![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
As follows: According to our team’s research, we have found at least 70 countries supporting China’s position on various occasions. We find that the reason for the controversy over the figure comes down to different definitions on “China’s position.” But no matter how it is defined, the psychology behind these statements is a desire to avoid taking sides between China and the United States, showing the reality of a fundamental global consensus on peace and wide-spread anxiety toward the potential for conflict in the South China Sea. Thus, we should take every opportunity to go beyond the “zero-sum game” in order to maintain peace in the South China Sea, to seek Asia-Pacific economic cooperation, and to make the “cake” bigger using economic and financial means.
All the countries list, see http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/who-supports-china-in-the-south-china-sea-and-why/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmvidyahoo ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
These components are
Also interesting is other countries claimed by the Chinese media are not listed here namely: Poland, Fiji, Slovenia. Cambodia is listed, however take note that the listing only requires agreeing to one component of "China's stance". In Cambodia's case its component 3. Cambodia is silent on number 1 and 4.
If an editor (preferably not yet involved too much in this article can translate quotations from Arabic and Chinese), it could be helpful for the rest of us editors already involved. Also take note the asterisk (*) on some countries. They are members of the Arab League that made a pro-China stance in the Doha Declaration. Current consensus is not to list countries that has not made any individual statements. Formerly this declaration was taken as the stance of the Arab League as an organization but has been removed at some point of time.-- Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Before jumping to any conclusion we have to take cognizance of one very important aspect i.e. Their definition of 'Support' in the article which is given as below :
Point no. 2 and 3 are not about opposing arbitration but they have included that as such in the article cited above. Collagium ( talk) 12:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
This should cited as fact. What is fact? I think Chris Hallquist should give us a definition. But even you say it out, I think its just your definition. Not everyone's. Mmmvidyahoo ( talk) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should take caution in using this source itself as a reference. But I do recognize that at least some of the links posted below the article (the source) may be potentially used as citation. But as I said some sources are in Chinese/Arabic. (Also there is this ongoing dispute regarding sources from Chinese state media). As discussed earlier preference for bilateral talks between disputants does not necessarily means opposing arbitration. It doesn't help that the source does not list which of the four components applies to the countries' statements/stance. Also if we moved away from the dichotomy of Support China/Philippines as I discussed above in prior sections. Then some issues may be resolved swiftly Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 14:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The article's authors work directly for the Chinese Communist Party. They are not journalists and are obviously biased. Both authors work for Renmin University of China, a part of/founded by the Communist Party of China, and controlled directly by the government. Also, note that the vast majority of sources they cited are Chinese. They are assuming that everything Chinese media or government says is true, but we know from discussions above that it is not so simple. However, if you believe that any sources in their citations are reliable, feel free to discuss those on their own merits. Mamyles ( talk) 14:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion here to get consensus on the issue. STSC ( talk) 04:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me explain this with facts in details:
Our original/current consensus for the International Reactions (Before the ruling) section has been to include the information from both China and the Philippines (their media, government, public officials) proposed by the page originator Hariboneagle927. And that explicit consensus was reached among major editors including myself, the relocation part is not reaching consensus yet. Discussion and conclusion can be found here
This newly activated account from a dormant account Chris Hallquist ( talk · contribs) violated our established consensus by promoting his own agenda in the following ways:
The table/group issue has been discussed before in various places on this Talk page, we even considered to use the same format AMTI used, but there're issues. Here's discussion, also here
The conclusion of all this is unless we establish a new consensus for this section, we will stick with the original consensus for this particular section. Without new explicit consensus, reverting this section in order to promote one's agenda or new criteria is considered disruptive. Editors may propose a change to the current consensus, however, proposing to change a recent consensus can be considered disruptive.
Since Chris Hallquist ( talk · contribs) is a new editor joining this complex topic discussion, he might not know our consensus which has already been established in this before he joined.
