Talk:Pedra Branca, Singapore/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect

Since the island is still a subject of territorial dispute, Pulau Batu Puteh should not be redirected to this article -- Ouishoebean 10:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, Singapore is in de facto control of the island, and repels any intrusions by Malaysian vessels into its surrounding waters. It thus does make sense that it be named in favour of the controlling state until overruled by the tribunal.--Huaiwei 11:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
As a Malaysian, I found it uncomfortable to put the article name like this. It seems POV to me. I am in favour of moving back to where it was, at Pedra Branca with no reference to either state. Joshua Chiew 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. It would be a magnet for heated debate later. What about Pedra Brance (Pulau Batu Puteh)? __earth (Talk) 16:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I too agree that its former article name of Pedra Branca is prefered. An editor apparantly made the move without discussion. Since Pedra Branca (disambiguation) exists, Pedra Branca should be reverted to refer to the disputed island, with an added notice on the top which links to the disamg page. I hope our Malaysian friends can understand why it is named as such currently instead of a reference to the Malaysian name, just as the Senkaku Islands are named as such because they are de-facto under the control of Japan despite Chinese reference to them as Diaoyutai.--Huaiwei 13:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If we move it back to Pedra Branca, we will need an admin to perform the move because the redirect page has been edited to redirect to Pedra Branca (disambiguation). Joshua Chiew 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It is apparant we have concensus here. The "proper" procedure is to go via Wikipedia:Requested moves, but we can skip that if no one else objects and admins are willing to assist in this.--Huaiwei 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Google Test does not show that "Pedra Branca" usually refers to the South China Sea islet (but pages with urls end with .br). An alternative would perhaps be Pedra Branca, South China Sea. Senkaku Islands is not the only example regarding titling of disputed areas. Dokdo is another example. — Instantnood 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a country known as the South China Sea, and is it a convention to name islands based on the waterbody they are sitting in? Your political views against Singapore continue to be a cause of concern, and will be duly noted.--Huaiwei 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Instantnood's political view but he has a point. It's not a norm (or at the very least, a concrete rule) to name the island based on de facto rule. Furthermore, adding the South China Sea would be neutral and allow the disambiguity page to exist. __earth (Talk) 15:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide a list of notable counter examples to show that most articles are not named as according to the ones stipulated by the de facto controlling state?--Huaiwei 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Instantnood has given a few examples. Refer to page Dokdo where it's de facto under Japanese rule but the island name itself is Korean instead of its Japanese, Takeshima. I don't see why I should repeat the exercise. Regardless, it's better to remove the word "Singapore" from the name. __earth (Talk) 12:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, he provided some examples, and sure, there is Dokdo. You chose not to show the fact that these are actually minority cases, however. Do the articles in Category:Disputed islands, for example, support instantnood's comment that there is a "convention to name islands based on the waterbody they are sitting in?", or on your comment that "it's not a norm (or at the very least, a concrete rule) to name the island based on de facto rule?" And may I point out that I am discussing this to justify the naming of this article as Pedra Branca vs Pulau Batu Puteh, or "Pedra Brance (Pulau Batu Puteh)". This is not a discussion on whether "Singapore" should be part of the article name, so do exercise some care in the phrasing of your sentences.--Huaiwei 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, you should realize that this subsection of the talk page exists because the word Singapore has been added. To me, it is about the word "Singapore". Furthermore, this is a special disagreement because the word Pedra Branca needs disamgbiguity while at the same time, the ownership of the island is contested. Given that, why should we follow a convention that does not solve the problem? __earth (Talk) 13:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I am, of coz, fully aware of this subsection's original intentions. Along the way, however, alternative proposals were put forth, and I am sure opinions may be registered pertaining to these proposals, as I have done. You appear to delibrately confuse all opinions into one, and assume my objection to one proposal equates to an objection to all proposals (including the removal of the word "Singapore" from this article name, when I have actually registered my support for the move). I have no idea what "special disagreement because the word Pedra Branca needs disamgbiguity while at the same time, the ownership of the island is contested" means, so I arent gonna comment. Finally, how does your suggestion solve this problem then, given what I have already highlighted above?--Huaiwei 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't deliberately confuse it. I changed my mind when you wrote:
which has been proven not necessarily so by Instantnood. I find that statement of yours to be misleading (again, refer Dokdo)and so, I don't feel why I should agree anymore to the initial suggested solution. For the rationale behind the move, see the material copied from the Requested Move page. __earth (Talk) 14:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think I need to repeat my point that both instantnood and your opinions above are false, as proven by articles from Category:Disputed islands. I have yet to see both of you widening your commentary to more articles in that category, expecially notable entries such as the Falkland Islands and the Senkaku Islands. I find it difficult to support a move request which is based on unresearched fallacy and flimsy evidence.--Huaiwei 14:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If it is false, how do you explain Dokdo? What does your research tell you? __earth (Talk) 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are able to read basic English, what you need to do, is to show there is no consistency. How does my explaination on a single article fulfill your objective or mine? On the other hand, I have shown you there is a majority of articles which conform to my comment. Why have you not directly disputed this, but chose to get all obsessed with just one article? You have nothing else to base your arguments on? If I were to play your kind of game, care to explain the Falkland Islands then?--Huaiwei 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
After a full night's sleep, I looked at Dokdo, and wondered whats the big deal about it. In fact, it supports my stand that it reflect the name preferred by the de facto controlling state!--Huaiwei 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
(response to user:Huaiwei's comment at 14:58, November 17) You surely are putting your words into my mouth. I talked about examples, and you kept accusing me for talking about a convention. Whose opinion here is false? — Instantnood 09:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And conversely, did I accuse you of talking about a convention? Talk about a pot calling a kettle black! :D--Huaiwei 09:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Quote my words and explain why you think/thought it is/was false opinion. — Instantnood 10:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No dear. YOU give me the relevant quotes for accusing me of accusing you of something which I didnt even mention. You made a suggestion. I refuted it by asking if its a convention, to which you couldnt reply. So show me just where did I accuse you of insisting the existance of a non-existant convention.--Huaiwei 10:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
(response to user:Earth's comment at 12:47, November 17) No. Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Tok Islet is under South Korean control. — Instantnood 09:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there evidence on your accusations about my political views? It's never a must for place names to be disambiguated with names of countries. Bird Island, for instance, is disambiguated by the bay it's located. The Wood Island is also disambiguated by South China Sea. Snake Island is another example. — Instantnood 18:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC))
From the above comment, I see that the intent of my comment has already been fulfilled. ;) Anyhow, I said "convention", and not a "rule". It is not a "must" to follow conventions, so perhaps you might think it through before using strong words and misrepresent what I said. You appear to miss the gist of my commentary, given the examples you chose to cite. I asked if its a convention to name islands based on the waterbody they are sitting in. Do any of your examples demonstrate this as a convention?--Huaiwei 15:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Did I ever use strong words and misrepresent what you said? It appears that you - by asking if it's a convention - were the person who've missed the reason why I suggested Pedra Branca, South China Sea as a possible alternative. — Instantnood 10:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I consider "must" a strong word, and that is a misrepresentation of what I said. I am quite sure my question is relevant, because you are suggesting a naming solution which bucks the trend in similar articles. Did I make any comment on your "underlying reason", whatever it may be, and which you did not bother to even explain except merely by quoting another example?--Huaiwei 10:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sweet move. __earth (Talk) 11:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

