Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 27 July 2016

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. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from South China Sea Arbitration appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 November 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Philippines is contesting the validity of China's nine dotted lines? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2013/November.

incorrect comparison to ICJ cases

the court in question is not ICJ, furthermore there are some incorrect general assumption made in the media that this about disputed territory so wording to be careful to reflect the following: 1. the court is ask if the island are considered land feature or sea feature, not who own it. 2. the court does not have power to aware or settle territorial dispute. 3. the court in question does not have power to make final determination, it power lies in the dispute side to accept it arrangement. only ruling by ITLOS is international binding, the fact taht these 3 are seperate organisation with different function should be noted because if indirect referring and comparison; is like comparing apple and orange and should be noted according or referenced to related wiki pages. Akinkhoo (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Vietnamese and phillipines claims?

Can we add the claims of competing countries to the map? Currently we're only representing the Chinese claim, which I think is somewhat unfair to other countries involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.128.226 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I am open to another map. Which one would you suggest? However remember that the case is primarily about China's claim. This article is not about all the dispute; it is about this particular court case over China's claim. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

the case is NOT about territorial dispute, it is about the nature of the islands. there should be no map at all other than those describing the island themselves. futhermore, the court has not invited anyother involved parties to the case, this weaken the idea that the court is "international" if only philippine is the only side that presented a position in court. if this is about china claim, then logically shouldn't the rest of ASEAN had been invited? if we treat this is a case about the dispute, then the exclusion of all other party involve would turn it into a "show trial", does it not? Akinkhoo (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam intervention

What is the nature of this 'intervention'? The PCA procedure does not permit 'interventions' in the legal sense as the ICJ does. 220.229.49.64 (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"International reaction"

"International reaction" - only western reactions just now.--Lisan1233 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Germany support Philippines?

Hariboneagle927 added this reference:

Calica, Aurea (4 June 2014). "Germany calls for peaceful settlement of sea row". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 29 May 2016. Asked if Germany supported the arbitration case, Ossowski said his government supported any peaceful settlement that respects the rule of law in settling disputes.

Based on this piece of news and recent news, Germany did not explicitly support the arbitration case. Please share your comments before removing Germany from the list of countries who support the arbitration. Toto11zi (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

But then again according to the source, the question was in response to a question regarding Germany's support/non-support of the arbitration case. If "Asked if Germany..." wasn't in the sentence, then Germany's stance may be too vague. But then I replaced the source with this which was more explicit regarding Germany's support.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Again Germany didn't express explicit support for the case bought by the Philippines. Toto11zi (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

According to AP, the Group of 7 and EU, both including Germany, issued a joint statement supporting using international law as a method to resolve disputes. Merkel herself is more cautious, perhaps because she was meeting with China at the time, simply "suggesting" that the dispute be resolved in international courts. There are no reliable sources that state Germany opposes arbitration. Mamyles (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Feedback needed where Arab countries ans SCO countries should be included in the list of countries which don't support the arbitration?

Hariboneagle927 removed Arab countries from the list of countries who don't support the arbitration. The reliable source is based on this statement "Arab countries support China's position on ‘safeguarding’ its sovereignty and territorial integrity" from Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Araby.

Please provide comments regarding these countries should be included or not in the list of countries who support China's position? Toto11zi (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no objections with the recent additions since according to Interview: Arab states praiseworthy for stance on South China Sea issue -- Chinese envoy Algeria, Comoros, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen supported China, a stance made in the sidelines of the China-Arab forum. I thought you were adding members of the Arab League in response to the organization's statement of support for China and for that I apologize.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In a similar fashion, all SCO countries should be included in the list of countries which don't support the arbitration. Here's the reliable source, it explicitly says "all SCO countries agreed and supported China's efforts made to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea":Toto11zi (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In a statement of SCO Secretary-General Rashid Olimov on South China Sea issue, all SCO countries agreed and supported China's efforts made to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea. Directly concerned states should resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation in accordance with all bilateral treaties and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), the statement said.

I have repeatedly said that multinational organizations can say one thing but it is not unheard of member states issuing contradictory statements. (India (despite the RIC trilateral statement, Slovenia despite being part of the arbitration supporting EU, later denied supporting China's stance). A statement issued by Before adding them, I'm sure most of these countries have reaffirmed their stand made as part of the SCO through their foreign ministry, or diplomats during "sideline" meetings.

Also that's why there is a "multilateral organizations" section. If a reader read that the SCO issued a statement they can click the link to "SCO" and see the member countries. Including them in the list above just for the sake of adding countries (even if they didn't issue a stand unilaterally, which was the original intention of the section "National governments"). I don't agree with this. What I can agree is to replace all the citations as possible with a third party source (e.g. foreign ministry of said country). It is easy for China to say that Country X supports them or the Philippines saying that Country Y supports them and Multinational Organization A says that all of its countries support China's stance (When it comes to automatically adding its members to the "National governments" section,").Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you read carefully? Unless the source is not reliable, the statement "all SCO countries agreed and supported China's efforts" is very clear that "those countries agreed", and not "SCO agreed". Adding a "multilateral organizations" is one thing, but having 2 clear lists of countries which support or oppose the arbitration is different thing. If the requirement says formal statements from individual countries are needed, then most countries on the "support" list should be removed as well, take the source for France as one example, is there a statement from the French government? Toto11zi (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, most countries should be reevaluated both in the support and oppose list. President Aquino can easily say that France expressed support for the arbitration after their talks like Xinhua and the Chinese government can easily say that Country X, "understands China's position regarding the South China Sea issue". Both sides can easily drop names. That is why I still favor creating a new article here in Misplaced Pages or in Wikiquotes regarding the reactions where each countries statement could be quoted. Where we can state the stance of each countries. Whether it came from their foreign ministry or was just claimed by the Philippines or China that a certain country supports them.

I proposed an article split some days ago because the issue is not black or white to begin with. Some countries were more adversarial against the arbitration court such as Niger, while others just respects the China's abstinence from the arbitration and issued preference towards bilateral talks without criticizing the court. No one could tell the gravity of support or opposition with just a list. But reverting back to the old format would make the article too much focused on the reactions and not the arbitration case itself.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes: the reliable sources explicitly say "Arab countries support China's position" and "all SCO countries agreed and supported China", those countries should be included. Toto11zi (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Okay, and have absolutely no background on the subject. Here's what I'm getting out of this: The Arab League has made some diplomatic gobbledy-gook statements, that the Chinese diplomat has termed as "support for China's stance." Next week, the Arab League could have a meeting with the Phillipines, say the exact same thing, only replace the word "China" with "Philippines, and the Philippine minister could say that the Arab League support's it's stance requesting arbitration.

So, should the countries be included in the list? I am of the opinion that, unless an official representative of a country explicitly states it opposes arbitration, it should not be on a list saying that it does. I also don't agree with a separate article. Just put the quotes in a section and collapse the section if it overwhelms the article too much. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not disposed to argue this here, but I'm mindful of the part of WP:NOTNEWS which says, "Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events"; the key word there being "enduring". The PCA is expected to render its decision in the next six or so months. When that happens, the parts of the article being discussed here will have been overtaken by events and will probably be of little ongoing interest. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - The Doha Declaration of May 12 clearly states that Arab countries support China, therefore all the countries within the Arab League should be listed as such. Similarly, all the countries in SCO should be also listed. STSC (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Make the article's focus narrower

Currently, the article is in danger of becoming a whole dissertation on the background and issues on the South China Sea. We already have an article for that: Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Please let's make this article more focused on the arbitration case itself. Any substantial and non-summarized background material should be added to other more relevant articles. —seav (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Soliciting opinion from seav regarding the split proposal, since the goal of the proposal is to give more due focus to the arbitration case and less focus to the diplomacy/PR "war" between China and the Philippines and transfer the "international reactions" section into a new article for a comprehensive discussion regarding the matter. This has been done with many terrorist attacks article where the international reactions section was split into a new article. The difference is reactions to the case has more impact (e.g. diplomatic pressure) than condolences usually expressed following a terrorist attack.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the reactions section is too big that it overwhelms the article just yet. I think the details of the case itself as well as the narrative of events for the case is missing. —seav (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Does Spain support the Philippines?

Before removing Spain from the list of countries which support the Philippines, please check if you can provide reliable source. The current source is not reliable, and it does not contain a single word from Spain.Toto11zi (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Toto11zi (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Analysis and criticsm

Section "Analysis and criticism" as been added, currently there's only one line, more information will be added.

The South China Sea involves many claimants, the unilatery format, or even binary format of the court case can never render justice, the best way to resolve the South China Sea dispute is through negotiation.

The main idea of this is from the first source published by Prof. Tom Zwart, Professor of Law, Utrecht University. If you have objection, please discuss here.Toto11zi (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In section, Analysis of academics, quotes which are not related to the case itself should be removed. Toto11zi (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Slovenia

Before removing the following, please check if you can provide reliable source.

It was reported that Slovenia denied the Chinese foreign ministry statements.

The news reporter Ben Dooley wrote for Slovenia:

EU member Slovenia quickly denied Chinese foreign ministry statements that they were backing Beijing, with Ljubljana saying: "We do not take sides on the issue."

Searching from the Internet didn't return a simple source supporting this statement.Toto11zi (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This statement indicates the Slovenian Foreign Ministry was not acquainted (informed) with the MPs position, this doesn't mean anything.

The Slovenian Foreign Ministry has said it is not acquainted with the MPs position.

here

Here's MPs position:

Mr. Sakar of Slovenia's ruling party, the Modern Center Party, said that Slovenia completely understands and supports the Chinese government's stance on the South China Sea arbitration case, and hope countries involved will peacefully resolve their disputes through negotiation.

Toto11zi (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Added more reliable information here

Kamal Shaker, Representative of the Party of Modern Centre of Slovenia who is in Beijing for the 5th China-Europe High-level Political Parties Forum, made the following statement on behalf of the ruling party and government of Slovenia when meeting the leading official of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee. He said that the Slovenian side totally understands and supports China's stance on the issue of the South China Sea arbitration, and hopes that disputes would be peacefully resolved through consultation, dialogue and negotiation.

Kamal Izidor Shaker is the Deputy of the National Assembly of Slovia, The National Assembly is the general representative body of Slovenia.

If you don't agree, discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The parliament is a legislative representative of Slovenia. The foreign ministry, the minister (Karl Erjavec of the Democratic Party of Pensioners of Slovenia), and the head of state has relevant say regarding the matter (which has been silent on the matter at least, neither deny or confirm the statement). The meeting where the statement was made was during a meeting of political parties. The statement We shouldn't assume or interpret general Slovenian foreign policy. "The Slovenian Foreign Ministry has said it is not acquainted with the MPs position." means that there has been no consensus regarding the matter neither denying or confirming Saker's statements.203.215.120.114 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read carefully, the statement says "on behalf of the ruling party and GOVERNMENT OF SLOVENIA", remember that government has more power than the foreign ministry. Again, don't interpret in your own way the statement from the Slovenian Foreign Ministry, that statement is not relevant. If you don't agree, discuss again Toto11zi (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

