User talk:Qwyrxian/SI RFC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lvhis' modified version[edit]

What should the title of this article be?[edit]

rfc template goes here This article is about a group of islands in the East China Sea, whose ownership is disputed internationally even reflected in its naming. The Chinese name for the islands is 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿, which is transliterated in a variety of ways, mainly including Diaoyu and Diaoyutai. The Japanese name for the islands is 尖閣諸島, which is transliterated as Senakaku (Senakaku Shotō, and rarely as Senkaku-guntō or Senkaku-rettō). English sources use a variety of names, though the most common are Senkaku Islands, Diayou Islands of Diaoyutai Islands. The pure English name is Pinnacle Islands, although far less frequently used than any of the previously mentioned three names. The question is, do any of the names meet the requirements for a "common name" in English and the NPOV policy? And, if not, what name should Wikipedia choose? Previous discussions, which have included RfC's, discussions on noticeboards, formal mediation, and an arbitration proceedings, have failed to settle the issue, though most participants have argued for either "Senkaku Islands", "Diaoyutai Islands", "Pinnacle Islands" or a joint name like "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands". The relevant policies are listed below; in addition, the two "sides" will present their arguments in favor of the current name or an alternative name.

Policies and guidelines[edit]

Arguments from involved editors[edit]

Arguments in favor of "Senkaku Islands" (Japanese name)
Put argument here.
Arguments in favor of "Diaoyu (or Diaoyutai) Islands" (Chinese name)
Put argument here.
Arguments in favor of a name other than any single local name (Japanese or Chinese)
Put argument here.

Comments and discussion[edit]

Commenting on each of Lvhis's modifactions[edit]

  • delinking East China Sea: I agree.
  • "whose ownership is disputed internationally": you know that's not Japan's position; more importantly, it makes a connection that you know (or should know) I'm going to argue is absolutely irrelevant: that is, the fact that there is a territorial dispute about these islands has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with our inability on Wikipedia do agree on a name.
  • "mainly including Diaoyu and Diaoyutai": agree with the underlying idea, though grammatically it's awkward to use both "mainly" and "including". How about changing the sentence to read, "in a variety of ways, with the main ones being Diaoyu and Diaoyutai"?
  • "as Senkaku (Senkaku Shoto...)": that change doesn't make sense; the transliteration of those Kanji has to include a second "word" in English, as "Senkaku" is only the pronunciation for the first 2 characters. Thus, it is incorrect to say one transliterated as Senkaku alone.
  • "Senkaku Islands, Diayou Islands of Diaoyutai Islands": I assume you meant "or" instead of "of", right? If so, it the change is fine.
  • "pure English": absolutely not, and you know that. You know that this is a point of disagreement. You know that I always have argued that the "pure English" name is Senkaku Islands. You, of course, may argue against that position in your argument section, but you may not make the question clearly favor your side.
  • "although far less frequently used than any of the previously mentioned three names": This change is fine (my "factor of five" part was not necessary).
  • "a "common name" in English and the NPOV policy?". No on the NPOV part. Again, you can argue which policies you think are important in your section. No pre-loading the question by implying one policy is more important than the others. However, I can understand why my "common name" part may also be pre-loading the question. Perhaps a neutral phrasing could be, "The question is, per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which of these names, if any, is the correct name for this and associated articles (Senkaku Islands dispute and 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident)?
  • adding "Diaoyutai Islands" to the list of previously argued for names: Seems fine.
  • Parenthetical additions to the argument subsection: I'm trying to AGF, but are you kidding me? Once again: putting those there is a pre-supposition that "Senkaku Islands" is not the English name. When, as you well know, my whole argument is that it is the English name. As always, go ahead and argue that SI is just the Japanese name. But my argument is fundamentally based upon the point that an analysis of sources shows that, on average (though not always), the commonly used name in English is Senkaku Islands, thus the "English name" is, primarily, Senkaku Islands. If I thought that Senkaku Islands was "just" the Japanese name, I wouldn't be arguing in favor of it.

Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Qwyrxian's comments[edit]

Firstly thank you for your comments.

  1. East China Sea: Not delinking in purpose. It can be linked again. Minor issue.
    1. I'll relink. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "whose ownership is disputed internationally": I am not repeating to cite many reliable sources I listed when Oda Mari challenged this in similar way. This should sound very basic: even for this wp page/article itself it has been categoried as "Disputed islands". You yourself stated in similar way in last RfC [1]. This is one of the basic and essential background or fact to be introduced to the community. You can argue this is "nothing" to do on naming issue for your point. I and others may argue in different way.
    1. Alright, not worth arguing over. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. However, I'm going to leave off the "even reflected in its naming" part because that's just grammatically wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "mainly including Diaoyu and Diaoyutai": to avoid using both "mainly" and "including", how about just simply removing the "including"? The sentence will be read as: "... in a variety of ways, mainly Diaoyu and Diaoyutai"?
    1. Fine compromise, will change. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Minor note--when I went to edit that into the article, I realized it was grammatically a problem to tack on "mainly", so I put it paranthetically (which should be kay since it's the same way the Senkaku sentence reads). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "as Senkaku (Senkaku Shoto...)": this change is for corresponding to Diaoyu/Diaoyutai. If doing "Senkaku Shoto" way, that will be "Diaoyu Dao Qundo" or "Diayutai Lieyu" as its counterparts. Many reliable sources doing this way "Diaoyu (or Diaoyutai)" vs "Senkaku". Hope you understand the similarity between the Chinese Characters and the Japanese Kanji, and their Romanized way adapted for English usage.
    1. Ah, I misunderstood how the Chinese reads. Then your version on those names is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Senkaku Islands, Diayou Islands of Diaoyutai Islands": Yes, you are right. That is a typo. It should be "or". Thanks for agreeing on this change.
    1. Will change. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "pure English": It should be read as "pure English name". It is absolutely correct. However, to avoid arguing now at here, how about this way: "Pinnacle Islands, a name independently originated from English language, ..."? We need to give this very essential background of this name to the community as of "Diaoyu" and of "Senkaku".
    1. No. Absolutely no compromise on his issue. You put the background in your arugument. Putting this or anything like it in the main question is completely prejudicial, because it completely misrepresents what matters (that is, Wikipedia's rules give absolutely no preference to where a name came from). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "although far less frequently used than any of the previously mentioned three names": Thanks for your agreement.
  8. "a "common name" in English and the NPOV policy?". Agree to change into your new suggestion: "The question is, per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (relevant ones listed below), which of these names, if any, is the correct name for this and associated articles (Senkaku Islands dispute and 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident)?
    1. Will change. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. adding "Diaoyutai Islands" to the list of previously argued for names: Seems fine. ---Good, thanks.
  10. Parenthetical additions to the argument subsection: Besides supported by many reliable sources, again, you yourself stated in the similar way in last RfC [2] You now sound mixing up "English name" (including expressing as "pure English name") with "the name used most commonly in English".
    1. Again, no compromise on this issue. I will not allow you to blatantly prejudice the RfC by adding your POV into the RfC framework itself. Senkaku Islands is (per my argument, and those who agree with me) not just the Japanese name, but also the English name. Go ahead and argue that its the Japanese name. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was supposed to explain the changes first but am too busy to do these timely. Now have to do these as response to your comments. --Lvhis (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded in-line to each of the point above (where we didn't already agree. I'm going to make those changes to the draft page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be necessary to have another RfC prior to this RfC[edit]