moved page

Moved the article back to Pedra Branca only. Disambiguation page will have the word "disambiguation" in brackets.Wai Hong 03:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No cut and paste move, please. Discuss it here first, once consensus had reached, request it at Wikipedia:Requested move.--Joshua Chiew 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I propose to move the page to Pulau Batu Puteh. Reason: Pedra Branca requires disambiguity page while Pulau Batu Puteh does not. Moreover, a Pulau Batu Puteh allows the current disambiguity to continue to exist while using Pedra Branca does not. __earth (Talk) 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the Requested move page:

Survey

  • I strongly object as per above. Pedra Branca, Singapore should be moved back to Pedra Branca instead. The attempt to mask political viewpoints is clearly noted.--Huaiwei 13:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
What? How about your political viewpoint? __earth (Talk) 13:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This comment seems to lend weight to my suspicion all along that the above editor does not edit with due respect to NPOV, especially when dealing with Singapore-Malaysia issues.--Huaiwei 14:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Note Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Anyway, what makes your edit as NPOV? __earth (Talk) 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The same applies to you, for since when did I claim my edits are NPOV?--Huaiwei 14:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I assumed good faith by assuming you had NPOV. I was not aware that by assuming good faith, a person assumes the worst out of your fellow editors. __earth (Talk) 14:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Words are cheap. Actions count far more here in wikipedia, and in real life. Again, I have to reiterate the point that I arent claiming that I am NPOV, nor am I claiming that I am assuming good faith in the above exchange. Once again, I note an attempt to put (negative) words in my mouth. So much for assuming good faith. Anyway enough of this petty digression. Back to the subject matter please.--Huaiwei 14:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"Once again", I note the irony of your complaint - implying others' POV is wrong but yours POV is right and then accuse others of violating NPOV while you yourself violate NPOV. __earth (Talk) 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I note with pride that irony may be derived from my humble "complaints". (Complaints? What an emotive word to use.) You are entitled to interpreting my comments in your own way, just as I am entitled to mine. But I do think it is within my right to dispel attempts by another to slander my name in this manner. Perhaps you fail to realise, that it was you who first attempted to accuse me of POV by implying my political standpoint [1]. Then, you are also the first one to consider yourself in the moral high ground to tell others to "behave" [2] when you arent exactly devoid from guilt either. On the other hand, I made no attempts to "discipline" you, to claim I am NPOV, to claim I am not being personal, or to claim I am "always right and everyone else always wrong". The last accuation, in particular, strikes me as being especially familiar. :D--Huaiwei 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Friend. on your accusation of number 1 which refers to this:
how is that accusing you of POV? Is merely disagreeing with you means I accusing you of something? Talking about accusation, you're the first person to commit ad homimem here [3]., not anybody else.
As already alluded to above, your comment paints the illusion that I am supporting the current name of this article, which is false. And thanks for pointing out my prior "accusations" (which arent even directly at you), but I do wonder what the rationale is for. Care to share? ;)--Huaiwei 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