If you think I described this incorrectly or missed anything. Please discuss with facts here. Toto11zi ( talk) 01:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Toto11zi: Respectfully, editing here requires a certain amount of competence and a willingness to listen. I do not believe that you have that in regard to this topic. While I welcome you to Wikipedia, coming here as a new editor and insisting that you are the "major editor", after we have linked you plenty of helpful policies to get you started, does not bode well for remaining helpful as an editor. I recommend that you continue to edit Wikipedia in areas that you are not so emotionally invested in. Mamyles ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Chris Hallquist has requested comments from experienced editors regarding usage of self-proclaimed data in this case here. His statement "both of the editors who've weighed in so far agree Chinese government sources should not be cited for the position of governments other than China" is misunderstanding of those statements from experienced editors. I've put my analysis there as well. In this case, those experienced editors may or may not give more comments. I think in this case, please we will need to think very carefully before we write statements. If you don't agree, please write with caution and clarity. Thank You. Toto11zi ( talk) 05:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
To eliminate misunderstanding, we will improve tables so readers understand the flags in the section may be self-proclaimed by governments as we defined in the explicit consensus. Toto11zi ( talk) 05:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC) |}
Some general quality issues with this page:
Thoughts? Note that I do not want to use this section to discuss the appropriateness of citing Chinese government sources. I'm not sure we've quite reached consensus there— Hariboneagle927 has some ideas proposed in the "Use of Xinhuanet as a source" section that merit further discussion. But I created this section because I don't want all other discussion about how to improve this page stalled until we resolve that issue. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 16:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. to OP in this section Does anyone have any ideas on how to salvage the "academic" section? It would be nice if the answer were "yes", but in this case I think "I don't" is valuable input. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 17:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
offtopic bickering. User issues should be addressed on user talk pages, or at a relevant noticeboard. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Use of Chinese government sources in International Reactions sectionThere 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Some sections overtaken by the award eventThe 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)
What's worth saving in the "academic analysis" section?Re-reading the "academic analysis" section, one thing that jumps out at it is that little of it makes me feel like it's improving my understanding of this case. The one exception is the bullet that begins "Philippine Associate Justice Antonio Carpio..."—that's substantive enough that I feel like I'm actually learning something. OTOH, maybe some of the sources would have useful information, if explained better? If anyone is feeling brave, reading through each of them carefully one by one could be helpful. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 04:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
PolandAlphama 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:
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)
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
If you don't agree, please discuss here with reliable information. Toto11zi ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Make the article's focus narrowerCurrently, 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)
CambodiaBased 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) In April, the Cambodian government spokesman Phay Siphan played down the ASEAN split, and it's not rejection to China's position. [ [4]]. In June, the Cambodian position is very clear that Cambodia supports China. Toto11zi ( talk) 14:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
As the official statement is clearly stating Cambodia's position and there are no objections I am requesting editors to make necessary correction to the article. Collagium ( talk) 03:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Let's scrutinize this statement from Cambodia. There're 3 paragraghs and 3 points, let's check each one. Paragraph 1, there are 4 important concepts, 1. "issuing", 2, "debates", 3, "analysis", 4. "concerns" Paragraph 2, the important part is the last sentence, "not to get involved in the above-said process", this implies Cambodia does not want to get involved in the "issuing thing", in the debates, in the analysis, and in the concerns. This statement has nothing to do with its support to China's position. Paragraph 3, reiteration Point 1: ASEAN has nothing to do with the arbitration case. Very clear statement. Point 2: Cambodia will not expressing any position on the verdict. Very clear. Point 3: not relevant. peaceful means. Here I would conclude obviously this statement does not reject its previously announced support to China's position, it only aligns with that support. The statement "Cambodia does not support any side" is just bogus analysis. Agree? Toto11zi ( talk) 04:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Kindly read the statement properly. Please don't distort facts. The statement is reproduced in full in the Protected Edit request for all editors and Admins to see. The statement of Cambodian Government that 'In light of this Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN has already twice, on 20 June and 28 June, publicly made clear Cambodia’s position not to get involved in the above-said process.' and ' Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration who will render its decision on the dispute between the Philippines and China' are unambiguous. Collagium ( talk) 06:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
As a side comment, the presence of "Support for China's stance" and "Support for Philippines's stance" is problematic since most of the cases are interpretation by Chinese (usually in phrases such as Chinese FM says that "Country X totally understands China's stance on the South China Sea" and Philippine media (usually in headlines). It should be removed, also for conciseness and we shouldn't underestimate readers. It is implied that in most cases "support for arbitration alone" usually equates to support for Philippines seeking arbitration and Opposition usually means support for China. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The suggestion you are making here is exactly what is proposed in [7]. Clearly stating Support for arbitration or Opposing arbitration will clarify things. All of the editors are supporting the edit request. However again @ Toto11zi is opposing the edit and he even went ahead and did this [8]. Collagium ( talk) 03:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC) The citation of Antony Carty's article is inaccurateThe intro to the anthology in which it was published summarizes his argument as saying the case "invites the criticism that the Arbitration Tribunal is face with a dispute which is non-justiciable". Saying something "invites" a certain criticism is not the same thing as a flat statement that the criticism is correct. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 12:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 13 July 2016
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)
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. [1] 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)
Regards Notthebestusername ( talk) 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC) References
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
As follows: According to our team’s research, we have found at least 70 countries supporting China’s position on various occasions. We find that the reason for the controversy over the figure comes down to different definitions on “China’s position.” But no matter how it is defined, the psychology behind these statements is a desire to avoid taking sides between China and the United States, showing the reality of a fundamental global consensus on peace and wide-spread anxiety toward the potential for conflict in the South China Sea. Thus, we should take every opportunity to go beyond the “zero-sum game” in order to maintain peace in the South China Sea, to seek Asia-Pacific economic cooperation, and to make the “cake” bigger using economic and financial means.