International support for Beijing

It appears only the following countries support Beijing: Afghanistan, Lesotho, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, and Vanuatu -- Namayan (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

not reliable statement. Toto11zi (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you judge this international news magazine to be unreliable, or just this editor at that source who authored the article, of just this particular article? On what basis do you make that judgement? It seems to me that it would be OK to say something like "The Diplomat opined on June 16, 2016 that the critical list of states voicing support for China's position included just seven states (Afghanistan, Lesotho, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, and Vanuatu), with Afghanistan and Lesotho being landlocked states. The article pointed out that other states voicing support were distant from the South China Sea and possibly motivated by considerations of self-interest to placate rather than rebuke China over this issue." in the article (see WP:ANALYSIS).Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Common sense only based on the statement itself "only the following countries support Beijing: Afghanistan, Lesotho, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, and Vanuatu", it's not reliable. Here's what I got with that web site "You have reached the limit of 5 free articles a month.". Toto11zi (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please read, understand, and abide by WP:OR, the Misplaced Pages policy on original research. Granted, the initial statement in this talk page section adds editorial analysis to the analysis done in the cited secondary source, but your application of "common sense" also adds editorial analysis. Editorial "common sense" is often editorial point of view by another name; see WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I meant this statement "only the following countries support Beijing: Afghanistan, Lesotho, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, and Vanuatu" Toto11zi (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OK. I'll accept that at face value. I haven't been following either the arbitration, the article, or related political developments closely enough to have a good overall feel for this and it appears that you have been. I had noticed your edits earlier and wondered about some of them (e.g. these changes made in 14 consecutive edits, 13 of which lacked explanatory edit summaries; I don't know about the first 13 but I looked at this 14th edit there which did have an ES and eventually concluded that the removed cite did not support the assertion there, but did not agree that this cited source is an unreliable source). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove the U.S. from the support list. But the source doesn't have any mention of the support to the arbitration. Toto11zi (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here you go, for additional sources that disputes the Chinese claims of support. -- Namayan (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there statement from the U.S. government? Toto11zi (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The WSJ is well-known for its anti-Chinese stance. Here the source to help you count the countries that support China. STSC (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to include numerous China-based news sources, most of which obviously have a pro-China stance, and then omit WSJ just because you think they are anti-China. We should include relevant reliable sources, and WSJ is certainly considered a reliable source in Misplaced Pages being used as references countless times in many other articles. —seav (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to mention that wenweipo has an editorial line similar to Xinhua, which would have a pro–China position. It is not reliable in showing which countries support China. A third party source may be better in showing which countries support China. If editors think the WSJ is not a reliable source, then discuss it on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Poland

Alphama removed Poland from the Support list here. And here's the link Alphama put in the comment. This web site requires subscription, so I don't have access. Based on the following reliable source (Wang Yi Holds Talks with Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski of Poland) , Poland supports China, the actual statement is:

(Foreign Minister of Poland) Witold Waszczykowski said that Poland supports China’s policy of peacefully resolving disputes over some Nansha islands and reefs through dialogues and consultations.

If you have reliable source suggesting Poland has changed it's policy. Please provide a reliable statement from the Polish government. Searching the Internet didn't return such statement. Toto11zi (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here. -- Namayan (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I get with that web site: "To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In". Can you post statement from the Polish government, or Polish official? Toto11zi (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here's the quote. —seav (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Polish officials were taken aback in April when Beijing suddenly issued a statement that hadn’t been approved by both sides following a meeting between their foreign ministers.

It said Poland supported China’s policy of resolving the dispute “through dialogues and consultations,” making no mention of arbitration.

The statement “did not accurately reflect Poland’s position on the issue of the South China Sea, which has been communicated to the Chinese side,” Poland’s Foreign Ministry said. “That position remains unchanged and is in line with the entire EU’s policies.”

Thanks, we can describe this in the page briefly. Adding another section "Conflicting reports of support vs. opposition to arbitration" doesn't make much sense. If the statement from the Poland's Foreign Ministry is reliable, then we should remove Poland from the support list. Could you check if you find that statement from any other place other than this piece of news? Toto11zi (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Now I can retrieve the information from here. The description consists of 3 lines.

1. Polish officials were taken aback in April when Beijing suddenly issued a statement that hadn’t been approved by both sides following a meeting between their foreign ministers.

2. It said Poland supported China’s policy of resolving the dispute “through dialogues and consultations,” making no mention of arbitration.

3. The statement “did not accurately reflect Poland’s position on the issue of the South China Sea, which has been communicated to the Chinese side,” Poland’s Foreign Ministry said. “That position remains unchanged and is in line with the entire EU’s policies.”

For line 3, I tried to google the specific quote, and it only points this WJC news, I also searched the web site of Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland, I couldn't find any quote like that, here's only piece of information I found for Waszczykowski's visit to china on that web site, here. This would suggest line 3 is probably bogus like the other 3 cases (Fiji, Cambodia, Slovenia) WSJ reported. Anyhow, let's scrutinize these 3 lines. Line 1, we don't know which Polish officials and we don't know when they were taken aback, this line is not relevant anyways. Line 2, here the statement was from Waszczykowski, not China, line 2 emphasizes "making no mention of arbitration", but it ignores the phase "Poland supports China’s policy".

Line 3 does not specify which part of the statement did not accurately reflect Poland's positionand and what has been communicated to the Chinese side. Based on the few other EU cases, supporting China's position does not violate EU's position, and the first and main way to resolve disputes is through peaceful means based on UNCLOS.

Here I don't see any indication that Poland has rejected Waszczykowski's statement which is

(Foreign Minister of Poland) Witold Waszczykowski said that Poland supports China’s policy of peacefully resolving disputes over some Nansha islands and reefs through dialogues and consultations.

If you don't agree, please discuss here with reliable information. Toto11zi (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your logical argument is like this: You think the WSJ source is not reliable because you cannot find any information from the Polish government website. Using your same logic, we can then also reject news sources like Xinhua if we cannot find any information from the government website of Egypt, Tanzania, South Africa, and many other countries. For example, Palestine's support for the Chinese stance is sourced from a news item from Xinhua. But if there is no official information from the Palestinian's government website, then let's delete Palestine from the article, OK? —seav (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, my logic is this question, has Poland rejected Waszczykowski's statement? If answer is yes, then remove Poland from the list, if answer is no, then keep it there. Do you agree? Toto11zi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nie. The list specifically states "Opposition against the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants". I don't see either of these two words attributed to Poland in the ref cited. Hammersbach (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, Seav's question was about the statement from the Poland government, it's not about Waszczykowski's statement.Toto11zi (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but I understood quite clearly. Again, the list is titled "Opposition against the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants". Therefore to be included on such a list a country would have to state specifically state that they “oppose” arbitration and/or that they support “bilateral” negotiations. It is decidedly inaccurate to include countries on this list because they state that they support peacefully resolving disputes through dialogues and consultations. It can quite easily be argued that arbitration is in fact a form of peaceful dialogue and consultation. With respect to Poland, a country whose name I deleted from this list, neither Poland nor Waszczykowski included these necessary qualifying words in any statement Hammersbach (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC).

If you want to discuss the title and quote issue, then it's different topic than what's I'm discussing with Seav in this discussion thread. Could you rearrange lines in this section so editors can follow easily? I will include my comment once you're done. Toto11zi (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not discussing the title and quote issue, I am discussing the erroneous attempt to list Poland as opposing arbitration/supporting bilateral discussions, but then I am sure that you are quite aware of that. As for formatting lines in this discussion, that is something that should properly be done by you as you are the one who was commenting. Hammersbach (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Countries have different ways of expressing support, in this case, it's very explicit, "Poland supports China's policy", do you agree? If you are saying supporting China's policy is different than "Opposition against the arbitration", or "Support for bilateral talks between the disputants", then it's title or description issue, adding "Support for China's stance" should fix the issue, agree? Toto11zi (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

According to The Wall Street Journal, Poland officials claim that their position has been misquoted by Chinese sources, and that Poland in fact stands with the European Union's position in support of the arbitration.

Again, Chinese sources are not reliable and should not be cited for any information other than official Chinese government positions. Mamyles (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mymyles, have you read what I've analyzed? I bet you haven't, we're done discussing WSJ! and you're saying "according to WSJ"? Do you have new facts to add? Please don't waste your time and my time, your slogan doesn't work, WSj has been proved to be bogus in this case. Discuss only with reliable information, reliable information means what statement from which official in this case. Clear? Toto11zi (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you misanalysed the source. It is very clear that Poland denies supporting China from this quote. "The statement “did not accurately reflect Poland’s position on the issue of the South China Sea, which has been communicated to the Chinese side,” Poland’s Foreign Ministry said". This precedes the quote "It said Poland supported China’s policy of resolving the dispute “through dialogues and consultations,” making no mention of arbitration". WSJ is a reliable source so they do not obviously make up facts. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

EU

seav has made various changes to the page, different countries were added because of this statement from EU. First this statement doesn't say the EU supports the arbitration brought up by the Philippines, second, we're still discussing whether countries from the multinational bodies should or should not be included to the list. seav, can you give comment for the topic: ], I will undo those changes soon, if you have objection, please discuss here Toto11zi (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First, Albania, Moldova, Montenegro, and Liechtenstein are not members of the EU. Second, while there is no explicit statement that EU supports this particular arbitration case between CN and PH, the fact that the EU recognized that the Philippines, as a claimant country, has a right to arbitration is diplomatic-speak that the arbitration case is a valid course of action. And this is commented on by numerous news reports. If you want, we can rename the header to "Support for or recognizing the right to arbitration". —seav (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As I specified, recognizing right doesn't mean supporting the arbitration brought by the Philippines. Please provide reliable source for those countries. Again, you cannot change things dramatically without discussion, also common sense is needed to make edits. Toto11zi (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Additional comment. If you want to remove Australia, Albania, etc., then we should also remove the countries like Lesotho that do not explicitly state opposition to the arbitration but merely stating that China has a right to seek bilateral negotiations. Please note that the opposition heading states "Support for bilateral talks among the parties involved". This is now balanced by listing countries that state "Support for right to arbitration". —seav (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's review each country, scrutinize each fact and discuss here. Also if you think the EU supports the arbitration brought up by the Philippines, you will need to provide reliable source. Toto11zi (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

“The United States and the European Union warned China on Wednesday that it should respect an international court ruling expected later this year on its dispute with the Philippines over territory in the South China Sea.” —seav (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, can you provide source that says "EU supports the arbitration brought up by the Philippines"? no interpretation please Toto11zi (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the past consensus, we don't want to include individual countries from Multinational bodies. There's separate section for multinational bodies. Notice also the difference between these 2 statements: "EU agreed that" and "EU countries agreed that", if it's "EU agreed that", we consider only EU as one entity, if it's "EU countries agreed that", we consider all the individual countries. If you have objection, discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The EU declaration can be found here, I don't see any relevant statement that says EU supports Philippines or whatever. The 2nd paragraph is a very general statement, it says that "the EU urges all claimants to resolve disputes through peaceful means, to clarify the basis of their claims, and to pursue them in accordance with international law including UNCLOS and its arbitration procedures." The 4th paragrph says "The EU fully supports regional ASEAN-led processes and is looking forward to a swift conclusion of the talks on a 'Code of Conduct' which will further support a rules-based regional and international order." Based on the report from Chinese Society of International Law, the the Philipines has violated this rule-based regional order, indirectly, the Philippines has also violated the UNCLOS, and this fact was ignored by the tribunal, description can be found section IV of the report:

IV. The Arbitral Tribunal disregards the fact that there exist between China and the Philippines agreements to settle the relevant disputes through negotiation, distorts Article 281 of the UNCLOS, and erroneously exercises jurisdiction over the claims

From here, I would say the EU declaraton doesn't contain relevant information for the case. If you don't agree, please discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

All sources which require special permission to access data should be removed.

Sources need to be reliable and accessible, if sources have access control, those should be removed. If you have objection to this, please discuss here.Toto11zi (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I disagree with the accessibility requirement. Please see WP:CITE. Misplaced Pages has never had a policy of rejecting sources just because they aren't freely accessible online. This means that offline sources such as old books and journals (which have no digital copies), or reliable sources behind paywalls or access controls are still allowed. —seav (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative's "Arbitration Support Tracker"

Hello, I am not quite sure if we can make use of this source or not. The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative has an "Arbitration Support Tracker" where they list which countries supposedly support or oppose the arbitration case, linked to various sources. http://amti.csis.org/arbitration-support-tracker/ —seav (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You created different groups, can you explain why? and how do you categorize? Have you categorized all these countries? Can you discuss first? I oppose your action of creating more groups, we should keep only original 2 groups, unless we editors discuss and reach consensusToto11zi (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You created "Support for the Philippines' right to seek arbitration / Calling on China to respect the arbitration decision", please provide source that says "the EU supports Philippines right to seek arbitration". Again, please think first before making irresponsible changes Toto11zi (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Cambodia

Based on various sources including the recent ones, Cambodia obviously backs China.

