| Revision as of 21:14, 11 October 2010 editNihonjoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Template editors124,624 edits notice regarding topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:57, 11 October 2010 edit undoQwyrxian (talk | contribs)57,186 edits →Merge: comment on both split and new section on nameNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| I prefer a completely new article under the neutral title 'the Pinnacle Islands dispute' with a new structure; and it should break free from hijacking by the pro-Japanese editors as seen in the original article. ] (]) 19:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | I prefer a completely new article under the neutral title 'the Pinnacle Islands dispute' with a new structure; and it should break free from hijacking by the pro-Japanese editors as seen in the original article. ] (]) 19:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :This split is fairly common, including for other issues in this area. See, for example, ] and ], or, for a naming dispute, see ] and ]. | |||
| :As for the title, I do think it's about time we had a discussion about the title of both articles. First, I think it's very clear that both have to have the same name--anything else flies in the face of common sense. As for which title it should have... ] (]) 23:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Title of this article== | |||
| Personally, I think both articles should continue to use the name "Senkaku Island". Just as a quick search, Google News pulls up over 1000 hits on "Senkaku Islands," including Japanese, U.S., and international sites. On a number of the non-Japanese sites, the name Senkaku is even used without any mention of the other 2 names "Pinnacle Islands" finds only 32 hits, only 3 of which appear to be about these islands and all of which list Pinnacle Islands after the Japanese and Chinese names. Now, searches like that are only a starting point, but the fact that the results are so lopsided is a good indication of a starting point. The next question would be which name is commonly used in international reference books, like other encyclopedias, academic journals (if their are any), and atlases/maps. | |||
| The only reason I can see to change the name would be if a large proportion of the international, English sources regularly used both names, and especially if they used them with a slash between them. In that case, we could say that since the English name is widely held to be disputed, but for Misplaced Pages we have to choose one name, we'll use the less common but neutral "Pinnacle Islands" name. | |||
Revision as of 23:57, 11 October 2010
 | This talk page is only for discussion of the dispute over ownership of the islands; any discussion of the islands—outside of material directly relating to the dispute—should be discussed at Talk:Senkaku Islands. Thank you for your cooperation. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | 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. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Senkaku Islands was copied or moved into Senkaku Islands dispute with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Pinnacle Islands
A discussion thread about changing the name from Senkaku Islands to Pinnacle Islands reached no consensus at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Requested move. The name change was suggested in hopes of mitigating aspects of the long-standing territorial dispute, but other points of view were also persuasively presented. --Tenmei (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge
This article is seemingly intended to be a split of Senkaku islands rather than a new article. The original article doesn't seem to be long enough but anyway, please use a proper way to discuss a split. --Winstonlighter (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yes, this is intended as a sub-article of Senkaku Islands — addressing issues relating to the territorial dispute in detail while leaving the main article to develop in a non-controversial context.
- This stub was explicitly created as a constructive response to Nihonjoe's comment here at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan#Senkaku Islands Content Split/Removal and in the context of Talk:Senkaku Islands#Discussion Regarding Content Split/Removal.
- In corollary discussion threads, DXDanl suggested something promising. One phrase particularly deserves emphasis. The words imply a neutral tactic which can be adapted for use in other disputes which have not yet arisen:
- "... help readers better understand what information is being disputed and what is not."
- IMO, DXDanl identifies a step in a constructive direction; and I responded by posting this headnote hyperlink in the territorial dispute section of the article.
- Main article: Senkaku Islands dispute
- Something constructive can be achieved by refining the focus of attention. This article "jump-starts" a process of parsing conflated issues. :In addition, I see that this tactic has been used at Liancourt Rocks dispute and Spratly Islands dispute.
- In language Winstonlighter used here, this article is merited as a plausible tactic to diffuse "nationalistic-driven warring" and to avert some of the harm caused by discussion threads which only "end up in a dead loop." --Tenmei (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'll get to this by Friday if no one else starts moving contents before then. I'm just working long hours this week, hence few edits. So far more people have concurred to the split; see WikiProject Japan's Talk Page, WikiProject China's Talk Page, and WikiProject Taiwan's Talk Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DXDanl (talk • contribs) 08:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the disputed sections and the undisputed sections of the original wiki item (diaoyu/senkaku as a geographic location) needs to be separated within the item, so that reader can more easily identify the facts related to the item. but i do not think that necessarily means that a separate new item should be created, such that none of the information remain in the original item. San9663 (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer a completely new article under the neutral title 'the Pinnacle Islands dispute' with a new structure; and it should break free from hijacking by the pro-Japanese editors as seen in the original article. STSC (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- This split is fairly common, including for other issues in this area. See, for example, Liancourt Rocks and Liancourt Rocks dispute, or, for a naming dispute, see Sea of Japan and Sea of Japan naming dispute.
- As for the title, I do think it's about time we had a discussion about the title of both articles. First, I think it's very clear that both have to have the same name--anything else flies in the face of common sense. As for which title it should have... Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Title of this article
Personally, I think both articles should continue to use the name "Senkaku Island". Just as a quick search, Google News pulls up over 1000 hits on "Senkaku Islands," including Japanese, U.S., and international sites. On a number of the non-Japanese sites, the name Senkaku is even used without any mention of the other 2 names "Pinnacle Islands" finds only 32 hits, only 3 of which appear to be about these islands and all of which list Pinnacle Islands after the Japanese and Chinese names. Now, searches like that are only a starting point, but the fact that the results are so lopsided is a good indication of a starting point. The next question would be which name is commonly used in international reference books, like other encyclopedias, academic journals (if their are any), and atlases/maps.
The only reason I can see to change the name would be if a large proportion of the international, English sources regularly used both names, and especially if they used them with a slash between them. In that case, we could say that since the English name is widely held to be disputed, but for Misplaced Pages we have to choose one name, we'll use the less common but neutral "Pinnacle Islands" name.
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Japan-related articles
- Low-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- Start-Class Taiwan articles
- High-importance Taiwan articles
- WikiProject Taiwan articles
- Start-Class China-related articles
- High-importance China-related articles
- Start-Class China-related articles of High-importance
- WikiProject China articles