All the countries list, see http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/who-supports-china-in-the-south-china-sea-and-why/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmvidyahoo ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
These components are
Also interesting is other countries claimed by the Chinese media are not listed here namely: Poland, Fiji, Slovenia. Cambodia is listed, however take note that the listing only requires agreeing to one component of "China's stance". In Cambodia's case its component 3. Cambodia is silent on number 1 and 4.
If an editor (preferably not yet involved too much in this article can translate quotations from Arabic and Chinese), it could be helpful for the rest of us editors already involved. Also take note the asterisk (*) on some countries. They are members of the Arab League that made a pro-China stance in the Doha Declaration. Current consensus is not to list countries that has not made any individual statements. Formerly this declaration was taken as the stance of the Arab League as an organization but has been removed at some point of time.-- Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Before jumping to any conclusion we have to take cognizance of one very important aspect i.e. Their definition of 'Support' in the article which is given as below :
Point no. 2 and 3 are not about opposing arbitration but they have included that as such in the article cited above. Collagium ( talk) 12:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
This should cited as fact. What is fact? I think Chris Hallquist should give us a definition. But even you say it out, I think its just your definition. Not everyone's. Mmmvidyahoo ( talk) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should take caution in using this source itself as a reference. But I do recognize that at least some of the links posted below the article (the source) may be potentially used as citation. But as I said some sources are in Chinese/Arabic. (Also there is this ongoing dispute regarding sources from Chinese state media). As discussed earlier preference for bilateral talks between disputants does not necessarily means opposing arbitration. It doesn't help that the source does not list which of the four components applies to the countries' statements/stance. Also if we moved away from the dichotomy of Support China/Philippines as I discussed above in prior sections. Then some issues may be resolved swiftly Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 14:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The article's authors work directly for the Chinese Communist Party. They are not journalists and are obviously biased. Both authors work for Renmin University of China, a part of/founded by the Communist Party of China, and controlled directly by the government. Also, note that the vast majority of sources they cited are Chinese. They are assuming that everything Chinese media or government says is true, but we know from discussions above that it is not so simple. However, if you believe that any sources in their citations are reliable, feel free to discuss those on their own merits. Mamyles ( talk) 14:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion here to get consensus on the issue. STSC ( talk) 04:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me explain this with facts in details:
Our original/current consensus for the International Reactions (Before the ruling) section has been to include the information from both China and the Philippines (their media, government, public officials) proposed by the page originator Hariboneagle927. And that explicit consensus was reached among major editors including myself, the relocation part is not reaching consensus yet. Discussion and conclusion can be found here
This newly activated account from a dormant account Chris Hallquist ( talk · contribs) violated our established consensus by promoting his own agenda in the following ways:
The table/group issue has been discussed before in various places on this Talk page, we even considered to use the same format AMTI used, but there're issues. Here's discussion, also here
The conclusion of all this is unless we establish a new consensus for this section, we will stick with the original consensus for this particular section. Without new explicit consensus, reverting this section in order to promote one's agenda or new criteria is considered disruptive. Editors may propose a change to the current consensus, however, proposing to change a recent consensus can be considered disruptive.
Since Chris Hallquist ( talk · contribs) is a new editor joining this complex topic discussion, he might not know our consensus which has already been established in this before he joined.