On number 2:

I said that in response to your accusation... Do you really expect that when you attacked a person, that person that you attacked won't retaliate?
No dear. I commented on that, because you wailed about "injustice", you continued to pile accusations upon me, yet has the check to tell me to stick to the rules". Do you find me doing the same to you?--Huaiwei 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm done for today. Since you said "Anyway enough of this petty digression. Back to the subject matter please.", let's do it. It's useless to just talk of it and then ignore it. __earth (Talk) 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh sure thing. Been wondering what took you so long.--Huaiwei 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The ICJ both recognises the name Pedra Branca and Pulau Batu Puteh. However, most of the time it is known as Pedra Branca. With a Google search for Pedra Branca, it gets 1,450,000 hits, whereas for Pulau Batu Puteh, it only returns 36,900 hits. I strongly feel the article should be moved back to Pedra Branca as the current article name is currently a disputed territory. For political reasons, we shall just use the more commonly known name of Pedra Branca to avoid any conflict. Another suggestion is to move it to Pedra Branca, South China Sea which is very lame. I firmly believe we shall name places as its common name, not of some unknown name. I know Malaysia calls it Pulau Batu Puteh, and I also adknowledge that name. However, this is for convenience sake, nothing else. If you have anything to say, be bold and ask me. --Terence Ong (C | R) 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Terence. I must point out that out of 1 million of Pedra Branca result, it incluces Brazilian and Australian holdings too.__earth (Talk) 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you read [4], Terence? — Instantnood 09:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm...I think Pedra Branca, South China Sea is the best title for the article, to avoid any political conflict on this page. For the 1 million thing, okay, it may be less than that. It's interesting to know how the name really came about, and very interesting that this disputed island is made out of hardened bird's droppings. It may sink one day... --Terence Ong (C | R) 16:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. While we prefer "Pedra Branca", there is nothing wrong with "Pedra Branca, Singapore" as it accurately reflects that Singapore is currently holding that island. I find this so-called "territorial" dispute amusing, as it is really more like a soap-drama alimony dispute. Don't get me started on the historic perspective, please; it can cause significant embarrassment to some instead of just a slight discomfort. :-) --Vsion 20:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Since this article is the most prominent of the 3 islands of the same name, I feel that it should be located at Pulau Branca with the other 2 articles as disambiguations near the top of the article. One curious observance (which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand) - in the english version of wikipedia, Malaysian islands are listed not as Pulau but either as Island e.g. Tioman Island, Pangkor Island or without the "island" in the title e.g. Sipadan, Langkawi, Labuan, Layang-Layang with the notable exception of Pulau Tiga (thanks to Survivor popularising the malay name in the English medium. Singapore's islands though are more commonly listed by their Malay names e.g. Pulau Bukom instead of just Bukom or Bukom Island, unless an English name exist e.g. Jurong Island, Saint John's Island, Sisters' Islands with Sentosa being a notable exception. --Novelty 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. All of these began because of a single user moved this page without discussing it first. I am in favour of moving back to Pedra Branca, which is the original title. It seems that we cannot achieve total neutrality in this: remember that NPOV itself is a POV too. --Joshua Chiew 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Precisely. One never know when he can touch raw nerves by what seems to be a "minor" edit. Anyway there seems to be two counter proposals in the making here in response to the above move request: Either to "Pedra Branca", or "Pedra Branca, South China Sea". I wonder whats the next step to take? Multiple vote options?--Huaiwei 15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Table for comparison

The following lists current naming patterns for all articles in Category:Disputed islands, in demonstration of the fact that the majority of disupted island names take the de-facto controlling state's preferences in higher preference where applicable. There were only a few exceptions, and in these cases, "De facto" control tend to be less distinct.

The following entries are not compared because there are no known distinct names by state as per their article content, or simply have the same name in all instances: Isla Aves, Bajo Nuevo Bank, Conejo Island, Greater and Lesser Tunbs, Hans Island, Hawar Islands, Isla de Alborán, Machias Seal Island, Matthew and Hunter Islands, Rockall, Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean, Serranilla Bank, Shikotan, Wake Island, Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean, Zuqar Island