Cambodian premier won't back South China Sea ruling June 21, 2016 3:33 am JST, here

The ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) said yesterday it fully supports Prime Minister Hun Sen’s backing of China in the dispute over control of the South China Sea. FRIDAY, 24 JUNE 2016 here

Cambodia not to support decision over South China Sea issue: PM June 28, 2016 Last Updated at 09:24 IST here

seav, since you moved Cambodia from the non-support list, can you provide reliable source with Cambodian statement to support your action? Toto11zi (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In April, the Cambodian government spokesman Phay Siphan played down the ASEAN split, and it's not rejection to China's position. ]. In June, the Cambodian position is very clear that Cambodia supports China. Toto11zi (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here is the reliable source that indicates that Cambodia does not support any side. It is the official statement detailing Cambodia's position on the ruling coming from its ministry of foreign affairs. From the source, it does mention that Cambodia does not take any sides in this dispute so it should be removed. It is more recent and is the official position of Cambodia. It should be removed from the list of countries supporting China. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? The U.S. also says it does not take side. I think the Cambodia case is really common sense, use google to search, there's Cambodia news everyday. If you insists Cambodia doesn't support China, we can discuss. Foreign ministry of China has detailed information for this case. Agree? Toto11zi (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the statement from that link? Common sense is not a good way to answer this and using the foreign ministry of China should only be used to cite official Chinese positions. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I Agree with Ssbbplayer.

Using 'common sense' (whose?) to contradict a Official Government Release is obviously a case of you don't like it. Collagium (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the sources cited above and there is no doubt that Cambodia is neutral on this issue. The Govt release states clearly that :

'Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict of permanent court of arbitration who will render its decision on the dispute between the Philippines and China.'

In light of the above statement of the Cambodian Government's 'Ministry Of Foreign Affairs And International Cooperation' there is need to rectify Cambodia's wrongly stated position. Objections, if any, are welcome. Collagium (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We need help from a Misplaced Pages admin

Shhhhwwww!! insisted his unilateral dramatic edits without discussion, a lot of information was removed. I think we need help for the Misplaced Pages admin. Here's his main change here Please check his edit history. Toto11zi (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Shhhhwwww!!, READ: All Misplaced Pages content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively, here, doing dramatic changes without discussion is irresponsible way of making edits Toto11zi (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I am just suggesting a more readable article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss, and don't make dramatic changes especially removal of information, have your read discussion on this page? again discuss, don't make useless edit war Toto11zi (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Did not read it, sorry. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fiji

For the Fiji case, both statements are listed in the text.

One April 13, 2016, a joint press release by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Fijian Minister for Foreign Affairs Inoke Kubuabola was published. The press release says Fiji supported China’s proposition, both countries agree that for sovereignty and maritime rights, parties should be committed to peaceful settlement and optional exceptions of the Convention should be respected. SOURCE

On the next day, Fijian government issued an statement saying the joint press release incorrectly depicted Fijian policy and the Fijian government does not support China's proposition SOURCE

203.215.121.111 insisted to include Fiji to the newly created category of "Countries that deny China's claim of support" which I opposed. Here we should read the joint press release carefully, and the statement from the Fijian government carefully. First the joint press release was created by both ministers, it's not just China's claim, second, and the Fijian government said the joint press release incorrectly depicted Fijian policy, the main fault would be Fijian Minister since it's joint press, he must have previewed and agreed on the material, so the category "Countries that deny China's claim of support" doesn't fit the Fiji case. Note also "Fiji supports China’s proposition" is a statement in the joint press release, the Fiji government can revise its view, but again, it's not China's claim, it's joint release. If you don't agree, let's discuss Toto11zi (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In the second source, it clearly stated that the media release was issued by the Chinese, not by the Fijian government. I do not see how the main fault would fall on the Fijian Minister. In this case, the fault would be on the one who disseminated the info which would the Chinese media. I think it should be added on to "Countries that deny China's claim of support" since there are contradictions between two sources (one Chinese, one Fijian). Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The point is not about who issued the joint statement, or who disseminated the info, but the joint statement itself which was created by both ministers, do you agree? Your logic doesn't stand. Toto11zi (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Remember that the 2nd source contains some quotes of the statement of the Fijian government, but the source itself is not the statement of Fijian government.Toto11zi (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Based on your logic, the same can be said for the first source too. If there is no official information from the Fijian government website, it should be deleted too. I found from the CSIS site that Fiji "Publicly Denied China’s Claim of Support". This is inline with the second source and the AMTI source is more reliable than both sources (on it's about us page, it takes no sides). This would clearly indicate Fiji does not explicitly support China. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

For the Bosnia and Herzegovina case, there're 3 sources:

First source: I believed it's "seav" who added this source here. This EU declaration was published in March 2016, it has nothing to do with the case. Please read carefully and discuss here, otherwise this source will be removed.

Then this 2nd reliable source here. The main statement is the following

"BiH supports China's stance on the South China Sea arbitration, Tadic added."

Again read carefully, this statement was from Ognjen Tadic, not China. The date was May 2016.

Now the 3rd source from wsj here. Since this piece of news requires subscription, I found the statement from here. The main statement from wsj is

"Bosnia and Herzegovina also denied official Chinese statements that they backed Beijing on the arbitration."

This statement is not reliable, searching the Internet doesn't return a single piece of evidence that Bosnia and Herzegovina denied "Tadic's statement", or Chinese statement. Now check the cross-reference from this web site here. It points source to the EU declaration which was published in March 2016.

From here, I would conclude the statement from the WSJ was just bogus. If you don't agree, please discuss here with reliable information. Toto11zi (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I do not see how WSJ nor sources from the US government are not reliable. The WSJ is a reliable source and has been used on numerous occasions in many Misplaced Pages articles. To claim that the statement is not reliable just because one cannot find it is not a good argument. Please read on Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and explain how WSJ is not reliable. Many sources cannot be easily found by a search engine on the internet. I see the inherent bias in the comments when the 2nd source (Xinhua) is considered to be reliable while the official website of the European council of the EU and WSJ are not indicated as reliable as well (which it should be). Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Facts are transmitted through media and facts may get distorted, here we should concentrate on facts, not media. So never reject or trust any media blindly, agree? clear? Toto11zi (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Botswana

The press release of this African country Boswana can be found here. I don't see any indication that this country supports the arbitration brought up by the Philippines, it made no mention of any country in the press release. If you don't agree, please discuss here.Toto11zi (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Palestine

Palestine is listed as supporting China's stance based on this news article: . But the only sentence there is “In Palestine's view, China's words and deeds prove that it will not violate the interest of other countries, and it is groundless to say that China seeks regional hegemony, Hua said.” This sentence does not contain anything about the arbitration case, or about seeking bilateral negotiations. I also searched the website of the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website and I cannot find any information provided by the news article. Therefore, I propose to delete Palestine from the article because there is nothing relevant to the arbitration case. —seav (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This is reliable source, the more relevant source is this reliable statement from Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Araby "Arab countries support China's position on ‘safeguarding’ its sovereignty and territorial integrity". We're still discussing whether to include all the other countries to the list. If you need more, here's another one, so don't remove, do you agree? Toto11zi (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The newer source is more reliable coming from the Palestinean President himself. It should be used instead of the old one where Hua is relaying the view of Palestine.--203.215.120.114 (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree too. I think that when someone relays the view of Palestine, it may be changed a bit to fit into the view of that person, which in this case would be China's point of view. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Venezuela

Venezuela is listed as supporting China's stance based on this news article: . But the only sentence there is “According to Lu, Venezuela and Mauritania have issued statements, calling for the settlement of the South China Sea issue through negotiation and consultation.” I cannot find this issued statement anywhere. I also searched the website of the Venezuelan Ministry of External Relations and I cannot find this issued statement. Therefore, I would like to question whether Venezuela should be included in the article. —seav (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The statement is very clear, it's between 2 countries, outsiders may not obtain the actual statement. Lu is China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, information should be very reliable. Toto11zi (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Lu is obviously a representative of China and have a clear conflict of interest and Xinhua is a state-sponsored body. To assume that "it's between 2 countries, outsiders may not obtain the actual statement" is nonsense, there maybe excerpts of this somewhere in the web. To clear a source coming from the Venezuelan foreign ministry must be retrieved. Maybe there are Spanish sources regarding this, Toto11zi and seav may ask assistance from Spanish-speaking users. There is a high chance that Venezuela released a statement if the likes of Botswana had copies of statements posted.203.215.120.114 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think people will have difficulty understanding your words. Can you elaborate the "conflict of interest" you just said? also can you tell us why the statement "outsiders may not obtain the actual statement" is nonsense? lastly, have you read the press conferences from the MFA of China here? If the statement is from one of these conferences, would you still say it's nonsense? Toto11zi (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think that we need to information from the Venezuelan Ministry of External Relations since this would indicate Venezuela's official position. I searched through their website (type in China under "Buscar") and did not come up with anything related to this. Any press conferences from the MFA of China represents China's position and is not indicative of the other country's position. Venezuela should be removed for now until a proper source is found. While I do know that outsiders may not obtain the actual statement, the fact that it is coming from Xinhua means that it reflects China's position rather than Venezuela's official position. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said in the Fiji case, your logic doesn't stand. If you think "outsiders may not obtain the actual statement" is nonsense, you will need to prove it. Toto11zi (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Country X issued a statement" normally implies a public statement, at least in all reporting on this stuff I've read—or at least all reporting not coming from Chinese propaganda outlets. So agree the idea of a non-public statement is bizarre. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a general question: I don't think anybody supports war, so in what sense does a statement that country X supports "settlement of the South China Sea issue through negotiation and consultation" count as agreement with China's position *as opposed to*, say, the Philippines' position? (Assuming someone can find a public statement by Venezuela to this effect, since as others have said, a claim by one of the involved parties.) Mcswell (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to make this same point with comments in the Poland section on this talk page and was met with comments that were reminiscent of tactics of the 50 Cent Party. China, through its multiple state-controlled agencies, basically claims that any country that states it supports peaceful dialogue and negotiations supports its position and is opposed to the PCA award. Hammersbach (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Subsections

The headings are reorganized a bit. please comment if you dis/agree? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Support for the Philippines' right to seek arbitration / Calling on China to respect the arbitration decision

Before removing this whole section, please discuss if there's reason to keep this section.

This title was added arbitrarily last week by someone with the purpose to include one or 2 countries. I would think we can just remove it. The Australia source says Australia recognizes the Philippines' right, the title says "Support for the Philippines' right", it's just misleading. The New Zealand quote is just a general quote, not related to the title at all. Again no interpretation please. Toto11zi (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree. The sub-heading is misleading and should be removed. STSC (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

AMTI source

AMTI source can be found here, this source has been used in some other sources such as this one. Some of the information found one this site is reliable, while some of the information is not. Let's scrutinize the information.

- The EU declaration source is just misleading, discussion can be found in this talk page under section EU

- Information for Cambodia, Fiji, Poland, and Slovenia is just false, discussion can be found in this talk page under sections Cambodia, Fiji, Poland and Slovenia

Notice also the difference between "Support for the arbitration case" and "Supporting outcome of Arbitral Proceeding as Binding". If you don't agree, let's discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reliability of the "International reactions" section?