If you think I described this incorrectly or missed anything. Please discuss with facts here. Toto11zi ( talk) 01:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Toto11zi: Respectfully, editing here requires a certain amount of competence and a willingness to listen. I do not believe that you have that in regard to this topic. While I welcome you to Wikipedia, coming here as a new editor and insisting that you are the "major editor", after we have linked you plenty of helpful policies to get you started, does not bode well for remaining helpful as an editor. I recommend that you continue to edit Wikipedia in areas that you are not so emotionally invested in. Mamyles ( talk) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Chris Hallquist has requested comments from experienced editors regarding usage of self-proclaimed data in this case here. His statement "both of the editors who've weighed in so far agree Chinese government sources should not be cited for the position of governments other than China" is misunderstanding of those statements from experienced editors. I've put my analysis there as well. In this case, those experienced editors may or may not give more comments. I think in this case, please we will need to think very carefully before we write statements. If you don't agree, please write with caution and clarity. Thank You. Toto11zi ( talk) 05:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
To eliminate misunderstanding, we will improve tables so readers understand the flags in the section may be self-proclaimed by governments as we defined in the explicit consensus. Toto11zi ( talk) 05:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC) |}
Some general quality issues with this page:
Thoughts? Note that I do not want to use this section to discuss the appropriateness of citing Chinese government sources. I'm not sure we've quite reached consensus there— Hariboneagle927 has some ideas proposed in the "Use of Xinhuanet as a source" section that merit further discussion. But I created this section because I don't want all other discussion about how to improve this page stalled until we resolve that issue. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 16:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. to OP in this section Does anyone have any ideas on how to salvage the "academic" section? It would be nice if the answer were "yes", but in this case I think "I don't" is valuable input. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 17:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
offtopic bickering. User issues should be addressed on user talk pages, or at a relevant noticeboard. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Use of Chinese government sources in International Reactions sectionThere 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Some sections overtaken by the award eventThe 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)
What's worth saving in the "academic analysis" section?Re-reading the "academic analysis" section, one thing that jumps out at it is that little of it makes me feel like it's improving my understanding of this case. The one exception is the bullet that begins "Philippine Associate Justice Antonio Carpio..."—that's substantive enough that I feel like I'm actually learning something. OTOH, maybe some of the sources would have useful information, if explained better? If anyone is feeling brave, reading through each of them carefully one by one could be helpful. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 04:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
PolandAlphama 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:
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)
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
If you don't agree, please discuss here with reliable information. Toto11zi ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Make the article's focus narrowerCurrently, 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)
CambodiaBased 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) In April, the Cambodian government spokesman Phay Siphan played down the ASEAN split, and it's not rejection to China's position. [ [4]]. In June, the Cambodian position is very clear that Cambodia supports China. Toto11zi ( talk) 14:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
As the official statement is clearly stating Cambodia's position and there are no objections I am requesting editors to make necessary correction to the article. Collagium ( talk) 03:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Let's scrutinize this statement from Cambodia. There're 3 paragraghs and 3 points, let's check each one. Paragraph 1, there are 4 important concepts, 1. "issuing", 2, "debates", 3, "analysis", 4. "concerns" Paragraph 2, the important part is the last sentence, "not to get involved in the above-said process", this implies Cambodia does not want to get involved in the "issuing thing", in the debates, in the analysis, and in the concerns. This statement has nothing to do with its support to China's position. Paragraph 3, reiteration Point 1: ASEAN has nothing to do with the arbitration case. Very clear statement. Point 2: Cambodia will not expressing any position on the verdict. Very clear. Point 3: not relevant. peaceful means. Here I would conclude obviously this statement does not reject its previously announced support to China's position, it only aligns with that support. The statement "Cambodia does not support any side" is just bogus analysis. Agree? Toto11zi ( talk) 04:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Kindly read the statement properly. Please don't distort facts. The statement is reproduced in full in the Protected Edit request for all editors and Admins to see. The statement of Cambodian Government that 'In light of this Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN has already twice, on 20 June and 28 June, publicly made clear Cambodia’s position not to get involved in the above-said process.' and ' Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration who will render its decision on the dispute between the Philippines and China' are unambiguous. Collagium ( talk) 06:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
As a side comment, the presence of "Support for China's stance" and "Support for Philippines's stance" is problematic since most of the cases are interpretation by Chinese (usually in phrases such as Chinese FM says that "Country X totally understands China's stance on the South China Sea" and Philippine media (usually in headlines). It should be removed, also for conciseness and we shouldn't underestimate readers. It is implied that in most cases "support for arbitration alone" usually equates to support for Philippines seeking arbitration and Opposition usually means support for China. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The suggestion you are making here is exactly what is proposed in [7]. Clearly stating Support for arbitration or Opposing arbitration will clarify things. All of the editors are supporting the edit request. However again @ Toto11zi is opposing the edit and he even went ahead and did this [8]. Collagium ( talk) 03:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC) The citation of Antony Carty's article is inaccurateThe intro to the anthology in which it was published summarizes his argument as saying the case "invites the criticism that the Arbitration Tribunal is face with a dispute which is non-justiciable". Saying something "invites" a certain criticism is not the same thing as a flat statement that the criticism is correct. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 12:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 13 July 2016
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)
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. [1] 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)
Regards Notthebestusername ( talk) 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC) References
|