Current title De-facto control Other claimnant(s)
Cartier Islands Cartier Islands (Australia) ? (Indonesia)
Chagos Archipelago Chagos Archipelago (UK) ? (Mauritius)
Dokdo Dokdo (South Korea) Takeshima (Japan)
Falkland Islands Falkland Islands (UK) Malvinas (Argentina)
Imia/Kardak (unclear de facto ruling state)
Isla Perejil Isla Perejil (Spain) Leila (Morocco)
Iturup Iturup (Russia) Etorofu (Japan)
Kasikili Sedudu (Botswana) Kasikili (Namibia)
Khabomai Khabomai (Russia) Habomai Shotō (Japan)
Kunashir Island Kunashir (Russia) Kunashiri (Japan)
Kuril Islands Kuril'skie ostrova (Russia) Chishima rettō (Japan)
Macclesfield Bank (unclear de facto ruling state)
Mayotte Mayotte (France) Mahoré (Comoros)
Navassa Island Navassa Island (US) Lanavaz (Haiti)
North Rock (unclear de facto ruling state)
Okinotorishima Okinotorishima (Japan) 冲鸟礁 (China)
Paracel Islands Xīshā Qúndǎo (China) Quần đảo Hoàng Sa (Vietnam)
Pedra Branca, Singapore Pedra Branca (Singapore) Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia)
Pratas Islands Dongsha Islands (Taiwan) Dongsha Islands (China)
Scarborough Shoal Panatag Shoal or Panatag Reef (Phillippines) Huangyan Island (China)
Sea Lion Rock Sivuchiy Kamen (Russia) Sea Lion Rock (US)
Senkaku Islands Senkaku Shotō (Japan) Diaoyutai Qundao (China)
Sea Otter Rocks Kamni Bobrovyye (Russia) Sea Otter Rocks (US)
Snake Island (Black Sea) Insula şerpilor (Romania) Острів Зміїний (Ukraine)
South China Sea Islands (including Spratly Islands) Nanhai Islands (China)/?? {Vietnam} ? (Taiwan)/? (Malaysia)/ Kalayaan Islands (Philippines)/? (Brunei)/? (Indonesia)
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (UK) ? (Argentina)
Swains Island Swains Island (American Samoa) ? (Tokelau)
Woody Island, South China Sea Yǒngxīng Dǎo (China) ? (Taiwan)/? (Vietnam)

--Huaiwei 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China does not claim Okinotori-shima (do you actually know where it is?). It disputes Japanese claim that the rock/islet is an island under international law, that if it is and island Japan will be able to claim an 200 nm EEZ round the islet/rock.

As we can see from the table above, articles are generally titled according to who's in control, except that one of the two names, or a third name, is much more commonly used in English. — Instantnood 09:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Now how should my inclusion of Okinotorishima in this table (which is simply cause it appears in Category:Disputed islands) be related to me not knowing its geographical location is beyond my comprehension. One only wish Instantnood is as "knowledgeable" as he makes himself to be. :D I am now quite curious as to now the above table supports or refutes your claims above, versus my contentions.--Huaiwei 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's any fault or mistake in the table, it's everyone's responsibility to point it out, as long as she/he discovers it. The fact that you haven't double checked each of the cited examples alerts readers to read the table with greater care. Whether anyone is knowledgeable is completely irrelevant to the discussion here.