I realize that this link Arbitration Support Tracker: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative has been discussed before, but given the information provided here, I feel as though the list of nations in this section could give an inaccurate impression of support for the arbitration. For instance, I see roughly 60 nations listed as Opposition against the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants here, while the Initiative (which, backed by the CSIS seems to be a reliable, neutral, third-party source: take a look at the list of contributors http://amti.csis.org/about/ ) notes that, "To-date, we have identified 60 countries that appear to be included in China’s list of supporters. Of those, 10 have publicly confirmed their support, 4 have denied Beijing’s claim of support, and 50 have remained publicly silent or have issued statements that are considerably vaguer than indicated by China. In contrast, 40 countries have voiced support for the arbitral proceedings, said the award will be legally binding, and/or called on China and the Philippines to respect it." Surely the list of nations should take this into account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:268:C017:81B2:AC77:F5C2:9D3F:4C6C (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Each country has been scrutinized. Information can be found on this Talk page. Toto11zi (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Czech Republic

Czech Republic supports the arbitration because the NATO reactio is from the Czech Army. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your logic doesn't work. You will need to provide reliable source that supports the statement that "Czech Republic supports the arbitration". Also please put the relevant statements here, and we can scrutinize Toto11zi (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Date formats

This page appears to have a 'hodge podge' of date formats. Most of the lead seemed to be DMY (date) (and I changed a few MDY to DMY for 'consistency before looking further. Do'h!).
Now it looks like MDY (date) may be most used, see "timeline" section for example. 220 of 13:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

International reactions and Analysis of academics

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies History and geography Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

These two sections need to be checked. They have to give an equal coverage for other claimants otherwise it has to be removed. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You cannot remove reliable information without discussion. I oppose your logic. Also if you want to make dramatic change, you will need to discuss. Read your own comments here Toto11zi (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please link the edits that removed the content in question. Meatsgains (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I came here via a bot invitation. I am unable to discern a question. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Also called by bot -- I don't see an RFC question, however the text should not be removed without extensive discussion. Please re-state the RFC so that editors can know what the contention, if any, is. Damotclese (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

ITN Nomination

This article was nominated to be featured on the Main Page as part of the "In the news" section on July 12, 2016. The nomination was closed due to significant ongoing content disputes and allegations of non-NPOV editing.

General problems with sources on this page

In general, the current version of this page seems to be full of claims that are either (1) directly from Chinese government sources, presented as if they are from neutral sources (2) from neutral sources quoting Chinese government sources, but cited in a way that does not make this clear. I just uncovered another example—Afghanistan was included in list of Chinese government supporters based on something China claims was said in a private meeting. The original link, actually, is dead, but here is a live source. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's just irresponsible that you made sudden and dramatic changes without discussing. You cannot remove reliable information without discussion. Each source whether it's from China or the U.S. will need to be scrutinized. You cannot do what you want here, you will need to discuss and collaborate with other editors. Toto11zi (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To maintain objectivity, I feel this article should only use objectively written media reports. This unfortunately directly precludes reports from Chinese media (Peoples' daily etc) and Philippines (GMA, etc) unless the edit relates to the stance of a particular country. All such sentences must clarify that this is the stance of that particular country. Ditto for reports in other websites that may have leanings towards one side or the other. The best refrences in this case are from the PCA - and their 500+ page arbitration document issued on 12 July 2016. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Objectivity is not judged by one person, it's judged by all the editors. Do you agree? Toto11zi (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Aggrieved parties (in this case, China or the Philippines) cannot count as objective sources, so information from them cannot be used at face value; at the very least, it would need to be sourced in the article, e.g. "China claimed that Afghanistan supported their stand, although this could not be verified by independent means." And I further doubt whether the people who choose to edit this article would count as an unbiased jury, if that's who you mean by "all the editors." Mcswell (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we have to come up with a system that clearly states claims of support from Chinese/Philippine sources because both sources from both parties can be biased or assumes support. Country X merely says "peaceful resolution between parties involved"; Chinese news agency proclaims Country X supports China. Country Y says they are "for freedom on navigation and countries are free to use all means to peacefully resolve dispute such as the UNCLOS arbitration" (but does not mention the PCA by name", Philippine media comes up with a news with a headline "Country Y supports Philippines in UNCLOS arbitration case. It should be made clear if its a claim by the Chinese sources (Xinhua, Chinese Foreign Ministry, Xi Jingping), Filipino sources (Philippine News Agency, GMA, PDI, Inquirer, then President Aquino, Department of Foreign Affairs) or third party sources.

Also the issue statements by countries can't be just grouped into dichtomies or isn't just black or white. Some are calculated statements that are carefully crafted to minimize offending a party and stances can change overtime (it would be interesting to see the change of India's stance for example over time).

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of Xinhuanet as a source

I'm going to go through this article and delete all claims for which the only source is Xinhua.net. It's explicitly listed in WP:PUS as a source that needs to be treated with caution, because it's a state-owned media agency that may be considered a propaganda organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You cannot remove reliable information without discussion. Each source whether it's from China or the U.S. will need to be scrutinized. You cannot delete information from Xinhua.net without explaining your reasoning in details. All your dramatic changes will need to be restored. WP:PUSsays "All mainstream news media can make mistakes", and it doesn't say information Xinhua should be just deleted. Toto11zi (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)— Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

But the question is whether it's reliable information. There's good reason to think it's not. In at least one case (Fiji), China has been caught claiming support from a nation that doesn't actually support its position. Given the sheer number of citations to Chinese government sources, I think there's serious grounds for questioning whether most of them were added in good faith. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Tell us what's your logic. Have you read the discussion regarding the Fiji case? Are you referring to the joint statement or the statement from Fuji? Again you cannot remove information without discussion, your dramatic changes to the page is just irresponsible way of editing a page. List your facts here and we will scrutinize. Toto11zi (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be best to leave a few reference from Chinese state media, but as the Award ruling is done and this is all part of history, we should treat China sources like Xinhua as WP:FRINGE.--RioHondo (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That Chris Hallquist removed everything from Xinhua.net without discussing or collaborating with other editors is just irresponsible way of editing a page. I would consider that's close to vandalism to the page Toto11zi (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

From WP:VD: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." So no, my edits are nowhere close to vandalism. This is one of many comments you've written on this talk page that suggest you don't actually understand the Misplaced Pages policies you keep invoking on your side of the argument. If you're really interested in making positive contributions to Misplaced Pages, rather than just coming up with excuses to insert Chinese propaganda, I suggest you take a little more time to read Misplaced Pages's policy pages. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You will need to discuss, at least 2 editors including myself don't agree with your unilateral action of removing information from Xinhua.net. Removing information needs discussion and consensus needs to be reached. Toto11zi (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, it is adding disputed content that requires discussion, not removing it. Any editor can remove content if they believe that it is against policy, and the editors who want it to remain must achieve consensus to re-add. I'll also put in my 2-cents that Xinhua, and most other mainland Chinese-owned media outlets, is by and large an unreliable propaganda organization, as stated at WP:PUS. Mamyles (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with some of your statements, but not all. I think the main idea of WP:ONUS is consensus. The information from Xinhua has been on this page for a long time, and editors don't have an issue with Xinhua. Chris has just been become active from a dormant account and done dramatic changes to the page only for that specific purpose. This Chris, not only removed information from Xinhua, but removed all the information from list of following sites, I would consider that's irresponsible way of making edits. Here's what he has deleted:

- Information from China's foreign minister web site "fmprc.gov.cn"

- Information from xinhua web site news.xinhuanet.com

- Information from usa.chinadaily.com.cn

- Information from shanghaidaily.com

- Information from www.globaltimes.cn

- Information from epaper.southcn.com

- Information from english.chinamil.com.cn

- Information from www.chinaembassy.cz

- Infomration from www.reuters.com which relates to information from China's foreign minister

- Information from zm.chineseembassy.org

- Information from english.cri.cn

- Information from sputniknews.com

WP:PUS says all mainstream can media can make mistakes. Specific examples to treat carefully include Xinhua, here you cannot conclude the statement "Xinhua is not reliable". {WP:PUS} does list sources which are not reliable and should not be included in section "Sites that may appear to be reliable sources for Misplaced Pages, but aren't", also in section "Scholarly journals". Again, this Chris cannot just removed information with a blunt reason like "it's from Xinhua, or it's from China." We should check each source and scrutinize each statement instead, do you agree what I've just said?.Toto11zi (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi: Frankly, every source there except sputnik and reuters receives direction on what to or not to write directly from the Chinese government. They are not reliable sources for any information except citing official Chinese positions. Xinhua is literally an organ of the Chinese government, who imposes a regime of misinformation, censorship and propaganda, and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is a reliable source. Mamyles (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, please read WP:UNCHALLENGED (and perhaps the entirety of Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages regarding arguing that material is appropriate because it has been on the page for a long time. Mamyles (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Legobot sent me a notice requesting comment on this topic. I'd never heard of Xinhua, but in reading their Misplaced Pages article, where it says they are "the official press agency of the People's Republic of China", why would they get a free pass as a reliable source if we widely agree that statements from a COMPANY's press agency (aka PR firm) are not reliable? Compare this to how we would reference a statement from the White House: "In a statement, the White House announced ...etc. etc. ". We wouldn't immediately position the information as factual just because the White House stated it. I think if we use Xinhua content for sourcing, everything should be prefaced with the phrase "Chinese-run media agency Xinhua stated that...etc. etc.", so readers can weigh for themselves the validity of the reported information.Timtempleton (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with your point. Toto11zi (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

While all mainstream media can make mistakes, they are rare. They are still more reliable than Xinhua. Based on what User:Mamyles mention, Chris's reason that "it's from Xinhua" is a good enough reason to remove disputed content. There is no need to elaborate in the edit summary every time; it's a known fact. Regarding the claim that the material is appropriate just because it has been on the page for the long time, by your logic, we should tolerate hoaxes, some of which had been on Misplaced Pages for a long time or vandalized info (if no one has reverted it in many years). Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to ban information from Xinihua blindly, I don't agree with you. We will need to get more feedback from other editors. Toto11zi (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This Chris lied, he deleted more information than he said, including fmprc.gov.cn. As I said below, facts are transmitted through media and facts may get distorted, here we should concentrate on facts, not media. Toto11zi (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're saying sputnik and reuters are reliable then? Again, your blunt statement doesn't work. As I said, any statements from any media need to be scrutinized. Facts are transmitted through media and facts may get distorted, here we should concentrate on facts, not media. One example is WSJ, I've scrutinized the 4 cases Poland, Fiji, Cambodia, Slovenia reported by WSJ, WSj was just bogus in those 4 cases. So never reject or trust any media blindly, agree? Toto11zi (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Reuters and WSJ are very respected media outlets who known for overall reliability of their coverage.

Chinese media is CCP controlled propaganda and clearly defined in WP:PUS. As a matter of fact WP:PUS uses Chinese media as example to elaborate its points.

You are requested to stop diverting an article discussion from its main topic. Please follow community guidelines and if you disagree with guidelines then discuss that in their relevant pages. Not here. Collagium (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Collagium, which guidelines are you talking about, list here so all editors know what you're talking about? I've already explained WP:PUS, please be very specific.Toto11zi (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Collagium, Seav, and Mamyles:Actually, user:Toto11zi unilaterally added in many countries using Chinese sources despite objections from others. I can clearly see that he/she is not listening to other users and has a decided pro–Chinese bias. I think this discussion is becoming pointless and that user:Toto11zi's method of distraction and question begging replies is because he/she objects to the removal of them, even though the article is more neutral. I think this will go the administrators' noticeboard regarding the user's conduct if this cannot be resolved on the talk page. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ssbbplayer, why are you so eager to solve issue quickly? Can you discuss first so every editor understands the issue first? Again, discuss first, list points, give people time, if the issue can't get resolved, we get comments from other editors including major editors. Here we're talking about removing all information from China or all information related to China, do you agree? Answer this question first. Then people may ask to remove all information from the Philippines, or from the U.S. You think you can decide? Answer first Toto11zi (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be okay if Xinhua and Chinese government-sponsored news agencies could be used as sources. However it should be made clear where exactly the claim of support came from (irregardless whether if the source website comes from China, Philippines or a third party).

Exmamples:

1. Was Xinhua repeating a word-by-word quotation of a country's stance "The Foreign Ministry of Country X released a statement saying "Country X understands China's right to reject participation in the tribunal and calls for bilateral talks between the parties concerned".
2. just a non-quote saying "Country X totally understands China's stance on the position" "Country X, Country Y, and Country Z adds to the growing list of countries supporting China" without mentioning a direct quote from a representative of a third-country.
3. The named legal person who expressed the support (Ambassador to China/Philippines, Foreign Ministry, Head of State (e.g. then Philippine President claims that Italy supports the Philippines use of the arbitration case in resolving dispute, no direct word from the Italian counterpart retrieved). Limit to Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers and Head of States only.
4. Sometimes it was only the headline that implies explicit support, true for some sources supporting China or Philippines.

