Talk:Maritime Militia/Archives/2024/June

Sources do not confirm the militia is armed
The sentence in the second paragraph of the lede that states the militia is "armed" cannot be verified because the source is behind a paywall. Further, the sources cited elsewhere in the article specifically state that both the PRC and others assert the militia is unarmed (see https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2021/Panter-Maritime-Militia/; https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c200r2cr; and https://www.andrewerickson.com/2015/11/chinas-little-blue-men-take-navys-place-in-disputes/). Either the sentence should be revised or a verifiable source that the militia is armed should be presented.--CarlsonC (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not seeing explicit statements that they’re unarmed in those sources, can you pull them out? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC article I mention above gives an explicit statement, the other two sources I mention strongly infer they are not armed. First, in the BBC article, 11th paragraph, "But China's envoy to the Philippines, Zhao Jianhua, asserts that these boats are mere fishing vessels which are 'not armed at all.'"  Second, in the army.mil article, the first paragraph under the heading "China’s Maritime Militia and Fishing Fleets," the article discusses the definition of "militia" in the PRC and says that militias are armed.  But, if you follow the source cited in footnote 31 you'll find a Chinese language article that does not specifically reference the maritime militia as qualifying as an armed militia.  That paragraph discussing how militias in China are armed is explaining the general matter of militias, not the specific matter of the maritime militia.  And third, in the andrewerickson.com article, starting at the 16th paragraph ("The militia on board the ships are often clearly identifiable...") the author describes the uniforms of the militia, tactics, and occupations of the militia (as demobilized soldiers of fishermen), but, even with that detail, never as armed.  --CarlsonC (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not an explicit statement, its a quote from a Chinese diplomat. Without an explicit statement from a WP:RS there isn’t much we can do. The Vice article says "Some fisherman and diplomats told Reuters that some boats had been furnished with small arms.” That being said I think we should change “armed fishing fleet” to Maritime Militia in that sentence. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

One-sided propaganda
This article, and the very existence of this militia as described, is disputed and blatantly parroting pro-American propaganda as biased as its totally one-sided sources. It needs to be re-written, contextualized and properly explained under a neutral point of view. In full violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BIASED, WP:NEWSORG and others. MaeseLeon (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a source saying its disputed we can include that. Also I don’t want to be rude but are you sure you understand what the things you just linked that this article is supposedly "In full violation of” are? If you aren’t mistaken then you do need to clearly demonstrate how you think each “violation” works and you will need to be extremely specific. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For a start, an official declaration of the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines, explicitly stating: "Chinese fishing vessels have been fishing in its adjacent waters for many years. Recently, some Chinese fishing vessels take shelter near Niu'e Jiao due to rough sea conditions. It has been a normal practice for Chinese fishing vessels to take shelter under such circumstances. There is no Chinese Maritime Militia as alleged. Any speculation in such helps nothing but causes unnecessary irritation. It is hoped that the situation could be handled in an objective and rational manner." Yes, this can be exactly as biased as the sources in the article, so we need to properly sort out and "neutralize" it. And now, let's wait for the protection to start due procedure under Wikipedia rules, not the edit war that you attempted. --MaeseLeon (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There won’t be any page protection... You’re lucky you didn’t get blocked after the stunt you pulled. Your edits were so bad that I believed them to be vandalism and the patrolling admin at requests for page protection agreed with my assessment of your contribution. Also you need to retract your claim about me attempting an edit war per WP:NPA or provide diffs, which I’m sure you can’t do because there was only a single revert. The Chinese Embassy in the Philippines is not a reliable source, we can include their opinion but only as relayed to us by a reliable source. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)