What claims are you referring to? — Instantnood 10:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Which means by the above "discovery", you are attempting to show the entire table is inaccurate, and that I made a sloppy attempt in assessing general trends here? I already explained the inclusion of Okinotorishima, but of course you wont buy that, since you are only concerned with discrediting my research, including accusing me of failing to "double check each of the cited examples". Be my guest, for I doubt anyone else doing the same reseach is going to be able to come up with anything different from what I discovered. Would you like to take up the challenge? So since a person's knowledge is "irrelevant" to this discussion here, mind explaining your attempt to question my knowledge on Okinotorishima, and its geographical location?--Huaiwei 10:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No. The fact that there's a little flaw suggests readers to read with some care. " mind explaining your attempt to question " - Anybody who's met with the same situation should not refuse to accept such a reminder, no matter who's the person to remind her/him. It's even irrelevant whose research it is, and it's never a challenge between (or among) wikipedians who are working hand-to-hand to improve Wikipedia. — Instantnood 10:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (revised 11:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC))
What you consider as a "flaw" has already been explained as being a delibrate inclusion, so I do wonder what drives you to persist in harping on this matter. The sentences which follow are littered with so many grammatical mistakes and sentence-construction issues that I have great difficulty comprehending what you are attempting to say. Can I then say it suggests you have issues with the English language, so whatever you write in wikipedia should be "read with some care" since you probably have problems reading English sources and quoting them coherently and accurately too? :D Mind rephrasing them please?--Huaiwei 11:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Erm my dear instantnood. Your corrections [5] arent exactly enough, for I still dont quite understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps you need lessons on how to write simply, directly and to the point, instead of beating round the bush all the time in an attempt to cover up your tracks? Which again leads me to wonder...should all wikipedians also "read with some care" since your sentences are usually full of incongruant commentary, and mask attempts to snare the unsuspecting reader?--Huaiwei 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move to Pedra Branca, South China Sea, according to the definition of consensus as "the solution which all sides will find least inacceptable". Duja► 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Pedra Branca, Singapore → Pedra Branca — The current name is heavily POV. And it was moved unilaterally by an anon from the page Pedra Branca. __earth (Talk) __earth (Talk) 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Oppose. The disambiguation page has since been moved to Pedra Branca (not by an anonby a well-established editor), and as there are three articles referencing the same name, it makes sense to leave it there. While there may well be POV issues with the current article title, this proposed move does not help to resolve it, and creates other problems with respect to disambiguation. --Ckatzchatspy 10:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The disambiguation page can be move back to Pedra Branca (disambiguation) and the article Pedra Branca, Singapore can be move to Pedra Branca with the help of an admin. A disambiguation notice should be present on all Pedra Brancas. (PS: anon can't move pages) --Joshua Chiew 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment To be clear, my point wasn't that it would be difficult to move this page - it was that the disambiguation page was now at Pedra Branca, and that it makes sense for it to remain there. I don't think the "controversial" nature of this article should give it precedence in terms of location. --Ckatzchatspy 01:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Then, you are invited to support the other proposal to move the page to Pulau Batu Puteh. __earth (Talk) 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Well, it doesn't have to be "one or the other" - it could be "neither". The proposed move to Pedra Branca doesn't do anything to alleviate the "POV" factor, and neither would a move to Pulau Batu Puteh. (Keeping a disputed name, minus the word "Singapore" or "Maylasia", isn't really a big change.) --Ckatzchatspy 06:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Then, you're invited to propose a solution. You could add another proposed move template here. __earth (Talk) 06:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Having three concurrent move proposals would be counterproductive; I'm actually surprised there are two open right now. As for a solution, by opposing the move I have already indicated a preference to leave the page where it is. If the territory is currently under the control of Singapore, but disputed, then I think Pedra Branca, Singapore is appropriate (with accompanying redirects), as long as the dispute is outlined clearly at or near the top of the article.
  • Support as per all of Joshua Chew's suggestions and my comments above.--Huaiwei 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Google already tells the most popular Pedra Branca is not the Singapore one, but those in Brazil. I would suggest moving to Pedra Branca, South China Sea instead, as per precedence of other disputed islands, and keep Pedra Branca a disambiguation. — Instantnood 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have already detailed extensively on the fact that it is not customary to name islands, included disputed ones, on the waterbody they belong to. Could instantnood provide a statistical breakdown on just how many refers to each similar-named island in the world? Also, I would like to see his arguments on whether "common usage" presides over "NPOV" policies?--Huaiwei 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not customary since the majority of disputed places require no disambiguation. Among those that are islands and require disambiguation, there are precedences to disambiguate by the water bodies they are located. — Instantnood 23:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Do the existance of precedent cases entail it as superior to alternative solutions? You could not seem to support your vote other than to say there is "precedence".--Huaiwei 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Perhaps a solution would be to move this article to something like Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh or Pulau Batu Puteh-Pedra Branca, and have Pedra Branca, Singapore and Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia redirect to it. --Ckatzchatspy 10:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There are two move proposals on the page. __earth (Talk) 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but neither presents a practical solution IMHO. --Ckatzchatspy 06:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Brazilian and Australian ones are as notable. [6] [7] Passer-by 20:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable or well-known? I think our only two really viable options are 'Pedra Branca' and 'Pedra Branca, South China Sea'. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 13:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is a google search the only way to establish notability?--Huaiwei 13:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with SpLoT; Pedra Branca, South China Sea (or Pedra Branca (South China Sea)?) seems to be the only best option if "Singapore" is too POV (which it probably is). FiggyBee 07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I am sorry, but isnt this conclusion way too premature? Both Pedra Branca and Pedra Branca, South China Sea where mentioned as viable options for many, so isnt this admin way too bold here?--Huaiwei 15:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Huaiwei. --Joshua Chiew 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In light of the admin's reluctance to even responding to my call for comments in his talkpage, I am considering another page move request. Any violent objections to this?--Huaiwei 12:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Possible moves
  • Then where do you think the article should be? It has to be somewhere. The reason for the article to be named Pedra Branca and not Pulau Batu Puteh is because it is allegedly more well-known as Pedra Branca. (Don't point a knife at me and demand evidence, since naming the article Pulau Batu Puteh was not requested above. I am merely stating why I think the requestor did not consider it.) - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I would go for Option 1, for all the reasons explained in my previous comment. --ZhongHan (Email) 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm happy as it is and would oppose option one if tabled. And really ZongHan, your argument is a strawman. Nobody is calling for Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia. And I don't mind of moving a hypothetical page Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia to Pulau Batu Puteh, South China Sea, in spirit of NPOV. Also, remember that the reason why nobody is calling for Pulau Batu Puteh, South China Sea is because there is no requirement for disambiguity for Pulau Batu Puteh. Pedra Branca however does. There's nothing "hidden agenda" behind all this move unlike what some has alleged. It's technical. All this starts when somebody violated NPOV and move Pedra Branca to Pedra Branca, Singapore. I'm confident that everybody was relatively happy with Pedra Branca, including those that feel it was POV in the first place. Finally ZhongHan could you provide a proof that ICJ recognizes the name "Pedra Branca, Singapore" despite the fact ICJ hasn't produced a ruling yet? __earth (Talk) 02:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume you refer to the following

    the island is contested. The ICJ recognises that two countries claim it. The ICJ also recognises that these two countries have a different name for the same island - Malaysia names it "Pulau Batu Puteh", Singapore names it "Pedra Branca". Naming the article Pedra Branca, Singapore doesn't change anything. Naming the article Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia doesn't change anything.

    I didn't say ICJ has ruled who it belongs to. My point was that ICJ recognises that as the name given by Singapore. Please refer to this press release. The title is

    Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)

    It shows that ICJ recognises that Pedra Branca is the name given by Singapore. In this context, I think it is prove that ICJ recognises the name "Pedra Branca, Singapore".
    Anyway, since I have not stated it, I shall state clearly I do NOT oppose option 2. In fact, it seems to have the least objections, and it may turn out to be the best. None of us here seem to have objected to it. If it is moved back to Pedra Branca, I will support that. --ZhongHan (Email) 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about it, and since I stated what I have, I retract the comment

    Frankly, I would go for Option 1, for all the reasons explained in my previous comment.

