute are related to a disjunction between pre-existing Chinese conceptions of control and the modern, Western legal systems which were adopted by the Japanese in the late 19th century.

Inline citation? -- Deans, Phil. (2000). "Review of Han-yi Shaw 'The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and an Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the PRC, ROC and Japan'," The China Quarterly (UK), 163, p. 858; excerpt, " ... would like to see Shaw develop his argument about the complications related to the encounter between pre-existing Chinese conceptions of control and the modern, Western legal systems that the Japanese pursued in the late 19th century."</ref>

Qwyrxian -- I was persuaded by the reasoning of Kanguole here at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC; and I adopt the words as if they were my own:

We should not be campaigning to change common usage, or be more "correct" than our sources.

To the extent that you are campaigning, if you are -- please stop. If you propose to make Wikipedia or this article more "correct" than our sources, please stop.--Tenmei (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of not nitpicking, I have no concern with your change other than the one specific sentence I've already mentioned. However, I also don't see your version as any better than the one currently there; using the phrase "conflicting sovereignty claims" versus saying "territorial dispute" seems to mean roughly same thing and to be less accessible to the average reader. Remember, we're not trying to show off our smart phrasing, but instead are trying to make something that the typical reader can understand (especially in the lead). As for the other two sentence you highlight in yellow above? No. They make almost no sense to someone without immense background in geo-political language, and they're only one/two people's opinion on what the disputes are about. I'd be willing to be that the vast vast majority of people, including both the governments and the academics, actually think that the dispute is about what it appears to be on the surface (ownership of a group of islands along with associated resource rights), and/or a matter of national pride (especially in light of the legacy of early 20th century Japanese imperialism and the continuing (over)reaction to those historical events). However, I have no problem including Han-yi's theory somewhere in the body of the article as one particular academic analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian -- Okay, now that your concern is addressed -- problem solved -- please self-revert. Please restore those sentences and inline citation which were too quickly removed.

If not now, when? --Tenmei (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

Flow-chart showing BRD process

Restoring

A.Qwyrxian's concerns appear to be distilled in one sentence: "I have no concern with your change other than the one specific sentence I've already mentioned." I construe this to mean that the time is ripe for restoring the two sentences of the first paragraph. In this two-sentence context, Qwyrxian's unsupported opinion about the word "sovereignty" is acknowledged. An additional inline citation clarifies any questions about this term by showing its use in an official statement from the PRC Foreign Ministry. --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

B. Any perceived imbalance which Qwyrxian identified in the second paragraph has been addressed with the addition of a few words. These edit changes are supported by inline citations which incorporate hyperlinks and brief text excerpts. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

C. The citation support for US neutrality is enhanced by a hyperlink to Congressional Research Service Report 96-798 and a brief 2011 restatement by the US Secretary of State. --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The investment of time and research which are demonstrated by this thread become meaningless because of this quick edit:

• diff . . Senkaku Islands dispute‎; 05:02 . . (-3,445) . . STSC (talk | contribs) (rv POV edit.)

Nothing can be said to point to any specific sentence or phrase or citation which is challenged. This is a knee-jerk reaction. I don't know what to make of the enigmatic edit summary? "rv POV edit"?

What are we to make of this "obstinate lack of interest in our collaborative editing processes? One line of reasoning has been repeated too often --

" ... the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." -- STSC 12:12, 3 May 2011

Who's kidding who? --Tenmei (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I've protected the article indefinitely. FYI, I would have blocked Tenmei for the recent edits which reinstated a few controversial phrases due to running afoul of BRD, but the article is protected, so it's too late. I'm not going to do a block now because it would be purely punitive, and it would get overturned by the other administrators anyway.

@Tenmei: I have no bias against you, nor any bias against in-depth research. However, it's important to remember that everybody thinks their edits are well enough researched and nobody can fathom how anyone else could possibly think their editrs aren't pro-Wikipedia/pro-truth. There is no point in arguing this; if you cannot see my reasoning, Tenmei, you will probably not ever see it (I don't say this to be rude, I say this from experience trying and because I don't want to get into a long discussion explaining a block I've never actually laid down). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Editorial sources

Here is a newspaper editorial which could be used to help source information about Japan's position in the dispute once the article is opened for editing. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, although China has claimed the islands for some time, it first used the phrase "indisputable sovereignty" to refer to its claim to the Senkakus in an official announcement in February 2009 (source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China | "China Makes Solemn Representations With Japan on the Issue of Diaoyu Islands" | 11 February 2009 | CPP20090212038001). Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding A & B