In my opinion by stating clearly the source, readers could discern which countries has expressed a stance themselves and countries that may have just been claimed by either the Philippines, China or their respective medias to hold a particular stance. It is up to the readers whether to take sources as propaganda or not.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Hariboneagle927 and respect Hariboneagle927. We cannot ban sites including China's foreign minister web site or deleted information blindly like this Chris Hallquist did. Toto11zi (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Chinese government sources were and are never "banned". They just cannot be used as a citation for any material stated as fact (except official Chinese positions), and therefore are not a useful source for much of anything. Mamyles (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927 Including unreliable sources (without identifying them in the main text, as in "China's foreign minister claimed...") on the grounds that readers could look at the references section and notice the sources are questionable is not remotely how WP:V works. Chris Hallquist (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Angola's Position

I deleted Angola from the list of supporters of China's position. One of the linked sources for this claim was vague and written in ungrammatical, hard-to-parse English. The other source linked to a claim from China's foreign minister, who I don't think can be considered a neutral, reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You cannot remove reliable information without discussion. Each source whether it's from China or the U.S. will need to be scrutinized. You cannot delete information from Xinhua.net without explaning your reasoning in details. All your dramatic changes will need to be restored. Toto11zi (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In addition to my other reply to you above, I should point out that I *did* explain my reasoning. Rather than engage with the specific points I made, you just made a question-begging reply, variations on which you've littered all over the talk page. Again and again, you say "You cannot remove reliable information without discussion" but that begs the question because doubts have been raised about whether the information *is* reliable. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to your blunt statement "I don't think can be considered a neutral, reliable source.", then I don't agree with you. Toto11zi (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Chinese POV Given Prevalence

The article does not appear to be balanced in the presentation of the issue. Note the heavy reliance on Chinese sources, which give the article an overall flavor of China having been wronged. Missing from this article is the consensus opinion that China has claimed most of the South China Sea without being able to demonstrate historical control, whereas the Philippines claim follows international UNCLOS convention (http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21695565-sea-becomes-more-militarised-risks-conflict-grow-china-v-rest).

I concur. After hearing about the arbitration ruling I looked up this article and have to say that I find it to be unabashedly biased in favor of the Chinese position. Hammersbach (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thirded. This page reads like a Chinese propaganda site. Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Misplaced Pages's coverage of the of South China Sea has been heavily slanted in favour of China's claims. But the number of pages involved, and the amount of work needed to restore balance is massive. Thinginblack (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You guys are biased. You deliberately removed information that came from non-Western sources to support the US's viewpoint on the South China ruling. There are definitely way more nations that are against it in comparison with the number of nations that support it. The previous revision of the list of nations that were for and against it is way more accurate than the current one. If wikipedia truly lived up to its name of being neutral, it would also acknowledge foreign sources. But you guys only favor Western sources, which is censorship. I lost respect for Misplaced Pages. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your accusation against me? FWIW, I don't actually have an opinion on this topic. I started reading this article because I thought I should know more about it, and was instantly shocked by the blatant violation of WP:NPOV. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You can add information to the page, or change information, but removal of information needs discussion. Again your unilateral action of removing information dramatically from the Misplaced Pages page is just irresponsible, editing a Misplaced Pages page is about collaboration that's consensus here.Toto11zi (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Where is the evidence for the attack on my motives? That I'm doing this to support the US viewpoint? --Chris Hallquist (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about your unilateral action of removing information dramatically from the Misplaced Pages page, I don't agree with your action and your explanation. Toto11zi (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS as what the editor mentioned previously. I think this statement that "your unilateral action of removing information dramatically from the Misplaced Pages page' is not being helpful in this conversation. On what basis is it unilateral? The discussion only applies to addition of disputed content, not removal of disputed content. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've responded all your questions in "Use of Xinhuanet as a source", again, this Chris created multiple sections with similar information and it's just confusing. I complained about this originally. Toto11zi (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 July 2016

This edit request to Philippines v. China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Russia as one of the countries that support talks between disputants / opposition to the arbitration. I found two sources that aren't Chinese that support my claim. I am kinda disappoint that wikipedia is inherently biased but it can't be helped. http://www.ibtimes.com/south-china-sea-controversy-russia-beijing-call-negotiation-consultation-settle-2355906, http://asiamaritime.net/russian-ambassador-tensions-in-south-china-sea-created-artificially/ ExGuardianNinja (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No worry. This editor Chris Hallquist made dramatic and irresponsible changes to the page without discussing or collaborating, it's just irresponsible way of editing this page. Those changes will be restored. There's no rule saying Russian sources or Chinese sources including Xinhua.net should not be included. Toto11zi (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm a little skeptical of the Asia Maritime Review, and the International Business Times is just reporting what Xinhua said. OTOH, based on Googling it looks like the AP is confirming that Russia is backing China on this: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/29/russia-china-north-korea-south-china-sea/83692794/. I was honestly kind of surprised whoever initially included Russia as one of China's supporters couldn't find a more reliable source, but wanted to focus on clearing out the dubious sources before looking into this one case more. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

When did you start editing this page? Editing this Misplaced Pages page involves collaboration, you cannot do whatever you want. A blunt statement like Xinhua is not reliable just can't stand. Toto11zi (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have disabled this request because I'm unsure exactly what is requested or whether there is consensus to do so. Before reactivating please make the request unambiguous and ensure there is time for other editors to assent/dissent. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Any other sources about UK's position?

The only source ( http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/britain-aligns-us-response-south-china-sea-case-38492670 ) is unavailable. --Vx13 (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternative link: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f1af89489ef440f97aab232779b7c74/britain-aligns-us-response-south-china-sea-case --Chris Hallquist (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Improvements Suggestions by Penwhale

There are a few issues I think that needs to be fixed:

1. Current contents at International Reactions section was to the filing of the case, not to the decision. Thus, the section either needs to be renamed, made as a subsection (see next point) or moved to International reactions to Philippines v. China.
2. Similarly, post-decision international reactions should be included. Again, this can be a section titled differently, a subsection of international reactions (if we're making pre-decision reactions a subsection of the big reactions section), or incorporated mainly into the new page.

- Penwhale | 05:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points, for the first point, our consensus is not to create a new Wiki page "International reactions to Philippines v. China", discussion can be found on this page. Toto11zi (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus can change, especially now that post-decision reactions also need to be included. - Penwhale | 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As one of the initial users to propose a split, I support such move, even more so after the ruling was issued. Such proposed page shall have two main sections, one for pre-ruling and the other are for post-ruling. If the page becomes to long two separate articles may be created instead. One for before the ruling (we should also note the changes of stances, denial of claims of support, retraction of statements) as well as post ruling with the post-ruling reaction page entitled "International reactions to Philippines v. China ruling.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 July 2016

This edit request to Philippines v. China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add information taken directly about the contents of this case. I will be using the official case documents of the Permanent court of arbitration as my root source and will use the same as reference.

This includes the correct legal name of the case, the exact judgment (there appears to a be a little too much media hype in these edits and thus making the article lose its objectivity). I am well versed in maritime law, and hence will only be using facts. Please do let me make these edits. You are free to correct / edit / discuss any of them subsequently with me - Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done When making a protected edit request you must explicitly state the specific changes you want to make. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Need for edits - and request to be allowed to edit (Notthebestusername) -

Hello,

I am going through the wiki of this (rather contentious) page and find that it urgently needs edits / improvements.

1) There are a large number of grammatical and sentence construction errors that need "cleaning up"

2) There is some bias in this article - towards both sides - and unfortunately, perhaps due to this, actual facts are few. For example: The opening paragraph needs to mention the case number (2013-19) of the PCA, the names of judges with their wikilinks, the actual contents of the PCA final documents which clarify that the judgement relates to certain maritime features, the right to them and the veracity of historic claims in this case, but NOT the sovereign rights of any country. Similarly, the legality of the PCA's right to arbitrate this case is addressed in their 12 July 2016 press release para 2-6, using UNCLOS Art. 296 and Art. 288 / Annex VII.

3) What is and is not contained in the case papers and judgement (the judgement clearly mentions that it is not ruling on sovereignty over any islands)

4) The exact UNCLOS articles that the case alludes to (with relevant wikilinks)

5) Most people seem to have used popular media as the resource for citation and not the actual 500+ page judgement (which I am currently going through)

6) That the PCA does not make rulings - it issues awards.

May I request the administrators of this page to allow me to address the above by allowing me to edit this page? You can always double-check the edits made by me, and revert any edits that you deem unsuitable. I have good maritime legal knowledge and used to be a lecturer on this subject. Thank you Notthebestusername (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• In cases like this, you would first figure out what you would change, and put the proposed text here so people can see what you are proposing, and when there is consensus for the change, the changes can be made. - Penwhale | 07:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd support a lot of these edits, though non-lawyers aren't going to care about the case number—I think that kind of thing belongs in a footnote, not the main body of the text. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• In response to ad 6). The PCA does not make rulings, nor does it issue awards. It only provides administrative support and acts as registry for the tribunals under its auspices. In this case the award was given by the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UNCLOS. See for example this press release: . Perudotes (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Notthebestusername: Re opening paragraph - I think the intro to the article should not be as detailed as you propose. The article is for both a person looking for general info and a person who is looking for specific details. I would even water down the intro as it is - take out some dates - such as when china refused to participate and when it did write a position paper. Also take out all or most citations. All of the information and its sources in the intro should be stated in article itself. This could be put at the beginning of the Arbitration section. What's your take?

@Chris Hallquist: Having the official name (if its not too long) and the case number is the usual intro to court cases, so I think we should put that in. I also think we should have allot of details in the main article (not in footnotes) but have those details in the Arbitration section.

--Also, how about we break down the required sections among editors - I would like to look into and do more detail on the Phillipines/Chineese main arguments. But am also willing to switch to others. Rybkovich (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rybkovich: you're right, I stand corrected. I had thought you meant "This is case number 2013-19" but you actually meant using as the first sentence "Philippines v. China (2013-19) was an arbitration case..." --Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References

1. "Press release 11 - THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION (THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)" (PDF). https://pca-cpa.org. Permanent court of Arbitration. Retrieved 13 July 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

This case was directed by the U.S. Regime & its Pentagon

The following report by Bill Gertz on the Asia Times revealed that whole U.S. regime machine including the Obama administration, congress and Pentagon has fully and deeply involved in the Case. so I suggest the title of the article should be changed to "U.S. and its Asian fellows v.s. China". http://atimes.com/2016/07/us-china-wage-legal-warfare-over-control-of-the-south-china-sea-gertz/

|}--84.163.129.183 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. One source does not justify the need to change the title of the article. It sounds like an opinion piece too. The court called it Philippines v. China and that is what it should be called. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons given by Ssbbplayer. Also, this is like saying the article on Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker should be titled "Bollea and Thiel v. Gawker". Not standard practice for referring to court cases, even if you can argue it makes some sense. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. The article is an opinion piece while the suggestion to change the title to "U.S. and its Asian fellows v.s. China" is obviously biased. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Court ≠ PCA

This appears to be a common misunderstanding, but the Permanent Court of Arbitration isn't the arbitral tribunal rendering the rulings in cases like these. It acts only as a registry for the tribunal, which is an ad hoc tribunal set up under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It's not correct to say the PCA "ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case" or that it "ruled in favor of the Philippines against China". Woodcutterty (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The PCA is not Formal Court

United Nations and International Court of Justice have not support the PCA.