    All my other comments stand. I repeat that I support moving this page back to Pedra Branca. This is completely my own decision. I have not been forced, cajoled, threatened, bribed or otherwise caused to make this decision by anyone else. --ZhongHan (Email) 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The ICJ recognizes the name Pedra Branca and Pulau Batu Puteh. It says nothing of Pedra Branca, Singapore or Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia. __earth (Talk) 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have not changed my position, and I still think Pedra Branca, South China Sea (the present article name) would be the most appropriate. However, I wish to point out that the debate above, in my view, was closed prematurely, and that those who want to move the article to Pedra Branca should request another move. I will not further raise this matter if consensus has been reached. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 08:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The closure wasn't overly bold, IMHO, but whatever. If there are issues with "South China Sea", then change that - but moving to Pedra Branca shouldn't be an option. Yes, it was there in the past, but that does not mean that it was correctly placed. Disambiguation and notability issues aside, changing "Pedra Branca, Singapore" to "Pedra Branca" does nothing to change the perceived POV of the name. It's still the name Singapore uses, and it still asserts their claim to ownership, just as calling the article "Pulau Batu Puteh" vs. "Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia" does nothing to "de-POV" Malaysia's claim. (If you don't believe me, check out the ongoing battle over at Talk:Falkland Islands over the inclusion of "Malvinas".) --Ckatzchatspy 09:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I realise that I'm contradicting myself above. Since I stated ICJ recognises that Singapore claims ownership of the island, and ICJ recognises that Singapore names the island "Pedra Branca", I really don't think there's anything wrong with Pedra Branca, Singapore. --ZhongHan (Email) 10:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. If you shortened the title of the press release I cited above, it becomes

    Pedra Branca...Singapore

    and

    Pulau Batu Puteh...Malaysia

    ?
  2. If you replaced the "..." with "," it becomes

    Pedra Branca, Singapore

    and

    Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia

    ?
  3. In this context, there is nothing wrong with replacing "..." with "," ?
Yes, I'm aware the above supports only the validity of the names. In this case, we should move the article to a name that is NPOV. If you agree that the above names are valid, can you agree that Pedra Branca, Singapore and Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia should re-direct to the article about the island, wherever it is moved?
So the argument should be where the article should be moved? In this case, do you agree with the following?
  1. Most, if not all Malaysians are (or will be) unhappy with Pedra Branca, Singapore because it seems to suggest that Singapore owns the island, even though it could also suggest that Singapore is a claimant?
  2. Most, if not all Singaporeans are (or will be) unhappy with Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia because it seems to suggest that Malaysia owns the island, even though it could also suggest that Malaysia is a claimant?
  3. Most, if not all Singaporeans are (or will be) unhappy with Pedra Branca, South China Sea because it seems to suggest that it is owned or contested by the South China Sea.
Therefore the article should be moved to Pedra Branca, or Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (format ICJ followed in their press release) or Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh (alternative)?
In that case, which will you support? Pedra Branca, or Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh or Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh? --ZhongHan (Email) 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Or alternatively Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia/Singapore)? --ZhongHan (Email) 14:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
ZhongHan, there's a reason why certain statements, especially when it involves the law, are written the way it is. It's supposed to mean exactly what it says. Shortening (or lengthening for that matter) it distorts the meaning. So, I disagree on taht shortening reasoning. It doesn't make sense anyway, especially when in the article it writes Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh ... (Malaysia/Singapore). The order doesn't match. The title reads: Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore). From what I see, the names are ordered alphabetically i.e. Pedra comes first before Pulau and Malaysia comes first before Singapore. Using your logic, it would be Pedra Branca, Malaysia or Pulau Batu Puteh, Singapore.
So far, I only agree to redirect both pages to Pedra Branca, South China Sea, not anywhere, whatever that may be.
I would probably be happiest with Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh but that name itself seems to suggest the name of the island itself is "Pedra Branca-Pulau batu Puteh".
I cite:


No. First and foremost, it shows the location of the island. Ask this question: could a person dispute the fact that the island is located within the South China Sea? Then ask this, could anybody dispute that the island is located in Malaysia? In Singapore? __earth (Talk) 15:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please answer my other questions. And in response, Yes it shows the location. No, you can't refute the fact that the island is located within the South China Sea. Yes, people currently can and will dispute where it is located. But are any other disputed islands in wikipedia named after the water body within which they sit? I don't think so. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Besides, naming it Pedra Branca, Malaysia or Pulau Batu Puteh, Singapore is totally absurd, and is taking anything I have stated out of context. These two names are conflicting, and this sort of conflict is the reason why I oppose Pedra Branca, South China Sea. Anyway, since you state
Then could I propose it be Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia/Singapore) for the meantime? --ZhongHan (Email) 15:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
And in that case, could you add your name to the table below as supporting Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia/Singapore)? --ZhongHan (Email) 15:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid using the pronoun "you" as a third person. It's confusing for third persons reading this conversation.
I've already answered all the questions. It first and foremost suggests the location of the island. And you miss the whole. This situation is unique because the page Pedra Branca requires disambiguity and convention-wise, that page acts as an disambiguity. But the disambiguited Pedra Branca, Singapore is highly POV given that Malaysia also claims it (this is the case of Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia too). Turning it to Pulau Batu Puteh (despite needing not disambiguity) causes opposition from many Singaporeans. So, it can't be at Pedra Branca; it can't be at Pedra Branca, insert country name; it can't be at Pulau Batu Puteh. So, where else? It has to be somewhere. The most neutral is any non-political geographical references. In this case so far, it's South China Sea. (When I proposes to move this to Pulau Batu Puteh, actually, I was doing WP:POINT. And it did prove my point on POV in the end.)
And finally, there might be a problem with Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh. That name might in fact suggest that the island name is actually Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh. __earth (Talk) 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The option Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia/Singapore), techically is impossible due to limitations on Wikipedia. So, it should be taken off the list. __earth (Talk) 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I realise you did answer my questions, so I struck that part off. But if we leave it at Pedra Branca, South China Sea, a third party may claim that Pedra Branca, South China Sea is a political name reference, because it only reflects Singapore's name for the island, so state that Pedra Branca, South China Sea is POV, and that third party may propose a move to (hypothetically) Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, South China Sea (or variant). That's the main reason why I don't think we should keep it here. It's more of pre-emptive strike of sorts. You may not feel that way, but we can't be sure about third parties. That's why I currently oppose it. If I am convinced that no third parties will find Pedra Branca, South China Sea as a POV, I will concede defeat and stop opposing it.
I agree Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh could suggest it is the actual name of the island. That is why I currently oppose it.
That still leaves Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia/Singapore) as NPOV. I think the technical issues have been pre-empted, so what's wrong with it? That it suggests that Pedra Branca is the name Malaysia has for it and vice versa, which is not true, as all of us will agree? We can put a note stating otherwise. --ZhongHan (Email) 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:Huaiwei's comment at 13:24, November 26) I was suggesting a solution after I looked for precedences. It's not necessarily superior to any other alternative solution, as long as these alternative solutions are also neutral, practical and acceptable to the community, and do not contravene any of Wikipedia official guideline or policy. — Instantnood 08:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison table

Please sign your name with [[User:Your username|Your username]] so that we can see who supports what

  • Option 1: Pedra Branca
  • Option 2: Pedra Branca, South China Sea
  • Option 3: Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh
  • Option 4: Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia/Singapore)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Support ZhongHan, Huaiwei __earth, SpLoT, Ouishoebean, ryan-d, Ckatz __earth, ryan-d ZhongHan
Oppose __earth, SpLoT, Ouishoebean, Ckatz, Instantnood ZhongHan, Huaiwei ZhongHan, SpLoT, Ouishoebean, Huaiwei, Instantnood , Ckatz __earth, SpLoT, Ouishoebean, Huaiwei, ryan-d, Instantnood , Ckatz
Comments

Pedra Branca (option 1) is not acceptable. The title Pedra Branca requires disambiguation, unless it were possible to demonstrate that the name usually refers to this island, instead of the Brazilian municipalities or the Australian island. Options 3 or 4, if passed, would be leading to debates over the titles of the articles on other disputed territories. — Instantnood 08:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put Option 1 as 'not acceptable', but I should say that Option 4 is absolutely out of the question. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 09:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
For option 1 to be "unacceptable", one will have to show that the notability of all three entries are fairly similar on the global stage. Are they? Google counts is only cited means of testing notability, but notice the first few options all refered to the Singaporean entity? The island under dispute gets even more notability for being disputed.--Huaiwei 16:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Please make sure you aren't searching with google.com.sg. Google tries to guess what you'd likely be looking for. — Instantnood 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I arent so new to google not to know the above.--Huaiwei 14:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
" but notice the first few options all refered to the Singaporean entity? " - Both the first and the second hits are pages at .br. [8]. — Instantnood 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what kind of search engine you are using, but this is the full list up to the 20th entry[9]. "Sub searches" (searches within the same site and marked out by indented entries) are not counted.
Rank Source Entity
1 [10] Wikipedia (Singapore/Malaysia)
2 [11] Brazil
3 [12] Singapore
4 [13] Brazil
5 [14] Australia
6 [15] Singapore
7 [16] Singapore/Malaysia
8 [17] Brazil
9 [18] Singapore
10 [19] Singapore
11 [20] Brazil
12 † Portugal
13 [21] Singapore
14 [22] Wikipedia (Singapore)
15 [23] Australia
16 [24] Australia
17 [25] Singapore
18 [26] Brazil
19 [27] Brazil
20 [28] Brazil
† wannasurf.com/spot/Europe/Portugal/Central_Ericeira/pedra_branca/ link removed; wannasurf links are now blacklisted due to spamming elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's impossible to edit a page until blacklisted links are deleted. --A. B. (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems like you are withholding full facts, as usual.--Huaiwei 12:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:Assume Good Faith. He has "-wikipedia" in his search. That's why it's different from your search, which doesn't include "-wikipedia" __earth (Talk) 13:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I am assuming very good faith indeed thank you. He also counted sub-site searches, as if that is not obvious enough. My question was why he stopped after the first two results.--Huaiwei 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Why two? I don't know. Why you stopped at number 20? I'd guess your reason would be the same as his. Anyway, look at these results:
  1. "Pedra Branca" singapore -wikipedia.org produces 13k results.
  2. "Pedra Branca" brazil -wikipedia.org produces 257k results
  3. "Pedra Branca" portugal -wikipedia.org produces 44.7k results __earth (Talk) 14:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You are most welcome to stop at 100 if you wish. The total wikicount dosent mean much, because quantity alone dosent signify notability. I am stressing the fact that many articles related to the disputed island is amongst the top search results, which does signify some level of importance.--Huaiwei 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is, how more prominent the South China Sea is to the Brazilian or the Portuguese? According to total, it's Brazil. According to top search (after discounting wikipedia), it's Brazil too. Either way, it's not the South China Sea island. Quality and quantity point to the Brazilian island. __earth (Talk) 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Even after expanding the list to 20, and you could only refer to the "top search"?--Huaiwei 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I said qualitatively, and quantitatively. __earth (Talk) 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot, "Pedra Branca" australia -wikipedia.org produces 33.4k results, hence, making Brazil as first by far, Portugal second, Australia third and the South China Sea island fourth. If a place deserves to crowd out the disambiguity page, it would be the Brazilian. Finally, I quote your 15:55, 6 December 2006 comment: "I am stressing the fact that many articles related to the disputed island is amongst the top search results, which does signify some level of importance". Again the question is, how do we prove the South China Sea island is more important than the rest to deserve to displace the disambiguity page? That question needs answering if others are to be convinced of your case. __earth (Talk) 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I was the closing admin, but I was on a wikibreak meanwhile. I still stand by my decision, as it appears to be the least unacceptable choice for all (and the least POV title). Let me briefly restate the reasons:

  • The island is most widely known in English as Pedra Branca, not Pulau Batu Puteh
  • "Pedra Branca" in itself is ambiguous, and requires disambiguation. The other two Pedra Brancas are also in first few pages of Google hits (plus, the name is fairly obscure to an Average Joe so that it's questionnable how to even measure the prominence).
  • Double names in titles are very frowned upon on Wikipedia. Take the South Tyrol toponyms case as an example: everyone (except a few nationalists) agreed that the articles should reside at one (Italian or German) name or another, but not both.
  • While "Name, Country" is a common form of disambiguation, it wasn't really applicable in this case, due to the territorial dispute. So, "Name, Sea" seemed a natural choice.
  • Well, yes, I was bold (or even WP:IAR) but I still fail to see a better title which would satisfy WP:NC, WP:UE, WP:NPOV, and WP:DAB. So, if almost everyone agreed that "Pedra Branca" was acceptable from NPOV aspect, then which layer of POVity the "South China Sea" disambiguator adds? Duja► 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with your opinions but I must reiterate that the closure was too abrupt. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note

I realize that there are many, many overlapping and conflicting views flying around in here from many, many different users. May I just make clear several issues. I will refer to this contentious island as 'the island'. Firstly, Singapore has de facto control of the island. This means that the Singaporean Navy will protect its surrounding waters from incursions. Secondly, Singapore and Malaysia give it different names, but it has been established that this island is more often referred to as 'Pedra Branca', although this can be considered POV itself. Thirdly, to name the article 'Pedra Branca' would go against the Manual of Style, as there are multiple locations in the world with the name 'Pedra Branca', and 'Pedra Branca' ought to be a disambiguation page, and nothing else. Fourthly, international courts are currently debating the ownership of this island, and have not issued judgement yet. Due to multiple requested moves, I suggest a vote be conducted to gain consensus, but please do try your best to remain as NPOV as possible, whether from Singapore, Malaysia or elsewhere. We have several options:

  1. Pedra Branca
  2. Pedra Branca, Singapore
  3. Pedra Branca, South China Sea
  4. Pulau Batu Puteh
  5. Pulau Batu Puteh, Malaysia
  6. Pulau Batu Puteh, South China Sea
  7. Pedra Branca (Pulau Batu Puteh)
  8. Pulau Batu Puteh (Pedra Branca)
  9. Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh
  10. Pulau Batu Puteh-Pedra Branca
  11. Separate pages

- SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 15:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, that it is not quite accurate to say an article violates the MoS if there are multiple names and it is not a disambg page. Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) clearly allows this to happen so long that the article claiming the namespace is proven to be the entity the article name is most commonly-refered to.--Huaiwei 16:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
SpLoT, thanks for the input. Two thoughts, though: first, you might want to change "Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh" (and its counterpart) to something like "Pedra Branca-Pulau Batu Puteh", only because I thknk the "/" will put the article on a sub-page. Secondly, I'd shy away from the separate pages as this is generally avoided due to major problems in keeping pages in sync. --Ckatzchatspy 22:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
There we are. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just want to note that the subpage feature is disabled in the main namespace of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Subpages). So, either "Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh" or "Pulau Batu Puteh/Pedra Branca" will not put the article on a subpage. However, the "/" mark in the article name seems odd to me. --Joshua Chiew 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I'm marked out my comment above about the sub-pages; apologies for the inconvenience, SpLoT. --Ckatzchatspy 08:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedra_Branca,_Singapore/Archive_1&oldid=1136373536"