→Moving forward: but we disagree about the policy's meaning in this case.... |
No edit summary |
||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
::I completely disagree with Qwyrxian. An article title is not determined by RfC but is determined by relevant policies. I think John Smith's' intension is to get opinion regarding the POV tag according to his past edit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands&diff=454196409&oldid=454170101] ―― [[User:Phoenix7777|Phoenix7777]] ([[User talk:Phoenix7777|talk]]) 08:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
::I completely disagree with Qwyrxian. An article title is not determined by RfC but is determined by relevant policies. I think John Smith's' intension is to get opinion regarding the POV tag according to his past edit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands&diff=454196409&oldid=454170101] ―― [[User:Phoenix7777|Phoenix7777]] ([[User talk:Phoenix7777|talk]]) 08:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::And when different people legitimately interpret policies differently, we must come to a consensus to determine which interpretation is correct. Lvhis (and others) think the policy says the name should be Pinnacle Islands. I, you, and others think that policy says that the name should be Senkaku Islands. Since we don't agree, how do you suggest we resolve the issue if not by RfC? [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
:::And when different people legitimately interpret policies differently, we must come to a consensus to determine which interpretation is correct. Lvhis (and others) think the policy says the name should be Pinnacle Islands. I, you, and others think that policy says that the name should be Senkaku Islands. Since we don't agree, how do you suggest we resolve the issue if not by RfC? [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV? == |
|||
I generated a chat or table as below for reasons or justifications why the current name/title is POV or NPOV. I have added some reasons for POV side. The space for NPOV reasons currently is blank. It is very welcomed for editors believing the current name/title as NPOV to add their reasons in the given space. Of course the editors believing the current name/title as POV are also very welcomed to add more reasons or modify the reasons I have listed here. But please: editors believing the current name as NPOV can edit NPOV side ONLY, and as the same, editors believing the current name as POV can edit POV side ONLY. By comparing the reasons from both sides, we may be able to gradually reach some consensus or compromise. --[[User:Lvhis|Lvhis]] ([[User talk:Lvhis|talk]]) 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|- |
|||
! !! POV (It needs to be changed)!! NPOV (no need for change)!! |
|||
|- |
|||
|'''Reasons''' || |
|||
* It is the Japanese name for the islands, that is the fact supported by many reliable sources including those from Japanese writers. |
|||
* The ownership of these islands is officially disputed between Japan and Chinese sides (PRC and ROC). |
|||
* The frequency of using Japanese name or using Chinese name in English is no significantly different, or slightly in certain search way, that of using Japanese name is less than that of using Chinese name. |
|||
* Using which language name represents or implies supporting which party's claim over the disputed islands, i.e. giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view (national POV). |
|||
* Based on Wikipedia's spirit, policies, and guidelines, particularly the [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NCGN]], the current Japanese name for this Wikipedia page and its related pages is POV, and it shall be changed. |
|||
||to be added to be added to be added to be added to be added to be added|| |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 17:55, 19 October 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Suggested name: Islands at 25°44′N 123°30′E—25°57′N 123°42′E
By removing both the Japanese and Chinese names and resorting to coordinates we can avoid preferring one over the other. The coordinates were chosen based on the red box on the map. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- 10/10, I laughed. 哈哈哈哈哈 wwwwwwwww ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Now that that's done with...
Since the Arbitration case is now over, we are obviously free to move forward with our previous discussions. To be honest, I'm not ready to do that yet, but probably will be next week. But maybe the first step is to ask what the first step is? In other words, what do we want to do next? Discuss the issue more amongst ourselves? Gather yet more data? Move right ahead with an RfC, RM or some other community process? I'm pretty open to any suggestion, myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've asked that the page protection be lifted. There are a couple of cn tags in the history section that are not necessary. There has been some media attention to the ownership conflict lately because it has been a topic of discussion in the Taiwanese presidential elections. Once the article is unlocked, we can start adding that stuff to it. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it's the issue of the NPOV tags (on both articles) and deciding whether we can remove them or how we can come to that position. John Smith's (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, I say, just let the tags stay up through whatever "final" method we use to determine the titles. I think we've got a lot more eyes on the article now, so I think that if we now get a good consensus (ideally, with more people than just the group that's been debating this forever), that at that point the tags can come down and will need to stay down. I also think that there's enough people here, some of whom are likely to start actively discussing it soon, that we can legitimately say that some people think the titles are POV, thus fulfilling the requirements of the tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- The POV tags are there because there are editors who believe that the current name, which is the one used by the government which has controlled the islands for the last 116 years, is POV? We probably should, then, take a quick straw poll right now to see what the current status of opinion is: Cla68 (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, I say, just let the tags stay up through whatever "final" method we use to determine the titles. I think we've got a lot more eyes on the article now, so I think that if we now get a good consensus (ideally, with more people than just the group that's been debating this forever), that at that point the tags can come down and will need to stay down. I also think that there's enough people here, some of whom are likely to start actively discussing it soon, that we can legitimately say that some people think the titles are POV, thus fulfilling the requirements of the tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be better for all parties to cool down for a while, then we can calmly discuss the most disputable issue, the name issue. As for the tag, it should be removed only when the final consensus or compromise is reached to determine the "NPOV" title. The tag is mainly shown there is ongoing dispute, or the ongoing dispute has not been solved. Cla68 judged that as long as the name is the one used by the government which has controlled the disputed geographic entity, the name will not be POV. Following this, the Liancourt Rocks should have been named as Dokdo in this Wikipedia because the extent of control by Korean government over it is much stronger than that of control by Japanese government over the Diaoyu/Senkaky/Pinacle islands (e.g. Korea has inhabitants residing on Liancourt Rocks, while both Chinese and Japanese fishermen cannot effectively fish in the water around the Diaoyu/Senkaky/Pinacle islands). It is not a good idea to take a quick straw poll now regarding if the current title is an acceptably NPOV one. We need calm discussion to reach consensus or compromise, rather than just do this straw poll. I won't go in this poll. --Lvhis (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Lvhis, a quick straw poll can help determine if a consensus currently exists. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Lvhis, I'm perfectly cool. Are you? If you are, then I don't see the problem. John Smith's (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is very obvious that the consensus or compromise on the naming issue has not been reached. If you assert the current Japanese name as the title of the WP page is NPOV, you need to give your base and reasons, but not just a "yes" vote. Cla68 gave a reason above, while I gave my justification that his such reason or base cannot stand. John Smith's, you should give your base why the current name/title is NPOV, as you are perfectly cool now. I am busy now, and also I think I need to be more cooling down although I have been sort of that already. --Lvhis (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a straw poll, not a final decision. Just say "no" below and then we can check to see where others stand. John Smith's (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- JS, your opinion on the poll is challenged by Lvhis, then please explain your logic as to why the Japanese name is NPOV. STSC (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- @John Smith's, giving the reason why you think it is NPOV is more helpful for reaching consensus than just give a simple "yes" set by such straw poll. Again, we have been clearly aware of no consensus reached yet even without such straw poll now. --Lvhis (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, the straw poll is split. Again, the tags just don't matter to me anymore; what matters is figuring out what we are going to do to achieve a consensus so that, whatever title we go with, the tag can be removed. I think it's pretty clear that we have pretty differing opinions, which is why I think we need to go outside of ourselves (RfC). But I don't think we're yet organized enough to do that, so perhaps we need to do that first. Which reminds me, I'm going to ask Feezo if we can undelete the mediation pages now. Oh, and, finally, in case anyone didn't notice, STSC is now on a 3 month topic ban for this topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a straw poll, not a final decision. Just say "no" below and then we can check to see where others stand. John Smith's (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Straw poll on article title
Is the current title of this article, Senkaku Islands, an acceptably NPOV title? (Vote yes or no below):
Yes
- John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oda Mari (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
No
- Quigley (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Stuartyeates (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- STSC (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC) - The Japanese name cannot be a NPOV title while Japan is a participant in the territory dispute.
Moving forward
Right, it's gone a bit quiet here. Given there's no obvious consensus to remove the tag, should we get an RfC going to get outside input? John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's always in the back of my mind. Maybe we can do it in the same style that some policy RfC's use with positions and supporters (also used in RfC/U): first, we all agree on a question (something very simple, one paragraph or less, like "What should the title of this article (and list the 2 others) be?" Then, we could each write a position statement, including any amount of information or arguments that we want, and we could include a space for signing (like "Users who endorse this position" and a bulleted list). If you don't know what I'm talking about, look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. You can see how individual people provide positions, with whatever evidence they want (though people should keep in mind that evidence that is too long may not be read by participants), then everybody is free to support any number of positions that they prefer. If the end result is unclear, we get a neutral admin to close. Such an should run for 30 days or until useful conversation stops--whichever comes later.
- An alternative would be if we all do fall into clear positions, then we could just have each "side" draft a joint position, then just open discussion from that point. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with Qwyrxian. An article title is not determined by RfC but is determined by relevant policies. I think John Smith's' intension is to get opinion regarding the POV tag according to his past edit.[1] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- And when different people legitimately interpret policies differently, we must come to a consensus to determine which interpretation is correct. Lvhis (and others) think the policy says the name should be Pinnacle Islands. I, you, and others think that policy says that the name should be Senkaku Islands. Since we don't agree, how do you suggest we resolve the issue if not by RfC? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with Qwyrxian. An article title is not determined by RfC but is determined by relevant policies. I think John Smith's' intension is to get opinion regarding the POV tag according to his past edit.[1] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the current title/name "Senkaku Islands" POV or NPOV?
I generated a chat or table as below for reasons or justifications why the current name/title is POV or NPOV. I have added some reasons for POV side. The space for NPOV reasons currently is blank. It is very welcomed for editors believing the current name/title as NPOV to add their reasons in the given space. Of course the editors believing the current name/title as POV are also very welcomed to add more reasons or modify the reasons I have listed here. But please: editors believing the current name as NPOV can edit NPOV side ONLY, and as the same, editors believing the current name as POV can edit POV side ONLY. By comparing the reasons from both sides, we may be able to gradually reach some consensus or compromise. --Lvhis (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
POV (It needs to be changed) | NPOV (no need for change) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Reasons |
|
to be added to be added to be added to be added to be added to be added |