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA’s website (www.pca-cpa.org). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJ’s website

In fact, United Nation stated that PCA is not part of UN, PCA is simply renting the location for its own interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonywang122 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The court that ruled on this case is not part of the UN or ICJ. It is part of the UNCLOS treaty, which China and the Philippines are signatories of. I believe that the article currently makes that quite clear. What exactly are you proposing in regard to the article? Mamyles (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

From the ICJ home page, I do not see any explicit statements saying that the UN and the ICJ they have not support the PCA. Just because it does not mention the PCA does not mean that they do not support the PCA. The claim "United Nation stated that PCA is not part of UN, PCA is simply renting the location for its own interest" is biased and comes from an unreliable source since Weibo is a microblogging site. Blogs should normally be avoided as anyone can post content without any fact checking. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration ,Mediation and Litigation is a difference a concept. I suggest it is a controversial issue.(talk) 17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.92.115.186 (talk)

References

1. http://www.weibo.com/1709157165/DEAmrzehm?from=page_1001061709157165_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime&type=comment#_rnd1468574953550

Protected edit request on 14 July 2016

This edit request to Philippines v. China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"The Tribunal did not follow the rules and practice of international law in determining the existence of disputes." Please remove this line. It's not referenced and misleading- there is absolutely no evidence that they did or did not do this. 175.100.48.163 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur, the sentence presents opinion as fact. Hammersbach (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC) in question

Concur --Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. This is a controversial statement and this has to be referenced to a reliable (and not propaganda) source to stay in the article. —seav (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this statement should be removed. It is not supported by a reliable source. Mamyles (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Removed. Airplaneman ✈ 15:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

India

The info that India backs China against arbitration is factually wrong and is based entirely on claim of Chinese media. Several reputable and trusted news sources have covered this topic stating that Chinese claim of Indian support are baseless.

Moreover, Indian Ministry of External Affairs itself has stated that : "India has noted the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) in the matter concerning the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.

India supports freedom of navigation and over flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS. India believes that States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability.

Sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development. As a State Party to the UNCLOS, India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order of the seas and oceans." Ministry of External affairs statement: http://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/27019/Statement+on+Award+of+Arbitral+Tribunal+on+South+China+Sea+Under+Annexure+VII+of+UNCLOS

Other Sources: http://qz.com/731553/chinas-state-media-is-wrong-to-claim-india-supports-beijing-in-the-south-china-sea/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/does-india-back-china-on-south-china-sea-beijing-seems-convinced/story-EeTHSHo3l9JH5JDFvoIP7N.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/South-China-Sea-ruling-a-shot-in-the-arm-for-India-a-damning-indictment-of-Beijing-say-experts/articleshow/53180365.cms

http://thewire.in/51444/reactions-south-china-sea-ruling/

If any one has objection or counter then please put it forward. Otherwise we should remove this grave misinformation based entirely on Chinese news papers despite Indian ministry issuing statement to the contrary. Collagium (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom, where new sections should go. In terms of the content itself, I agree that the article should reflect what the most reliable sources say about the subject, which is definitively that India does not reject the authority of this arbitration. From my browse-through, it looks like all non-Chinese sources quote India official statements that call for China to "show utmost respect" for the UNCLOS treaty. Mamyles (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that non–Chinese sources should be used. They are more reliable in reflecting India's official statements. I read through the mea source provided for India that claims that it supported China but the only relevant one was on paragraph 21. It stated

21.Russia, India and China are committed to maintaining a legal order for the seas and oceans based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS). All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned. In this regard the Ministers called for full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS, as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the Guidelines for the implementation of the DOC. I do not see how this shows that India supports China (nor the Philippines) so it should be removed from that list. When it mentioned negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned, it did not explicitly mention whether these negotiations are bilateral or require a third party. We cannot interpret it as saying that it supports bilateral talks; that's WP:OR. It also fails to mention whether India opposes or support the tribunal. The Chinese source is not reliable as what seav indicated previously. It is more related to India upholding UNCLOS rather than taking sides. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS" means respecting arbitration provisions, therefore they support the Philippines, rather than countries that actively state that the arbitration was a farce. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is there were edits done on the premise of "talking for all relevant parties" concerned means equates to support for China.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That is true and that is both a POV edit and original research/synthesis. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your whole discussion was related to new statement from India after the ruling, someone has already put India's statement in the page. Check point 39 for the consensus. If you have facts regarding India before the ruling, please put those here. Toto11zi (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi There is no point no. 39 in joint statement. Its a 30 point statement. Again, Please read before posting and stop making disruptive edits.

The Protected Edit request on this issue discussed Old statement. In addition, the same was discussed in this very heading just four paras above.

Your edits that go against clearly discussed matters are a case of WP:DISRUPT. Kindly refrain or the matter will be reported to Admins. Collagium (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 July 2016

This edit request to Philippines v. China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As discussed above in point no. 44 titled 'India', the stance of India is wrongly stated in the article to be 'against arbitration' based on claim of a Chinese newspaper despite multiple reputed sources stating otherwise and India's Ministry of External affairs itslef issuing a statement on this very issue.

http://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/27019/Statement+on+Award+of+Arbitral+Tribunal+on+South+China+Sea+Under+Annexure+VII+of+UNCLOS

Thus, admins are requested to take cognizance of this serious inaccuracy and edit the article accordingly. Collagium (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, the edit to be taken is to move India from Oppose to Support for the arbitration, and to replace both cited but unreliable sources with a reliable Indian source, such as 1. Mamyles (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. From further research, the Chinese source, Wen Wei Po is unreliable, having an editorial stance similar to Xinhua and is not credible based on research by the Chinese University of Hong Kong (source). Given that a university (third party source) says that it is credible, there is strong justification for removing this info. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. I had initially thought the Indian government source was a credible source for this claim, but on closer inspection it's much vaguer than the pro-Chinese side makes it out to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the issue. The said section is about the international reactions on taking the dispute to the PCA instead of bilateral negotiation. It is not about the reactions after the ruling. STSC (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The Chinese base for claim is nothing but reference to a statement wherein there is absolutely no mention of India supporting China.

As a matter of fact the statement reads, as already explored by Ssbbplayer that

"21.Russia, India and China are committed to maintaining a legal order for the seas and oceans based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS). All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned. In this regard the Ministers called for full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS, as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the Guidelines for the implementation of the DOC."

How can this be construed as supporting China and opposing UNCLOS especially when the statement makes clear the adherence to ' principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS)'?

If adhering to UNCLOS is supporting China then we should put Philipines, USA and Japan also in support of China and against arbitration. This is nothing but insertion of misinformation based on a singular unreliable source despite multiple reliable sources and official statements clearly saying otherwise.

Now, the above argument was based on considering the old statement which a Chinese news wrongly used to create illusion of support. The latest statement issued by India is directly on the matter and it clearly shows the Indian support to arbitration.

Thus in both old and new statement the stand of India is clear and there is no proof that India opposed this arbitration at any point of time. Collagium (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Done There seems to be consensus for this request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that this was recently unilaterally moved back to the "oppose" group. I believe that consensus here proves that India actually supports the Philippines, so it should be changed back. Mamyles (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was related to India's position after the ruling, not before. See point 39 "Improvements Suggestions by Penwhalefor" for the consensus of separating information, point 45 "India" if you want to discuss more. If you don't agree, discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 July 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request corrections in the second paragraph of the lead. Someone was trying to falsely make PCA sound like a law court that made the ruling. It's the tribunal that made the ruling, not PCA itself.

• Please add "tribunal", or replace PCA or "court" with "tribunal".
• Please also remove the POV wording "so-called" before the "nine-dash line".
• And please add quotation marks on the "irreparable damage". a statement to say "China has rejected the ruling."

STSC (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The correct version is as follows:-

On 12 July 2016, the PCA tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines against China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. The tribunal unanimously ruled that China has "no historical rights" based on the "nine-dash line" map. The tribunal also ruled that Chinese reclamation activity in the south China sea has also caused an irreparable damage to the environment and asked the Chinese government to stop further activities in the South China Sea. China has rejected the ruling.

I agree with adding the word "tribunal". The PCA itself did not give the award, but rather an ad hoc tribunal to which the PCA provided administrative support. I also agree with removing "so-called". However, I disagree with adding the quotation marks around "irreparable damage": The whole sentence already makes it clear that the irreparable damage is an assessment of the tribunal, and not a statement of fact that there is indeed damage nor that it is irreparable. —seav (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with removing "so–called" before the nine–dashed line to minimize bias. However, I opposed adding quotation marks on "irreparable damage" for the same reason that User:Seav points out (a good point in general). Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The quotation marks would not have been needed if both parties involved had accepted the ruling. The ruling is controversial and China has rejected it. The allegation of "irreparable damage" appears as a fact as ruled by the tribunal, therefore it should be within the quotation marks to indicate it may or may not true. STSC (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

There are generally three different ways we can present the irreparable damage claim:

1. Chinese reclamation activity caused irreparable damage to the environment.
2. The arbitral tribunal stated in their award that Chinese reclamation activity caused irreparable damage to the environment.
3. The arbitral tribunal stated in their award that Chinese reclamation activity caused "irreparable damage" to the environment.

The first way is clearly against WP:NPOV as it presents as fact something that is disputed. Therefore, according to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we attribute the controversial statement to the arbitral tribunal, so the second way is already sufficient. Now what's the problem with the third way with the quotes? Adding such quotes when the sense is already neutral in the second way turns those quotes into scare quotes, which is like adding "so-called" to "irreparable damage". These quotes therefore imply a bias opposite of the first way. So to be really neutral as per WP:NPOV, the second way should be chosen: Misplaced Pages does not claim that there is irreparable damage, but rather the tribunal does. The quotes are superfluous, just like the "so-called" that we agreed should be removed. —seav (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If there's no consensus on the quotation marks, the alternative is to add a statement that China has rejected the ruling. STSC (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made the changes agreed above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Some sections overtaken by the award event

The main International reactions section should probably be renamed as International reactions re the venue or International reactions re arbitration vs. negotiation or somesuch, as a section about international reactions to the award will probably need to be be added -- given that the article makes such a big deal about the reactions currently covered, it can hardly neglect to cover reactions to the award. That renaming would remove the current HTML anchor ambiguity between that renamed section and the currently identically named International reactions subsection in the Academic analysis section of the article.

The Potential ruling subsection should probably be removed now that the ruling is no longer potential. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We can just put two sub-headings(level 3) under the International reactions main section: "Before the ruling" and "After the ruling"; and push down the existing sub-sections accordingly. STSC (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Two subsection headings like International reactions before the ruling and International reactions after the ruling would work. I mentioned in passing that the page currently has two separate subsections headed identically as International reactions. MOS:HEAD currently doesn't identify that as a problem but, glossing over the details (see e.g., ), it does present a navigational problem with an undocumented solution for navigating to a particular one of these identically named sections by using e.g., "#International reactions" in the URL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That International reactions heading under Academic analysis section was originally named by me as Other issues. Someone should not have changed it; it should be changed back to Other issues or something else to avoid the navigational problem. STSC (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent misuse of terminology re Permanent Court of Arbitration vs. Arbitral tribunal

This article appears to misuse the terms Permanent Court of Arbitration and PCA. As I understand after reading this explanation (thanks, @Perudotes:), the PCA itself is not involved in the arbitration, and the term used ought to be Arbitral tribunal. See also UNCLOS:Annex VII (Arbitration). The article ought to be updated to use these terms correctly. I could take a whack at that, but I'm not a very good wordsmith. Perhaps someone else can do it? If nobody else steps up and if nobody explains to me how I have this wrong, I'll probably take a whack at fixing this myself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. When the protection is expired, I'll make the necessary edits. STSC (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrators have a job to do

The page is something of a mess now and cries out for editing extensively. The structure (storyline) and emphasis of the Background, in particular, is very poor. In the hands of the almighty administrators, it is in a state of disarray, with defects as obvious as footnote syntax error. Open it up or take on the responsibility of closure by standing in and doing the work required. sirlanz 23:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight to reactions of foreign based organizations

In my opinion, the reactions of Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations and Nepal Workers and Peasants Party are irrelevant to this case that we are giving WP:UNDUE weight. The Toronto organization may hold some water due to the membership of ethnic Chinese.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This indeed is puzzling as why they are mentioned in the article. I read the article again and 'Foreign based organizations' section felt out of place.

This news was prominently covered by all media outlets across the world so naturally reactions from lots of organisations, NGOs and other groups are there. The question that we need to ask is what is the relevance of such groups and what value addition did they bring by their inclusion? The answer appears to be negative.