Although I am glad to see we have mutually compromised to many items above, but regretfully we cannot do so on the item 6 and 8 10, which are very key or essential issues for the dispute in question. "Senkaku Islands" is the Japanese name for the islands, which is almost a common sense supported by many, many reliable sources. We may need to dissect this question out from the RfC you are initiating, and have another RfC particularly for this question first. Once we solve this dispute through that RfC and come back, it will be easier to start the one you prepared. I have drafted that RfC for this purpose at User:Lvhis/xI RfC. Same as what I have done on your draft, you can make your comments and suggestions there. --Lvhis (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not how RfC's work. An RfC is a "Request for Comment" from one or more editors to the community at large. It's actually impossible to have an RfC about another, non-existant RfC. As I've said many many times, if you feel points 6 and 8 are "key or essential issues", then you can put them in your argument. But they are biased and thus cannot be in the neutral question. As I said on the article talk page, no one is required to get permission from other users on the wording of an RfC first; I am willing to entertain serious concerns, and wording changes to make it more neutral, but I will not allow you to hijack the neutral question wording to pre-bias the question in your favor. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying--I thought your RfC was an RfC about how to word this one. Nonetheless, your RfC still isn't valid, because it isn't addressing article or policy content. Your RfC would seek to govern how we talk about the names on the talk page, and such a discussion isn't valid as we don't restrict how people discuss things (except, of course, for things like WP:BLP and WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG). Note that that my current version doesn't claim that the name is the "English name" or the "Japanese name"--it says neither. Of course, my argument will include an analysis of sources that indicates that it is the English name, but that's exactly my point for you: that belongs in my argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not valid? Not addressing article content? Remember the version A of lead section of the article "SI dispute", which was reverted due to this kind of dispute? I need to consult more second opinion about whether my drafted RfC is valid or not. You called that suggestion of mine is POV. I have said it is almost a common sense and you ever expressed in the same way before. Sorry, I can say that now your denying a common sense and particularly avoiding it is POV or bias. --Lvhis (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you need to do. Your suggested version on 6 and 10 are biased, and I'm not changing my words to match your desire to bias the RfC in favor of your view. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to have such a conclusion AFTER that RfC. --Lvhis (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is going up next Wednesday. It is time for an answer to the title of these articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you say yourself, you could start the RfC at any time, but the result won't have the staying power that you want if you don't accommodate the opposition's concerns about how it is organized and worded. Also, I'm not convinced that the outcome of any process for "this" article would affect the title of "these" articles. Just as the "Liancourt precedent" doesn't automatically apply here, any precedent created here shouldn't automatically apply to those articles which presently (and often gratuitously) have "Senkaku" in their titles. Quigley (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that I should allow Lvhis to blatantly bias the RfC by including non-neutral wording that clearly supports one position? That I should basically just give in and let the RfC wording include a POV that I flat out disagree with? That I should have to, in my argument section, argue not for a specific position, but against the wording of the question itself? This isn't a compromise wording being suggested. This isn't Lvhis saying "This thing, Qwyrxian, that you wrote is biased, please change it to be neutral." Instead, he's specifically trying to add wording that is gratuitous and unbalanced. Note that my wording right now doesn't say that "Senkaku Islands" is the English name; it says nothing on the matter (though, of course, my argument section will include that point). Furthermore, his proposed "first" RfC is simply not something we ever do on RfCs--he's proposing to run an RfC that defines, not how the article should read, but how we would be required to describe things on the talk page.
I have accommodated all of Lvhis' reasonable requests, including some I disagreed with. I have gone out of my way to request a discussion about the wording of the RfC before posting it, something I have never seen done in any other dispute. I have dropped several other arguments on the article talk page, even though I think Lvhis is wrong in them, simply because I'm trying to be civil and forward-moving. But there is a point where "accommodating the opposition's concerns" means lying down and letting them walk all over you. I don't even see the point in running an RfC whose neutral statement already contains biased claims supporting one side--at that point, I might as well just stop arguing about the issue and let Lvhis name the article whatever he wants.
Please note, Quigley, that I mean nothing negative towards you. I understand that you're trying to make this process as fair as possible, and leave as robust a decision as possible afterward. The reason I'm being so abrupt and direct here is that I cannot afford to allow Lvhis to make it appear that he's just trying to be fair or neutral when in fact he is doing the exact opposite. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Quigley said is absolutely correct. @Qwyrxian, you want this RfC and expect to have a powerful outcome as you stated. So of course you need to prepare such RfC very well and need to have higher stand of consensual participating from opposition. It is you who want this RfC. I have never asked you to have that. I said I initially hoped we be able to compromise and solve the naming issue in that talk page itself. Your non-supportive bias that "SI" is the English name and viewing that "SI" is the Japanese name as "POV" far beyond my expectation. I did not and do not force you to compromise on the wording. You do not have any right to force me to accept a subsection title I do not agree for my argument. We have found there is a root question or dissent through our current discussion that is not only affect your RfC's wording but also related to the naming issue itself and certain contents of the article, it is better to dissect it out from this one package RfC and solve it first in another RfC. In my suggested RfC, I use the exact words of yours "...'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for your argument. You don't need repeatedly complain my point is POV. Your vague wording hides your POV. If you are really confident that mine is POV, you can win the RfC I have suggested first and then easily finish your RfC. --Lvhis (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting an RfC to determine the wording of a future RfC = WP:TE. And your proposal on point 10 is civil POV-pushing. Adding "Japanese name" to the arguments in favor of SI is equally as POV as me adding "English name" would be. Since the current wording is neutral (it supports neither position), any addition would be biased, and thus I simply cannot see any way to "compromise" on point 10.
However, in the interest of absolutely bending over backwards to go as far as possible to appease you, I will accept a compromise on the sentence that correlates with your point 6 above. How about we make that whole line read, "The name Pinnacle Islands, which originated independently of the other names, is also found in English sources, although it is used far less frequently than any of the previously mentioned names." Will this be enough to satisfy that concern? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a wording problem but a concept problem. You don't need to compromise here if you totally think that "SI is the Japanese name" is civil POV-pushing. We don't need argue whether this is civil POV-pushing or TE at here. That is why we need the RfC I have suggested first. I am preparing my argument for that. My real life is very busy, and I actually have not been fully recovered yet, but I have been doing my best. --Lvhis (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Lvhis, and I wish you were feeling better, but you aren't hearing me. Wikipedia processes don't work like international negotations--we don't have preliminary meetings to first determine how and where we will hold future meetings. RfC's request the community's comment on how an article, policy page, template, or other "main" page will read. There is no category of RfC nor other process that would allow you to run an RfC to determine how a future RfC should be phrased. Attempting to create one contravenes WP:BUREAUCRACY. This really isn't that hard--we need to determine what the article title is, we have piles of evidence, we are unlikely to get any more evidence (unless facts "on the ground" change), and we certainly aren't going to change each others' minds. I'll leave 24 more hours for you to suggest some other alternative on point 10 if you wish, but after that, I am starting the RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Qwyrxian for your wish. As for RfC I have suggested, let me repeat this: that is for a root question or dissent, not mainly for wording of next RfC. If we solve this root dissent first and separately, it will be easier for next one. I don't think here it is quite proper for one Wikipedian to give other Wikipedian a deadline. But I just finished my preparation and now am starting the RfC there. --Lvhis (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"East China Sea"[edit]

I would advocate that this name not be used, since it implicitly assumes that the body belongs to China. I suggest This article is about a group of islands whose ownership is disputed. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...even though that's where they are located? While there are certainly disputes about land ownership and resource development, I don't think anyone (even Japan) disputes the name of the sea. I'm not completely opposed to changing this phrase, but I'm just looking to learn more about your logic. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong views on this, but the information is superfluous. The location of the islands is irrelevant to the question of what the article title should be. I mean, why stop with saying the sea they're in? Why not say sovereignty of them is disputed but are currently administered by Japan? Apart from a few crazies, it can't be denied Japan currently has control of them. With something like this RfC, I think less is more. John Smith's (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I'll take it out now, as I don't care that much. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

checkY I think the RfC is as close as I imagine it's likely to get. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. It should go up on Wednesday. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. Thanks for your work on it. John Smith's (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian/SI_RFC&oldid=462222407"