This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scarborough Shoal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Scarborough Shoal, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Scarborough Shoal, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "2016 ruling" section, the following passage was recently added:
However, United Nations clearly states that this arbitration tribunal is not affiliated with UN. Meanwhile, 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.
First, this passage is unreferenced. Second, the fact that the PCA is separate from the UN and not related to the ICJ is not relevant to the article. As long as we make it clear that the arbitration case (which involved the status of Scarborough Shoal) is administratively handled by the PCA, then the text preceding the above passage should suffice. — seav ( talk) 01:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
UNCLOS only suggests a “special arbitral tribunal” constituted for certain categories of disputes (established under Annex VIII of UNCLOS) could be accepted. However, UNCLOS never endorse this particular arbitration. In addition, don't automatically think it is part of UNCLOS, which is misleading. Please also do some research on PCA, you will know how ridiculous the so-called international court is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wocaonima1 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
"Subject to section 3, any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to section 1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section."
I agree on what Wicaonima was saying.. International Court Ruling as such regarding Scarborough is very material to be read by the whole world especially the Peopke of tvthe Philippines.. It was a longbattle won.. Freedom..
There's so much Chinese edits on there already.. Bebe0114 ( talk) 17:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
How comes that countries can claim sovereignty over a Shoal? A Shoal is defined as a feature that is near the surface, but fully underwater, as far I know.
The topic, and heavily political, is that the "Shoal do have some over the water features so, it is possible to claim sovereignty, and build over it, and expand his surface, as necessary. As the airports in Japan and Hong Kong.
so a number of countries -including the US- has claim sovereignty over it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye ( talk • contribs) 14:58, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
To illustrate fellows quorans.
The US is NOT part of UNCLOS so, it can no make claims based on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye ( talk • contribs) 15:01, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
It is so ridiculous to have random people on the internet stumble across a page on wikipedia about the Scarborough shoal, and for it to have maps right at the top listing it by a name the Chinese gave it "Huangyan". Wikipedia being open to edit by anyone is a horrible characteristic, it means Wumao basically abuse this place, so we find so many pages of other country's islands and features and the page is using some name the Chinese call it instead, because Wumao love pushing their names for things to imply they own it.
Sort yourself out wikipedia, you need to hire actual workers to keep on top of this, otherwise it's just like reading a bunch of Wumao propaganda half the time on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.1.253 ( talk) 17:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I've added a footnote that may help resolve this, though I don't expect my latest change to be the final version. We've been edit-warring over these names for too long. Let's figure out what to do here, get an editorial consensus about that, then do it. If my edit isn't helpful, improve it or revert it.
On a separate issue, I think the story on differing opinions about whether or not Panacot is Scarboough Shoal, which the article goes back and forth about, should be summarized in a footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scarborough Shoal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Scarborough Shoal, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Scarborough Shoal, or anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "2016 ruling" section, the following passage was recently added:
However, United Nations clearly states that this arbitration tribunal is not affiliated with UN. Meanwhile, 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.
First, this passage is unreferenced. Second, the fact that the PCA is separate from the UN and not related to the ICJ is not relevant to the article. As long as we make it clear that the arbitration case (which involved the status of Scarborough Shoal) is administratively handled by the PCA, then the text preceding the above passage should suffice. — seav ( talk) 01:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
UNCLOS only suggests a “special arbitral tribunal” constituted for certain categories of disputes (established under Annex VIII of UNCLOS) could be accepted. However, UNCLOS never endorse this particular arbitration. In addition, don't automatically think it is part of UNCLOS, which is misleading. Please also do some research on PCA, you will know how ridiculous the so-called international court is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wocaonima1 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
"Subject to section 3, any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to section 1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section."
I agree on what Wicaonima was saying.. International Court Ruling as such regarding Scarborough is very material to be read by the whole world especially the Peopke of tvthe Philippines.. It was a longbattle won.. Freedom..
There's so much Chinese edits on there already.. Bebe0114 ( talk) 17:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
How comes that countries can claim sovereignty over a Shoal? A Shoal is defined as a feature that is near the surface, but fully underwater, as far I know.
The topic, and heavily political, is that the "Shoal do have some over the water features so, it is possible to claim sovereignty, and build over it, and expand his surface, as necessary. As the airports in Japan and Hong Kong.
so a number of countries -including the US- has claim sovereignty over it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye ( talk • contribs) 14:58, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
To illustrate fellows quorans.
The US is NOT part of UNCLOS so, it can no make claims based on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye ( talk • contribs) 15:01, May 21, 2019 (UTC)
It is so ridiculous to have random people on the internet stumble across a page on wikipedia about the Scarborough shoal, and for it to have maps right at the top listing it by a name the Chinese gave it "Huangyan". Wikipedia being open to edit by anyone is a horrible characteristic, it means Wumao basically abuse this place, so we find so many pages of other country's islands and features and the page is using some name the Chinese call it instead, because Wumao love pushing their names for things to imply they own it.
Sort yourself out wikipedia, you need to hire actual workers to keep on top of this, otherwise it's just like reading a bunch of Wumao propaganda half the time on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.1.253 ( talk) 17:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I've added a footnote that may help resolve this, though I don't expect my latest change to be the final version. We've been edit-warring over these names for too long. Let's figure out what to do here, get an editorial consensus about that, then do it. If my edit isn't helpful, improve it or revert it.
On a separate issue, I think the story on differing opinions about whether or not Panacot is Scarboough Shoal, which the article goes back and forth about, should be summarized in a footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)