We shall stick to opinion of countries and major organisations of countries like NATO, G-7 etc. Collagium (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Collagium: I agree. It is giving undue weight to certain organizations. I recommend restricting it to only countries and major organizations. Given that there are so many organizations that have voiced their reactions, we would run into the issue of which ones to include which is impossible to do. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ssbbplayer:, @Hariboneagle927: suggesting the 'Foreign based organizations' section to be removed. Collagium (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with removing this section. It clearly falls under WP:UNDUE. —seav (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all "undue". The reactions of foreign based organizations are valid encyclopedic content. STSC (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not about valid/invalid but whether they are relevant? Care to elaborate how they are needed despite reactions of nations being available? Collagium (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's very relevant because it shows the viewpoints at local and grass root levels. The readers should be fully informed about this. You don't remove the sourced content just because you don't like it. STSC (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Grassroot level opinion? How does that justify giving undue weight to an non-party to the dispute? What is the relevance?

The reactions on a dispute between two nations shall include reactions from only nations or group of nations not the 'grassroot' especially when said 'grassroot' are totally irrelevant to the law suit. This type of 'misinformation by inclusion' is precisely what WP:UNDUE deals with. Collagium (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

According to your argument, any mention of non-party to the dispute is "undue" apart from China and Philippines? I think it's a clear case of "I just don't like it". STSC (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I argued that 'The reactions on a dispute between two nations shall include reactions from only nations or group of nations not the 'grassroot' especially when said 'grassroot' are totally irrelevant to the law suit.'

Thus I request you to read what is written before replying.

Also, instead of diverting issue kindly state how is this not a direct case of WP:UNDUE. Collagium (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

STSC, it seems you haven't really read WP:UNDUE. —seav (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Up to now you still have not come up with an explanation as to why the content is "undue". STSC (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's undue because although most of the news has been focused on the viewpoints being expressed by the countries' reaction to the ruling, in the wiki article, viewpoints from organizations that are less known are being given equal weight with more well known organizations. For example, I did not even know the Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations existed until I read this article. For example, the responses from the two foreign based organizations have the same amount of content as responses coming from G7, NATO and SCO which are more prominent and relevant. To a reader, they may consider the responses from those two foreign organizations as carrying the same weight as those coming from G7, NATO and SCO. It is similar to giving 50/50 coverage between those who believe in climate change and those who deny it despite the widespread consensus that climate change is real. As well, both of them use sources that are connected to the Chinese government, so I do not see on how is it at the grassroot level. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

From what I observed the objection to the inclusion of the section because the content expresses the support for the Chinese government. It is in itself relevant to the topic but I want to be fair, as these organizations are quite insignificant so I agree some readers may not be very interested in them. STSC (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Support : As discussed above, the Foreign based organizations section is a case of WP:UNDUE and may be removed by the admins. Collagium (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! I think the insignificance of the organizations is what makes it "undue" and very prone to bias if included from both sides (the same issue would occur if insignificant organizations were used to express support for the Philippines). Support for removal. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you elaborate WP:UNDUE? Are you referring to the views/statements/reactions made by those organizations? or those organizations themselves? There's a big difference. Toto11zi (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Kindly read the discussion before raising same question again, specifically reply of Ssbbplayer just four paras above elaborating WP:UNDUE and that it is about Organisations regardless of their affiliation. Collagium (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance in Ssbbplayer's comments, if his theory holds, we should add more views from those 70 countries which support China's stance. I believe there's disconnect here, WP:UNDUE is related to views, regardless who hold those views. In the discussion, we should discuss the viewpoints, but not organizations themselves. Can you read carefully WP:UNDUE? I also noticed this line: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", please don't misinterpret, this refers to "tiny minority views", but not "tiny organizations" themselves, you can equate those only when there're no other people who hold the same tiny minority views. The "Flat Earch" example in the description clearly explains this concept, obviously it's not the case here. Also if there's no viewpoint comparison, not organization comparison, the whole WP:UNDUE thing is not applicable. If you don't agree, please discuss here.Toto11zi (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You want editors to explain (again) that these organisation are not relevant to the topic as they are not party to the ruling? The issue is about International Maritime Boundaries, thus nations and Group of Nations are relevant.

A small organization like 'Nepal Workers and Peasants Party' can not be given same weight as a nation, eg USA, France, Nigeria or block of nation like G-7, NATO? This is clearly WP:UNDUE. Collagium (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Typical misinterpretation of my theory. Your addition of 70 countries mostly use Chinese sources. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Domestic reactions

This section is more relevant to the case, the reactions of both China and the Philippines after the tribunal decision. Especially the concrete actions such as the mango boycott by Chinese citizens, plans to send Fidel Ramos to China for talks, solidarity protest in support of the Philippines by Vietnamese expats in the country, Chinese protests against the tribunal, continuation of Chinese aggressive enforcement of its claims, etc. For some reasons I can't edit the page even though there is no locked icon on the top right portion to do this myself. Pardon me its been a while since I begun editing again due to an announced Wikibreak.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2016

This edit request to Philippines v. China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On July 16, 2016, the United Nations (UN) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently issued statements reiterating that they have no connection to the temporary arbitral tribunal established under UNCLOS for the South China Sea case brought unilaterally by the Philippines.​

The spokesperson of UN Secretary-General also stated that “the UN doesn’t have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims” at a daily briefing on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the UN’s official account on Sina Weibo, China’s answer to Twitter, posted that the tribunal has nothing to do with the UN.

“The ICJ, located at the Peace Palace, is the principal judicial organ of the UN, which was established in accordance with the UN Charter,” reads the post.

The Peace Place is built to house the Permanent Court of International Justice, the predecessor of the ICJ, by the Carnegie Foundation. The UN donates to the foundation annually for using the building, the post explained.

“Another tenant of the Peace Palace is the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) established in 1899, but it has no correlation with the UN,” the post further pointed out.

Former ICJ Judge Abdul Koroma confirmed the UN’s post to People’s Daily. He said that the temporary tribunal is not a UN institution and the PCA is not a court in a real sense.

“Many people who are not familiar with the situation would confuse the tribunal with the ICJ who shares the same office building,” Koroma noted.

The PCA is merely an international mediation agency that allows arbitration for non-state entities and individuals. According to Koroma, only 16 arbitration requests have been accepted in its 117-year-long history.

The ICJ also released a statement on its official website on Thursday, stating that “the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the PCA. The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case.”

According to insiders of the ICJ, the temporary tribunal only used the hall room of the PCA during its court hearings. The arbitral tribunal is just a provisional organization set at the unilateral request of the Philippines for compulsory arbitration.

An unnamed staff member of the PCA told People’s Daily that arbitrators of this temporary set-up have no work ethics and they only care about money.

“This institution is no place for justice. It has been reduced to a commercial venue for private interests,” said the employee.

In an interview with People’s Daily, Rao Pemmaraju, former Chairman of the International Law Commission, explicitly pointed out that territorial issues are not subject to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and delimitation issues have been excluded from compulsory arbitration procedures in statements of the Chinese government, thus the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case.

Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/un-and-icj-reaffirms-non-relation-to-south-china-sea-arbitral-tribunal/#YmFVrHvIqo40H7FX.99 Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/un-and-icj-reaffirms-non-relation-to-south-china-sea-arbitral-tribunal/#YmFVrHvIqo40H7FX.99 175.143.74.177 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• @MSGJ: Although there was no consensus to add this in, the article is borrowing content from the People's Daily, a mouthpiece of the Chinese government. Thus, this is showing the Chinese government's point of view on PCA as being "a commercial venue for private interests". I highly doubt it is a reliable statement and is very biased towards China, given that it is coming from People's Daily and reproduced on another site. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of those statements seem to be reliable, and can be easily verified. You cannot reject statements with a blunt reason. That statement “This institution is no place for justice. It has been reduced to a commercial venue for private interests,” was from an unnamed staff member of the PCA. Even that one has some logic inside. Obviously Koroma's statement supports this. Again Koroma's statement can be verified easily. Toto11zi (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because it is verifiable does not mean it is reliable. As well, just because the statement is coming from an unnamed staff member of the PCA does not mean the statement is reliable or is logical. By your logic, we should trust a person with a Ph.D who claims vaccines cause Autism or that Homeopathy works (as an analogy). Also, my statement is not blunt as what you claim and what do you mean by "blunt" statements? You better define it before accusing me of "rejecting statements with a blunt reason". Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you don't get the point. I'm pointing you to the moon, but you're looking at my finger. Concentrate on facts, not media. Facts are transmitted through media and facts may get distorted, here we should concentrate on facts, not media. One example is WSJ, I've scrutinized the 4 cases Poland, Fiji, Cambodia, Slovenia reported by WSJ, WSj was just bogus in those 4 cases. So never reject or trust any media blindly, agree? clear? Toto11zi (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not get your point because your point is wrong. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 July 2016

This edit request to Philippines v. China has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Put forth and discussed in point no. 51 above, this request is regarding removal of section titled 'Foreign based organizations' (hereinafter FBO).

FBOs have no relevance to the matter and are there in this article for sake of their (pro-chinese) quotes. Irrelevance and POV raises question as to why include these FBO at all? They bring negative value addition to article.

The arbitration was widely covered by the world media and hundreds of organisations have expressed their viewpoints on the matter. Both Pro-Philipines and Pro-Chinese. We can't begin including them as they are all irrelevant to the scope of this article regardless of who they support. The arbitration was between two countries regarding maritime boundaries. How it concerns 'Nepal Workers and Peasants Party' or 'Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations'?

Further, as reactions from countries across the world available and provided in the article, what is the need to include FBOs? We shall stick to reaction of Countries and Major Groups of Countries like North Atlantic Treaty Organization, G-7 and others.

Thus, it is requested that 'Foreign based organizations' section be removed. Collagium (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. No changes will be made unless discussed and with and agreed by other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

New article for International Reactions (ongoing discussion moved forward here)

I propose transferring most contents in the "International section" into a new article called International reactions to Philippines v. China or International reactions to the Philippines v. China arbitration case. I think the section is getting out of hand and gives more weight to diplomatic statements by other states while information about the arbitration case itself receives relative little attention. Only a summary of these international reactions should be on this main article. While responses of both China and the Philippines, (their media, government, public officials) should be given more attention.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

My recent edit lengthened the section and may have triggered this. I have no objection but, without having done a draft, I'm wondering whether presenting the international reactions in a table here rather than as a separate section with a bunch of subsections might work acceptably. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please gather more support before creating a new page. Toto11zi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't know. I'm particularly worried that the section may escalate into a Misplaced Pages:QUOTEFARM. IMO, the reaction section has already overwhelmed the other sections. If you plan on making a table of grouping the countries into which "side" they are on (China, Philippines, neutral), it's another problem since some countries don't have a clear stand. India has made contradictory statements, the United States says officially they don't take sides but they're action suggests otherwise (reactions includes actions, not limited to statements) and Chinese and Philippine media may claim countries support their respective countries when in reality in some cases they didn't outright support either country and just supported a specific approach (multi-lateral approach, bilateral approach, taking the dispute to UNCLOS).]Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding contradictory statements from particular governments and/or differing POVs within a country, see WP:DUE.