Since it's been so long, let me ask for clarification: Lvhis, is this the version you want to go back to? That's the version with the opening sentence that says, "The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, and known as the Diaoyu Islands (钓鱼岛群岛) or Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) in Chinese." If that is your preferred version, I personally no longer care enough to object, though I cannot speak for other participants. Re-reading it now that more time has passed and everything is a bit more calm, I see the rationale for it. I'm not totally certain that I agree 100% with the wording, but it doesn't seem so bad. Depending on what happens with whatever form of dispute resolution we finally get going on the main article regarding the overall name, we may want to revisit this in the future, but for now I don't mind the change. So, is there consensus for this change, beyond Lvhis and I (and, Lvhis, did I spot the right edit?)? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis's proposed wording is an improvement, but we could do even better for neutrality and faithfulness to sources (without changing the status quo regarding the titles). Although it is common, it is not set in stone that an article with a descriptive title must begin its lead with its exact title, especially in this case when the title is so contentious. If Lvhis's version intends to address the misconception that "Senkaku Islands" is the more common or correct English name than "Diaoyu Islands", then xyr intent is undermined by having the first words in the article be "The Senkaku Islands dispute concerns a territorial dispute on a group of uninhabited islands, known as x in Japanese and x in Chinese...", instead of something like "A territorial dispute concerns Japan and China about the islands called x in Japanese and x in Chinese...". There are strict conventions and technical limitations limiting the change of titles, which we haven't seemed to solve yet, but the lead seems to be flexible enough for this further remedy. Apologies if this has been fully explored before; the archives are a nightmare to read, mostly because of Tenmei's formatting, but that shouldn't be a problem now: link me to that discussion if it has. Quigley (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The current intro wording seems fine to me, but it needs to be expanded to briefly summarize the positions of each of the three governments which claim the islands. Cla68 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Quigley's question, per WP:BEGINNING, which is the part of the WP:MOS talking about the first sentence, the relevant points are "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[2] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text" and "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.[3] Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text." I would oppose any attempt to remove the phrase "Senkaku Islands dispute" from the lead sentence until such time as the article title is changed. This is actually part of why I've warmed up to Lvhis's version, now that I look back on it in a better frame of mind--it says the name of the dispute, defines it, then gives the Japanese name and the Chinese name. But taking out "Senkaku Islands dispute" would be, to my mind, an attempt to make an end run around whatever process we're using to decide on the article title. Of course, if we end up picking a different name via RfC or whatever, then I would certainly support changing the leads to match the new name. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think no modification is necessary because this article is about a "territorial dispute" not a "naming dispute". The detail of the namings are described in the main article Senkaku Islands. No duplication of the description is necessary. If we discuss the wording of the lead, we should discuss at Talk:Senkaku Islands. In that case, I propose the following wording;

The Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島, Senkaku Shotō, variants: Senkaku-guntō and Senkaku-rettō), also known as the Diaoyu Islands (Chinese: 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿; pinyin: Diàoyúdǎo) in PRC or Diaoyutai Islands (Chinese: 釣魚台群島; pinyin: Diàoyútái Qúndǎo) in ROC or the Pinnacle Islands, are a group of disputed uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.

with the following references;

• "China is involved in a territorial dispute with Japan and Taiwan over the sovereignty of islands known in China as the Diaoyu, in Taiwan as the Diaoyutai, and in Japan as the Senkakus."[10]
• "the Senkaku islands, a group of five islets and three barren rocks that lie between Taiwan and the Japanese island of Okinawa known as the Pinnacle Islands in English, Diaoyu Islands to the Chinese and Diaoyutai to the Taiwanese."[11]
• "China calls them the Diaoyu Islands, Taiwan calls them the Diaoyutai, and Japan calls them the Senkaku Islands."[12]
• "The PRC uses Diaoyudao (Diaoyu means “fishing”; dao means “island”), and Taiwan uses Diaoyutai."[13]
• "In mainland China, the islets are usually referred to as the Diaoyu Islands. As this article is about the movement organized by Chinese students from Taiwan, it uses “Diaoyutai Islands, which is the name better known in Taiwan."[14]
• "There is a three-way claim involving China, Taiwan and Japan over the Senkaku Islands (known in Chinese as either Tiaoyu Tao or Tiao-yu-tai) and hence a conflict of claims over the adjacent shelf (see Map 3.3)."[15]
• "Japan, China and Taiwan are involved in a three-way territorial dispute over the Senkaku group, which is said to be rich in under-sea oil resources."[16]
• "Such jingoistic spats as those between Japan and South Korea over Toktu island in the mid-1990s and the ongoing three-way quarrel involving Japan, Taiwan, and China over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands are only the most visible incidents."[17]
• "Presumably, these are for Taiwan, the on-going three-way dispute over the Senkaku Group and Spratly Archipelago."[18]

Also Taiwan is not in line with PRC in regard to the dispute. See: No collaboration with China on Diaoyutais: Ma, President Ma distances Taiwan from China on Tiaoyutai dispute and Ma seeks business cooperation with Japan. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in response, quite busy recently.

