This talk page is for discussion of the Senkaku Islands article; any discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands should be taken to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you for your cooperation.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
A news item involving Senkaku Islands was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 June 2008.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 08:00, December 15, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
The same type of problem that exists on the Senkaku Islands dispute page also exists here. The China Coast Guard was mentioned in the lead section of this article despite not being mentioned in the source quoted. From these examples, I infer that this page too may have other problematic areas and I recommend that the article be thoroughly reviewed and checked by multiple experts at the earliest possible date, including the edits I made. I am not an expert in the specifics of this dispute, but the fact that I have seemingly discovered several major problems after a brief glance at the articles is not a good sign. Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion, which is over two years old is not a proper move request. If someone thinks that this worth further discussion, then they should create a properly formatted move request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They are administered by Japan, thus it goes with the name they formally call it. If they choose one day to call it Pinnacle going forward, that's what this article be titled too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Washuotaku Please give a reliable third party source to prove that this is under Japanese control, as far as I can find now source to, it seems that neither Japan nor China has a military presence on it.---WMLO (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:維基百科最忠誠的反對者 Here is an article from the BBC that states they are owned by Japan and gives details as to why China is now trying to claim the islands. And unlike the South China Sea, China has not tried to invade the islands because it would trigger a war with the United States. Right or wrong, at this time its administration is Japan; you don't need people on the ground to control the reality. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Washuotaku Thank you very much for your reply. However, I should point out that the original BBC article referred to "The islands are controlled by Japan" and not "they are owned by Japan" as you said.Forgive me for chewing on these words, but their use may affect whether or not the principle of "naming principles" can be applied.In view of the disputed sovereignty of these islands, I am of the opinion that Wikipedia, in order to maintain its neutrality, should first use what most sources refer to as "Pinnacle Islands". The relevant cases also have articles with names like Liancourt Rocks.---WMLO (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:維基百科最忠誠的反對者 I completely disagree with you. These islands are not in dispute, they are owned by the Japanese with only the Japanese visiting the islands because if China did it would be a military confrontation. I have stated my reasoning and provided facts, I will not continue this debate; please find other editors that support your opinion, have a nice day! --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Washuotaku" I completely disagree with you."; I can only express regret about this.
"These islands are not in dispute"; not realy, both (or all three) parties have presented evidence to prove that sovereignty belongs to them, and this entry also describes the dispute over sovereignty over these islands.
"they are owned by the Japanese with only the Japanese visiting the islands because if China did it would be a military confrontation "“I have stated my reasoning and provided facts”；What you describe is the opinion of a BBC newspaper and is not factual, It's like wondering which day the Chinese and Japanese fishing boats will meet around the coast and have a barbecue party on this island- but that is speculation, not fact. You can add the BBC's opinion to the article rather than asserting it.
I wish you a good day too, and you are welcome to participate in the discussion afterwards if a series of consensus points to a change of name to "Pinnacle Islands".——WMLO (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support:for this name change：@User:DaysonZhang:If you search for "Senkaku Islands" in Google there are 600,000 search results.and if you search for "Pinnacle Islands" there are 12,900,000 results.Based on your reasoning, this page should be renamed to "Pinnacle Islands".---WMLO (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia Thank you for participating in the discussion. But with all due respect, this is also just an Eassy. And the number of Google hits mentioned in the article is only an argument as to whether its entry should be a deletion；Not to mention that the article also mentions
"The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed. As well, numerous hits that refer to X as "Y" can demonstrate that "Y" is a plausible redirect to the article on X; the redirects for discussion process, unlike articles for deletion, will often hinge on matters such as plausibility and numbers of search engine results.”
- simply put, if my search for Google ""Pinnacle Islands"" yields a higher number of results than "Senkaku Islands" this also proves that the term is used more frequently in the online world than "Senkaku Islands" i.e. in line with "Wp:UCRN ".——WMLO (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“keep at current title, which is most commonly used in reliable sources”；Not realy.and ithink ,if a media outlet refers to these islands as "Senkaku Islands" without also mentioning other names (such as "Diaoyu Islands"), it does not meet our criteria for a "reliable source". --At least he must not be neutral and objective.——WMLO (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The actual control of the islands cannot be used as the basis for naming. "Senkaku" itself is a transliteration of the Japanese translation of the English word "Pinnacle." The English name "Pinnacle Islands" is the original name of the islands. Please see the Liancourt Rocks and Mount Everest. There is no reason to use a transliteration in another language when the original English name is available. Mosowai (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The words "Japanese-administered" right at the top is redundant and awkwardly placed, considering that the circumstances behind this island and its history is already mentioned within the same lead section. I also don't think such wording is used for other islands, whether its disputed or not. This addition also seems to be relatively recent, being added just a month ago. 220.83.10.138 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A browse through the Talk archives would enlighten why it says "Japanese-administered" first and foremost; there is no "standard" wiki write-up for islands. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very hard for people to reach agreement on these topics. Different counties have their own view of these topics. And most of them can only be completely solved by war. Wikipedia should have any bias on these topics. So, I would suggest following solution to this problem:
1. multi-versioning of the same thing: for disputed topic, we should have multiple versions from different perspective. This is beneficial for people to learn different ideas. It can be implemented similar to github.com/git or just copy the HTML.
2. No-default pages/random version selection: this is the main technical change to the website. If we have multi-version of the same topic, we can randomly select one version to present to the user. In this way, there will be no default version thus no bias to both sides. For example, we should prepare both Sekaku Islands and Diaoyu Islands versions, and we toss a fair coin when user enters this webpage to decide which name to present. Each page will get a 50% chance to be presented. And we also allow to manually select after the user enters the topic webpage.
I hope Wikipedia can carefully consider this suggestion and if you are interested, please give me some pointer on the actual code/development directions. Ureal (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a stupid idea and pointless. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it presents the mainstream perspective on any given topic, and notes any disputes without giving any position undue weight. Why would having two different versions that are decided between by coin toss be useful? If its presented by coin toss, how is it beneficial for people to learn different ideas if they only see one perspective on an issue? Also, there haven't been serious disputes about the Senkaku Islands on Wikipedia for years, the permanent semi-protection seems to do the trick. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, let me address some of your comments:
1. "The whole point of Wikipedia is that it presents the mainstream perspective on any given topic and notes any disputes without giving any position undue weight." It is clearly there do exists some topics that have totally different views, so "mainstream" can be undefined. In this example, the Chinese view is highly under-represented, and I think it need some rework. (The number of people agree with "Diaoyu Island" should be at least 1 billion, so it shouldn't be considered as "not mainstream")
2. "If its presented by coin toss, how is it beneficial for people to learn different ideas if they only see one perspective on an issue?" First, we will allow user to select different pages after he enters this topic, second, he can refresh the browser to see different pages. Wikipedia should stay neutral on these topics, and the whole point of random selection is staying neutral. Check out Wikipedia:Five_pillars. For this topic, I think it only present the Japanese's view in the header section, Chinese's view is highly under-presented in the header section.
3. "Also, there haven't been serious disputes about the Senkaku Islands on Wikipedia for years, the permanent semi-protection seems to do the trick" semi-protection is a way to avoid the problem, not a great way of solving it. It is clear that the number of Chinese users using Wikipedia "with a good account" is not large enough, and actually the total number of people care these islands are not large enough, that's why we don't have any edits in recent years. Locking a page will destroy the neutral position of Wikipedia. This topic clearly biased to Japanese position; Wikipedia shouldn't do it. Ureal (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the article names of these small disputed and historically uninhabited islands, I think there is some confusion as to whether Wikipedia should be following WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NPOV. I think this inconsistency is unsustainable, given the amount of passion that exists around these territorial disputes. Westwind273 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Diaoyu Islands really any more neutral from an international perspective? Ultimately, Japan controls the islands, so imo its easiest to stick with the current name. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Japan administers the islands is the reason their name is on the article. If that changes in the future, then the name on the article will change to reflect that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, according to you if we should use the name used by which ever country administers the island, how about we start with renaming the Paracel islands to Xisha islands. Since you have suggested that we should name islands according to which country administers the island, you can start renaming all the articles of disputed territories to the name used by the countries administering them.
I agree Senkaku is not neutral, and seems to give connotations that these islands belong to Japan, when this is actually a disputed territory. This should be renamed to something more neutral regardless if it being occupied by Japan or not. 62.30.14.17 (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Japan administers the islands is not in dispute. As for disputed territory, that exists all over the world, but there is typically someone that administers it regardless; it is exceptionally rare when there is disputed territory and nobody administers it, like the Bir Tawil. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not only because the actual rulers of the islands, a more important reason is that "Senkaku Islands" has long been the common name for these islands in the English-speaking world, well before China first made its sovereignty claim over them in 1971. In fact, the Chinese government itself officially referred to them as the Senkaku Islands prior to the 1970s. Symantec2000 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 