Talk:Senkaku Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Senkaku Islands article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
Senkaku Islands is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Requesting a move

According to WP:NPOV, I am in full support that this article should be moved to Pinnacle Islands. NPOV outweighs other policies by a large margin and Senkaku doesn't seem to be more commonly used than Diaoyu. Senkaku has 135,000 hits and Diaoyu has 107,000 hits. Considering the decisions made in the move to Liancourt Rocks, we must stay consistent with a neutral english word for this article as well. I am requesting comments and opinions on proposing a move. Good friend100 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing I should open a poll. Good friend100 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting someone to provide WP:RS to show how well 'Pinnacle as a neutral English name' is accepted. --Kusunose 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Just pointing out that this move issue was previously discussed, above. --BrokenSphere 04:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another, but there hasn't been much of a response to the issues various editosr have brought up or much response providing any evidence that Pinnacle Islands is a modern, widely accepted name (encyclopedias, newspapers, government sources, all seem very scarce or non-existent). Google is not a tool for this; Google counts are for resolving if one local governing power has two names for something. --Cheers, Komdori 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, but there hasn't been much of a respone to the issues various editors have brought up or much respone providing any evidence that Liancourt Rocks is a modern, widely accepted name!
Regardless of what your viewpoint is at Liancourt Rocks, I want to comment again that NPOV should be the main deciding factor for the title of the article. Husond's decision to move Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks was almost entirely based on the NPOV policy. Liancourt Rocks is not the most commonly used name, unfortunately.
That is why Pinnacle should be used. You and LactoseTI both emphasize the "english word" and NPOV in Wikipedia, so I believe that Pinnacle should be used.
Google is not a tool for this? Stop making excuses. You and LactoseTI were both heavily engaged in discussion about google searches and google books, etc. Saying that "google counts for resolving if one local governing power has two names" is a really poor response on your part. How can that make sense?
"One local governing power"? Tell me then, why you are insisting that Japan administers Liancourt Rocks? Also, South Korea has two names for Liancourt Rocks? I'm sure the KPOV is obvious in full support for the word "Dokdo".
Wikipedia suggests that google searches be used to make a rough estimate to find if one word is more commonly used than another and thats what I'm doing. I find your comment to simply be an excuse for a result you don't like. Good friend100 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed where I said, "encyclopedias, newspapers, government sources," which are not scarce for the other article, which has little or nothing to do with this one. I might add that the google controversy there was to determine if we should use the widely accepted global name instead of one of the two local names (since they were about the same in terms of usage). --Cheers, Komdori 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just open a poll. Kingj123 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how people's word changes. Dokdo and Senkaku Islands are obviously not being treated the same. I'm sure this article will NOT move to Pinnacle Islands because of all the pro-Japanese people here. So unfair...--165.244.20.220 02:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how Dokdo and Senkaku Islands are treated differently. Kingj123 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
They are treated the same, by the same rules, but since the situations are significantly unique (there are a host of unanswered issues raised above), the outcome is not necessarily the same. Suggesting that the situations are identical reflects a lack of understanding of them. While it is possible this title should move as well, these issues should be addressed first. —LactoseTIT 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost nothing is identical. The two cases are VERY similar though. But treated differently.

Thats right Lactose, they are treated the same, but unlike you said, we don't care what China or Japan thinks of the issue. How is the situation so different besides the fact that Japan is poking China instead of Korea? None! At least none that affects any of the decisions we make here.

Stop talking like this is a special case and instead of the ambiguity, throw out these "unanswered issues" that are so problematic. Good friend100 10:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the strangest discusions I have seen on Wikipedia in a while. Senkaku may not be entirely neutrality according to some people and I understand their position to some extent but there is simply no reasonable alternative available that could be used as an article title. The Chinese name is absolutely not an option as the islands are, despite the dispute, clearly under Japanese control at the present. The so-called English name Pinnacle Islands are not and were not ever established as a commonly used name for the islands in English-speaking references - at least nobody has provided any evidence of this. Using Pinnacle Islands would not be very different from simply inventing a "neutral name" for the islands. That would be a horrible precedent for Wikipedia. The Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks article is somewhat different in that the name Liancourt Rocks was/is commonly used to refer to the those islets by English sources, the US military for example. Pinnacle Islands was never as established and doesn't seem to be used today at all today. Inventing a "new name" for these islands just to make a point about the Dokdo article while hiding behind POV arguments is silly. For lack of a decent alternative, Senkaku Islands is the best option for this article. --84.153.52.205 10:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
why not name it Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands since it is still under dispute? Japaneses control is still questionable. Akinkhoo 16:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

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


[edit] Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] survey

[edit] Oppose move

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

[edit] Support move

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

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

[edit] Moved content from article

I moved the following lines to the talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Pinnacle - Senkaku equivalence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Move survey reboot

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

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

[edit] Notes

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

[edit] Support

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

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Discussion

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

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

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

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

[edit] WP:3RR and edit warring

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

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

[edit] Alphabetial Order

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

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

[edit] Enough of Korean's absurd complaint about alphabetical order

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

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