• @Qwyrxian, I am glad to see that you are positively improved towards that version (you quoted correctly) after calmly re-reading it. I will modify a little bit with which I only add more RS. I hope we will start a new "era" in collaborative edit and discussion after this Arbitration.
• @Quigley, thank you for your encouragement. The previous discussion regarding the version before Tenmei reverted is here. This version or "Version A" is mainly presenting readers more clear information that the dispute over these islands even starts from different naming, than previous version (or current one called Version B) which was quite vague that is not good for an encyclopedia. As the naming issue may be the most difficult one to reach consensus, we can put it aside for the time being and discuss it more detail in the main page. Although the open words of this "Version A" is with the current title, it will be changeable if finally the name in the main page is agreed to change, based on what Qwyrxian quoted WP:BEGINNING of the WP:MOS.
• The "Version A" sustained from previous discussion which Phoenix7777 also participated in. As the leading section, it did not change the sentence existed before describing that "These disputed islands are currently controlled and administered by Japan, and claimed by both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan)". Regarding the names in Chinese language, we have discussed more than one or two times before. Regarding the stance from the mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) towards these islands, based on RSs, they have same points such as shared historic viewpoints, and they have some difference as you raised above. You can put these into corresponding section "Arguments from PRC and ROC" where you can elaborate more while the lead section cannot do too detail.
• The current version or "Version B" has ^{[citation needed]} tag there, we definitely need to change or do something on it. @Cla68, I hope you can understand and agree with me.

Therefore, I will boldly edit back to the Version A with very minor modification. This can be as a new base with which we can continue to improve it with our discussion. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for your own benefit, you probably shouldn't: both Phoenix7777 and Cla68 don't seem to like that version. Under discretionary sanctions, as far as I understand, any time there's objections its best to take things slowly. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the Lvhis's edit. There is clearly no consensus reached as Qwyrxian raised a concern. Under the discretionary sanctions Lvhis should be careful in editing this article, otherwise sanctions will be imposed on him. See WP:AC/DS#For editors.

As I said above, there is no need to reiterate the names in this article about "dispute". Please see Spratly Islands / Spratly Islands dispute, Liancourt Rocks / Liancourt Rocks dispute, and Kuril Islands / Kuril Islands dispute. None of these articles about "dispute" reiterate the names of the islands. Lvhis is trying to promote the non-real-world naming dispute by adding it to the real-world territorial dispute article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I found I made an overestimation again. Qwyrxian, if you are really sincere in no objection of the "Version A", you would be better to sit aside after making your comment than inducing objection from others. I have been cautious as commented above. This version is not a brand new edit, it got consensus before. Okay, I will be more cautious. I have explained and gave some suggestions towards Phoenix7777 and Cla68. @Phoenix7777, please explain more detail what is "non-real-world naming dispute" which I added to "the real-world territorial dispute article"? Almost every fragment of the sentence improved in that version came out with RSs. I hope after the Arbitration, we can go real "BRD" instead of "BREA". Your revert itself was also no consensus base. I am afraid that we may just get stuck on the current vague version with [cn] tag if going "BREA". --Lvhis (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, you need to answer my question asked above in that you did that reversion. --Lvhis (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, I know sometimes you don't think so, but I was trying to be helpful, and I certainly wasn't inducing an objection from others At least 2 other editors objected before I ever made my comment, thus more discussion was warranted. Now that we are under discretionary sanctions, if there are clear objections or alternative proposals, we all really have to keep working at the issue. That's all I was trying to say. To be honest, Phoenix7777's version also looks okay to me. Is there any sort of compromise possible here? A joint wording? A third wording that has the feelings of both? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis, please note that we don't need consensus to revert a "no consensus" edit. Onus is on you to gain consensus. If you add the text again without consensus, you will be banned like STSC.

I already explained why Lvhis's edit is unnecessary. Please re-read my two posts above. It is not a common practice to reiterate native names and alternative names in an article (Senkaku Islands dispute) which have a link to the name of the article (Senkaku Islands). This is based on the basic idea that it is unnecessary to reiterate the content of a linked article too much. MOS:CHINA#Insertion of Chinese characters prohibits to reiterate even Chinese characters or romanization of a linked article like "Li Shimin (李世民)" saying "If the reader wishes to find out about the native text, he or she can simply click on the link". This can also be reworded as "If the reader wishes to find out about the native text or alternative names, he or she can simply click on the link" because the native name and alternative names are assured to be included in the linked article per WP:UEIA.

Again, it is ridiculous to insist to repeat the sentence described in the linked article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, whether some user will be banned or not is not decided by you, that is decided by uninvolved admin. A behavior of BREA can also risk a similar consequence. Your explanation is nothing new, as I mentioned above on 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC) "we have discussed more than one or two times before". The key point is that you fear to face the fact supported by RSs that "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name for these islands. It is you who "is trying to promote the non-real-world naming dispute by adding it to the real-world territorial dispute article". I will give some more detail later. --Lvhis (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)