However, India's contradictory stance is that of the national government. Although the inclusion of the Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations' reaction is problematic when it comes to WP:DUEHariboneagle927 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

added: How about reducing the size and amount of detail in this section by presenting lists of countries supporting resolution by the PCA vs. resolution by bilateral negotiations, with supporting cites for each listed country? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This approach could be taken with countries grouped according to their latest stand (to deal with countries like India). Potentially vague stands of certain countries could be elaborated in a short paragraph below. Like how Belarus stance on Crimea during the annexation of Crimea in Political status of Crimea. And mentions of concrete action by other countries such as the sending of observers by Thailand, etc. should be noted too. Also countries that outrightedly declared support for any of the two countries should be mentioned as well as those who say they don't take sides with any country although they support a move to resolve the dispute.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Also quotations could be transferred to Wikiquotes. Also some reactions while involves the South China Sea disputes does not relate to this particular arbitration case such as Indonesia, which according to the cited source is yet to make a stand. Although it has said that it does not recognize the 9-dash-line. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:BOLD, I tried compressing the article based from the discussion. Please feel free to comment regarding this.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is good idea! Toto11zi (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Since there is no objections involved, I will try to come up with an idea to summarize the reactions of multinational bodies as well. But it seems a consensus has been reached among major editors of the section concerned. Also thanks for Toto11zi for trying to retrieved information regarding these close to 40 countries that expressed support for China's stance / opposed the arbitration.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments. Sorry Toto11zi, it appears you have mistakenly cited the wrong source (a source on Shanghai Cooperation Organization's response) for some countries (Algeria, Bahrain, etc.). I don't think you meant to do this. I've removed them for now until you come up with the references you intended to use.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The reliable source saying "Arab countries support China's position on ‘safeguarding’ its sovereignty and territorial integrity. ", all the Arab countries should be added, don't you agree? Toto11zi (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You also removed SCO countries, can you tell us why? Toto11zi (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No the source you've added is about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (particularly this one rather than any Arab country's. See this version) just prior to my edit and see for yourself. Also the reactions of multinational bodies is already covered below. The section was meant to be reaction by national governments themselves, statements and reaction at their own prerogative. That is why I'm not automatically including the Group of Seven (G7) countries to those who supported the arbitration. (hence the absence of Canada and the European Union, a multinational body). If we insist including member countries of multinational bodies, then how about EU-member Slovenia, which is reportedly has supported China?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. I think we should gather more feedback on this. Also, please when you remove, discuss first on this page Toto11zi (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Toto11zi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree, let's gather more feedback for this sensitive topic. If we don't get enough feedbacks especially after many days. I suggest we should request for a Third opinion or make Request for comment. I elevated the issue to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations to solicit comments. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion here to get consensus on the issue. STSC (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I support that this article be split into a new article titled International reactions to Philippines v. China as the content in the International reactions section is getting large now. STSC (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't have a position for this. The only thing is if we decide to create multiple articles, how do we handle the ongoing discussion?Toto11zi (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We could link relevant early discussions on reactions on the talk page of the proposed articles, then discussions (especially involving reactions) could be continued there.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not convinced that there is a reason to split off this section. The only reason I see is that the material attracts edit warring, which by itself is not a good reason to split off information that is short and directly relevant to the article. Mamyles (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Time

To all editors, major editors, old editors and new editors, please don't be so eager to solve disputes quickly, I know there're always disputes. Give people time to think, to digest information, to discuss. What do you think? Some new editors here want to remove all the information related to China, then later new editors may want to remove all the information related to the Philippines, or related to the U.S. I think for major issues, we need more time to think and discuss. What do you think? Toto11zi (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of Chinese government sources in International Reactions section

There is almost an edit war over the use of Chinese government sources to cite positions of other countries. Please discuss this content to achieve a consensus here before re-adding the disputed content.

Personally, I believe that official sources of the countries in question should be used, as the Chinese government has lied about other countries before (see Cambodia and India above). Also see the section pertaining to Xinhua, where consensus is that is not a reliable source. Mamyles (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur Collagium (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

All of the sources I used to add the nations to the Support China list aren't from Chinese sources. I even used the Guardian as one of them. Also, the same exact article that currently shows that Australia supports the Philippines, supported many of the nations, that were foolishly removed from the Support China list. This article is being edited to distort fact for the American point of view. Let's be real here: If I used an American or Western source, you people are fine with that. But if we used any non-Western source, then it is not all right with you guys. Then, you guys accuse all non-Western sources as being unreliable even though most of them are valid. Therefore, I accuse you pro-American editors for censorship.--ExGuardianNinja (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the usage of the Guardian source, it says "In late May the foreign ministry in Beijing said Vanuatu, Lesotho and Palestine had joined its side". What this means is that the Chinese foreign ministry claims that these countries support China so China is speaking on behalf of those countries, which can be misleading (as in the case with Fiji and Poland where Fiji and Poland both said that China misrepresented their position). While the Guardian is a reliable source, the fact is coming from the Chinese foreign ministry so it is unreliable. It was just inserted in there to give a false impression that it is a reliable statement so that's WP:Citation overkill. You are wrong about saying that the exact same article is being used for Australia. It has a different title, url, and content. Also, your accusations of editors who think non–Western sources as being unreliable as being pro–American is baseless if reasoning has been used. Plus, many of the non–Western sources are Chinese sources, which would have to write in line with the Chinese government owing to pervasive media censorship over there. Your accusations indicates that you cannot explain why Chinese sources are better. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ssbbplayer, and I'd add that I already made this point under "general problems with sources on this page." Furthermore, "I accuse you pro-American editors for censorship" could be construed as a personal attack on other editors. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you guys intend to ignore the Chinese perspective, then it is fair to say that this article is only one-sided. Also, your actions is censorship since you choose to select only Western sources. A lot of non-Western sources aren't from China at all. If you guys truly were neutral, you should had kept "United Arab Emirates", and other nations, which were supported by the same article that indicated that Australia supported the Philippines. IT HAS THE EXACT URL, TITLE AND CONTENT. IT IS THE SAME KOREAN SOURCE (http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/753617.html). The source clearly states that Laos, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Poland support China's stance. If you choose to deny that, then it is very evident that your censorship is prevalent. If you change Australia's source, then your censorship actions are very obvious. Also, the source that showed that Syria supports China is from a local Syrian source. Yet, it was removed. If the consensus is going to be only run by pro-American editors, then the consensus has no meaning because it will only favor the American point of view. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Korean source is reliable but the content is based on statements coming from China’s state-run newspaper, the China Daily (first section of the article). Even though it is a reliable non–western source, it is being misused to show that certain countries support China because the content is coming from the China Daily . This is what China claims, not the respective countries themselves. Regarding Poland, I do not see how sending a person to China to its military parade indicates that it supports China. One can send delegates to China for the military parade yet not support China on the issue with the South China sea. Because the countries were being mass added, it would be better to revert back to the old version and discuss it (per WP:BRD) to ensure that each addition is reliable. Syria can go back because it is coming from a Syrian source but other countries have to be done on a case by case basis. Also, stop accusing editors of being pro–American or censorship. That's not going to lead to a productive discussion. Also, how is it censorship if older versions of this article can be seen? Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconding the point that one can send delegates to a parade with out supporting the host country's position on any particular issue. Chris Hallquist (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you choose to accept and disregard certain parts of the source. And you choose to doubt only Chinese sources. I still have many disagreements, but I am glad that you will let Syria go back to the list. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't "accepting and disregard certain parts of the source". It's just accurately recognizing what the source does and does not say. Chris Hallquist (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you truly did recognized everything the source said, you guys would allow Malaysia, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Laos, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Poland to be added to China's support list. Funny that you guys only kept Australia. The source did say that and it will be funny to see what outrageous reason you would use to justify the exclusion of these nations. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

For the list that didn't support the attribution, I just wanted to add that even if you removed all Chinese sources, at least 40 nations were supported by international non-Chinese sources and few other Western sources. I saw nations that had non-Chinese sources and they were removed as well. I think this move has a hidden agenda to promote the American perspective of the court ruling instead of accepting reality.--50.35.84.247 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Countries that have accused China of misrepresenting their position

Under the "international reactions" section, I think it's worth adding a clear and concise statement that a number of countries have accused China of misrepresenting their position. Like, a sentance or two immediately following the sentences about China claiming 40 or 70 countries supporting it.

Based on quickly skimming this talk page, countries that have publicly disputed China's claims appear to include Cambodia, Fiji, India, Sloveni, maybe others—I haven't been keeping careful track. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Also Poland. At some point today I'll try to draft a precise protected edit request, unless someone else beats me to it. Chris Hallquist (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 July 2016

It is requested that an edit be made to the fully protected redirect at Philippines v. China. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

I propose renaming the section headings "Support for the arbitration / Support for Philippines' stance" and "Opposition to the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants / Support for China's stance" to simply "Support for the arbitration" and "Opposition to the arbitration". The current headings look like bad style to my eyes, and are potentially confusing. For example, Taiwan does indeed oppose the arbitration, but it's misleading to describe Taiwan as supporting China's stance, because Taiwan emphatically does NOT support China's territorial claims—it's opposing the arbitration because it has its own conflicting territorial claims which it does not want to subject to arbitration Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose your suggestion, keep the existing titles. Toto11zi (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I Concur the two positions is not perfectly interchangeable. Suppose (in alternative universe) the arbitration went to Chinese favour instead of the Philippines, that will be all messed up. While we at it, I suggest to change the subsection title "After the ruling" to "Official statements about the ruling" (response to the ruling) since the governments statement is official position of nations concerned. Gunkarta  talk  16:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Headings 'Support for the arbitration' and 'Opposition to the arbitration' avoids confusion and adheres to the subject matter of the article.

Also, Support to suggestion by @Gunkarta. We should name the section Official Statements to prevent further misquoting of positions of nations. We shall rely on official statements posted on their respective ministerial sites as far as possible. Collagium (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Support for the same reasons mentioned by Gunkarta, Collagium, and Chris Hallquist. For Toto11zi, please provide a reason why you oppose it. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

ASEAN position

On July 25th, 2016, in Vientiane, Laos, ASEAN issued the joint communique regarding South China Sea disputeː

Joint Statement of the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN Member States on the Maintenance of Peace, Security, and Stability in the Region

We, the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN Member States, reiterate ASEAN’s shared commitments to:

1. ensure that Southeast Asia and its surroundings remain a peaceful, stable and secure region;

2. promote mutually beneficial relations to maintain peace, security and stability, and prosperity with nations in the region and the global community of nations;

Here some useful links for refs (since I can not edit the "After the ruling" section)ː

ASEAN 'united' over South China Sea

After Days of Deadlock, ASEAN Releases Statement on South China Sea Dispute

Diplomasi RI Berhasil Yakinkan Semua Anggota ASEAN untuk Bersatu  Gunkarta  talk  18:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gunkarta: This is really good info! This should be added to the page, preferably using the source coming from ASEAN itself. It is a major organization much like Arab League and SCO. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 July 2016

It is requested that an edit be made to the fully protected redirect at Philippines v. China. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Unless someone wants to volunteer to dramatically re-write the section, I suggest removing the entire section on academic analysis. It blatantly gives undue weight to the Chinese point of view, borders on WP:QUOTEFARM, and it's unclear how many, if any, of the academics are sufficiently notable. (I could modify my stance on this, if anyone is able to offer an informed opinion on the notability of the sources in that section.) Chris Hallquist (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the editors have actually discussed this section. And unless you have a particular and precise edit request, then you shouldn't have used the edit fully-protected template yet. —seav (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, should I remove it? Chris Hallquist (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Huge Deletion of Nations that are Against the Attribution/Support for China List seems to have a hidden agenda.

Many pro-American editors deleted many nations from the list that is against the arbitration/support for China because they think that their sources are mainly from Chinese government sources. But that is not the case, most of those sources also had international sources that weren't endorsed by Western media or China at all. Some nations weren't supported by Chinese sources, yet they were deleted as well. Did you know that the source article (http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/753617.html) for Australia mentioned that Laos, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo supported China's stance? Of course you don't, because the pro-American editors deleted it on purpose to cover that up. They are willing to deny that fact to ensure that they aren't added to China's list. Therefore, I have to say that the huge deletion move by the pro-American editors is used to cover up the fact that most nations don't support the attribution case at all. I used to believe that Misplaced Pages was a neutral page, but it is not. It is actually an American propaganda mouth piece to promote its interests and viewpoints. I wouldn't be surprised if these pro-American editors work for the US government. Due to the massive censorship of nations that are against the attribution by the pro-American editors, I guess Americans employ double standards since they always accuse China for censoring information. They are doing the exact same thing by deleting any source (regardless if it is Chinese or International) to ensure that no nation joins the list that is against the attribution. I am writing this message to inform everybody my perspective on this issue.--ExGuardianNinja (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Low-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Philippine-related articles
• Mid-importance Philippine-related articles
• WikiProject Philippines articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Misplaced Pages fully protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates