Talk:Scarborough Shoal/Archive 2

Various topics reflecting the '16 July international-tribunal decision at The Hague
Don't hesitate to start a new talk section with heading like == cephalopods unique to Sc. Sh. == at the bottom of this talk page, if you **aren't directly concerned** with matters topics related to the Hague ruling's effects on our coverage of the topic! --Jerzy•t 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My reversion of three edits
I reverted, about half an hour ago before completing the edit that began this second-level talk section, the following three edits: (If you haven't tried this exercise before, i cut and pasted from the history page, and for the moment it looks like these three edit-history entries are automatically nicely linked, but they weren't, and i'm relinking -- "by hand" (and by trial and error bcz after you've once learned how it's actually less boring than rereading the documentation) to some of the text to the WP pages in question, for your convenience, which is a big part of why this edit -- see below for the time stamp of my save -- is so slow in being added.) (Well, sorry, i made that sound like i was saving immediately after getting the above aids straight in my edit box, to provide some insight about what, but i got distracted three or more hours ago, without having saved the previous 'graphs and bullet points.) Jerzy•t 06:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (cur | prev) 12 July 2016  72.223.46.8 (talk | block)‎ . . (34,734 bytes) (-277)‎ . . (→‎Activities in the surrounding area: Removed irrelevant information with unrelated reference.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 15:16, 12 July 2016 Emilio.Ramon.Isla  (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (35,011 bytes) (-1,162)‎ . . (An international tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines in a maritime dispute Tuesday, concluding China has no legal basis to claim historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * (cur | prev) 14:07, 12 July 2016‎ 216.255.98.240 (talk | block)‎ . . (36,173 bytes) (-39)‎ . . (→‎EEZ) (undo)

Yes, everyone can edit WP, but not all edits deserve the same degree of patience and forbearance, and i've exercised some reasonably experienced judgement in deciding those three need reversion for discarding material that should be reworded to reflect verifiable changes to the relevance of the new decision to the overall history of arguments that (still!) were made in the past, even tho more may need to be said about them in light of the recent ruling. (I am for now neglecting other edits made since the court decision but prior to these three, not because those are less troubled than these three, but bcz i can't tackle the whole post-decision body of work (immediately, and/or alone)). Jerzy•t 06:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Noting more recent, more constructive edits
I'm less panicked by others' edits of the last 8.5 hours (8.5, sheesh!), tho i still want to look back to see if other, still earlier edits since the ruling jettisoned material that should be modified rather than discarded. --Jerzy•t 07:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Filipinos are directly concerned since a whole lotof mTerials on the top of the page were all about the Chinese claiming all of our shoals lately.. The country spent a whole lot of money and chose the best lawyer around to defend our country and its territories.. A townful of officials went to the Arbitral Court to fight for our country and all we get from Wikipedia is the bottom page claims about it when all of Chinese claims are on the top and some of them in bold letters.. These Chinese got all too bold all of a suden when the American bases left on  June 10,1991when Mt. Pinatubo erupted. The Americans evacuated in a hurry together with the town folks and let go of their bases when at that time, it was in question if the lease will continue.. Bebe0114 (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

They are talking there about putting their flag in 1980.. That can not be because US CARRIERS AND SUBMARINES are there until theMt. Pinatubo erupted.. Filipinos and Americans alike holds their exercises there.. There is no way they can come an inch close to them.. All their lies are flying all over the place.. All of a sudden a whole lot of maps showed up, threw some artifacts on the sea and all those fronm them.. Their dates are not even adding up just as much lie they are putting out there..

There!s no way they can come clise there because tons of US ships and carriers are parked and sailing all around there.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-10/news/mn-324_1_clark-air-base

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/10/world/us-evacuates-philippine-base-as-volcano-erupts.html

Bebe0114 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Philippines stating the shoal was not Philippine territory

 * Some Chinese sources claim that before 1997 the government of the Philippines had stated the shoal was not Philippine territory. According to the official clarification letter to a telecommunication expedition group from Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Philippines on February 28th, 1994, the document officially verified that the Island was not part of the Philippine territory. On February 5, 1990, the Philippine ambassador to Germany made it clear that according to the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Huangyan Island was not within the Philippine territory in a letter to Dieter, a German radio amateur. On Nov. 18, 1994, the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority and Philippine Amateur Radio Association reconfirmed that the borders and sovereignty of Philippines were defined in the third clause of the Treaty of Paris on Dec. 10, 1898 and the Huangyan Island was located outside the borders of Philippine territory.

I reverted the inclusion of this text for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the second part of it is unsourced and obviously contentious, and so shouldn't go in at all. The first part of it is sourced to a Chinese source, and I'd prefer translated quotes to be presented before it goes in. By "Some Chinese sources" does this text mean that the source notes Chinese sources say this, or is it just this one source which is being used to justify some? Also, is this source an official statement from a Chinese body? CMD (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I tagged the statement as Source need translation for the mean time. Please don't remove unless we can find an English translation. The reference given doesn't seem to come from an official statement by the Chinese government; we need the English text (preferably from an official Chinese gov't. website) that will support that block of text. If we can find the similar claim in an English third-party website, then feel free to remove it. Xeltran (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I took it out again. Given the contentiousness of the issue, we should at least know what the source says before using it in the article. CMD (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The link above is to page 2 of a 15-page article on the efforts of some radio amateurs to establish Scarborough Shoal as an independent geographic entity (or "country") in order to compete for the radio amateur award DX Century Club (DXCC). Actually the relevant information is not on page 2, but in the last paragraph of page 4. We are told that an amateur group collected various documents that included "a letter dated 5 February 1990 from the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany to [radio] amateur Dieter, and a letter of attestation dated 28 February 1994 from the Philippines' Department of the Environment and Natural Resources; both documents explicitly state that the Philippines did not hold sovereignty over Huangyan Island" (1990年2月5日菲律宾驻德国大使致德国爱好者迪特的信和1994年2月28日菲律宾环境及自然资源部的证明信，这两份文件明确说明菲律宾对黄岩岛不拥有主权). That's it. The text of the documents is not cited. We also don't know how the writer obtained these letters, though that information might appear somewhere else in the 15 pages of the article. None of this sounds particularly convincing... Madalibi (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Readers can just use the Google Translate to find out the English translation. STSC (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The mangled grammar caused by that was difficult for me, and I understand Chinese sentence structures. We don't source based on google translate. CMD (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're just interested in raging edit wars. STSC (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm re-adding the text within the WP:NOENG policy. STSC (talk)
 * The text you quoted wasn't even on the linked page. It also shouldn't be in the title parameter of a citation template. That's for the article title. CMD (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We can consider inserting some kind of text on this, but we have to be careful how it's formulated. For one, we can't use vague words like "some sources claim." We need proper attribution. As a draft that we can all develop together, I propose something like this:

"An article on the Chinese website of the Global Times and an editorial in the People's Daily claim that the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany sent a letter to radio amateur "Dieter" in February 1990 stating that the Scarborough Shoal was not part of the Philippines. The article and the editorial also claim that in 1994 both the Philippines Department of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority confirmed to the American Amateur Radio Association that the Philippines did not hold sovereignty over the shoal."

Followed by the two references. What do you all think? (Note that the "American Amateur Radio Association" doesn't seem to exist. Maybe the People's Daily is referring to the American Amateur Radio League, in which case it might be interesting to contact that League to see if they know of such a document...) Madalibi (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that all new text is being added in each time the disputed text is blatantly reinserted without any sort of consensus here has confused some members of the discussion. Vehoo clearly has missed the subject of the debate, as they're looking at an entirely different sources. Currently we have " " as a source. 1990 isn't on that url, yet somehow is cited as a quote from it. There's no point rewriting if the sources don't even say what they're being quoted to say. CMD (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. I see what you mean. The paragraph that some editors want to add back in presents unsupported claims as facts, and the format, title, and date of the citation are completely wrong. (Incidentally, I appreciate your patience and civility in dealing with this situation!) But I think we can do something about this. The right URL for the quote I translated above is http://mil.huanqiu.com/photo/china/2011-10/2097304_4.html. The date of the article is 19 October 2011. The title is "The expedition of Chinese radio amateurs at Huangyan Island" 我国无线电爱好者“远征”黄岩岛始末 (that's a loose translation). No author is indicated. The passage that is indicated as title in the footnote is actually my translation of the relevant passage in the article, but it omits to say that these are the documents that the radio amateur team allegedly collected. My rewording takes all these corrections into account. Gotta go, but I'll be back tomorrow. Take it easy, everyone! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so the text does exist. This is good news. What we need is specific points from each source, backed up with quotes (and translations if necessary) for these. After that it's a simple matter of organising them into a paragraph. Rather than just have both sources as the end, we should have the sources placed after the chunk of text they support. That way a reader knows what information comes from where. CMD (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. The claims do sound far-fetched, but yes, the text does exist! The proper format of the reference should be... The second reference is to an English-language editorial on the People's Daily website. The quote is optional for the English editorial. I'm out of time for now, but let's keep building this up! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for jumping into the middle of this discussion, I am new to Wiki (as far as editing and contributing is concerned). I may not aware of some of the etiquette here. So forgive me as I follow the learning curve to navigate through this.
 * However I would like to provide some bits of information I found on the web regarding the DXpeditions to Huangyan Island (1995 and 1997).
 * The websites are maintained by Tim Totten (probably a better source for you to quote due to its neutrality), one of the participants to both of the 1995 and 1997 DXpeditions.
 * BS7H 1995 (http://www.n4gn.com/sr95/)
 * BS7H 1997 (http://www.n4gn.com/sr/)
 * Note that in one of the BS7H 1997 Bulletins, namely, Bulletin 13, 07MAY97 - Reason for early departure, the author mentioned:
 * "It is important to note that the Philippine officers admitted that there is no Philippine claim to the reef itself. The captain of the lead Ocean Bureau ship, of course, stated the Chinese position that Scarborough reef is P.R.C. territory and provides the baseline for a 12 nautical mile Territorial Sea (TS) surrounding the reef. [Despite recent speculation posted to the DX reflector, China is the undisputed owner of Scarborough Reef. Substantial evidence supporting this fact was submitted to the ARRL DX Advisory Committee, including official statements from the Philippine government. --N4GN]"
 * It is possible then, I theorize, to obtain the official documents (conceivably the two documents you are looking for) from the ARRL DX Advisory Committee. Showmebeef (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting. We may be getting close to something. Tim Totten's claim that the Philippine officers admitted their country did not officially claim the reef wouldn't count as a reliable source, but his claim that "substantial evidence," "including statement from the Philippine government" can verify that China is the "undisputed owner" of the reef is worth pursuing. Thanks a lot for the lead! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph on contentious claim
Here's the reformulated paragraph as I proposed it above, with full references to two online sources. The relevant passage in the Chinese source is fully translated. The wording is neutral, and the two sources' claims are not presented as facts. Readers are allowed to make up their mind on the weight of the evidence presented. Anyway, let us all know if you could live with this version. Any suggestions for further improvement are of course very welcome. So here it is:


 * An article on the Chinese website of the Global Times and an editorial in the People's Daily claim that the ambassador of the Philippines in Germany sent a letter to radio amateur "Dieter" in February 1990 stating that the Scarborough Shoal was not part of the Philippines; they also claim that in 1994 both the Philippines Department of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Philippines Mapping and Resource Information Authority confirmed to the American Amateur Radio Association that the Philippines did not hold sovereignty over the shoal.

Support? Oppose? Comments? I'm sure we can work things out! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Those statements are consistent with the timeline and Philippines maps, their constitution, the Treaty of Paris and several sources from the Philippines. UNCLOS '82 EEZ laws came into effect in late 2004. It appears after recognizing fishing waters would be lost, Filipinos decided to challenge for the shoal in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerdantResources (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder why a newspaper has a mil. url, but considering both sources are exactly the same the new paragraph is formatted well. I wouldn't object to this being added. CMD (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! I think the mil. prefix indicates that the article is classified in the section on "military affairs" of the Global Times website. The Global Times is often more assertive and more overtly nationalistic than the CCP's official line, so we shouldn't be surprised to find this kind of article on their website, or to find an article on radio amateurs in the military section. Madalibi (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Three days and no response apart from CMD's, so I just went ahead and posted the proposed paragraph. Worded and referenced as it is, it shouldn't be controversial. Don't hesitate to make any improvement you find necessary. Madalibi (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO it should be deleted totally as The Global Times has not backed up this claim with hard evidence. Regardless if true on not, individuals or agencies have no power to claim or unclaim such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boopolo (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

it is worth mentioning that in 1997 a Philippine judge dismissed charges of illegal entry into Philippine territory against 21 Chinese fishermen apprehended by the Philippine navy near Scarborough Reef finding that “there can be no legal basis as yet for the conclusion that the accused...entered Philippine territory illegally” as it had not yet been established that that area “exclusively belongs to the exclusive 32 economic zone of the Philippines” based upon the 1978 Presidential Decree.

In 1992, Jorge Coquia, a legal adviser to the Philippine government stated that “the Philippines has no intention or interest in any area in the South China Sea outside 37 the limits set forth in P.D. No.1596.” That statement indicates that the Philippine claim over the South China Sea is limited to the Kalayaan area. Nevertheless, its claim to Scarborough Reef is a new one and relates to an area beyond the limits of the Kalayaan area. It is therefore inconsistent with what the Philippines had expressed before. Thus unless the Philippines could justify that their claim to Scarborough Reef was an old one, already in existence before the Kalayaan claim, its claim is probably not tenable. https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/.../bsb7-2_keyuan_p1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerdantResources (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong.. Very Wrong.. Philippines is very much interested in the area..

That is why it was brought to the Tribunal Court..

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140358/philippines-arbitration-decision-maritime-dispute-south-china-sea-arbitral-tribunal-unclos-itlos Bebe0114 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The area was tenable because that's a livelihood place of the Filipinos

Bebe0114 (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A whole lot of Chinese who does not know what they are saying are editing this Wikipedia or they are just full of lies.. The American soldiers with the Filipinos hold their drills there because the Naval Station is just there.. Don't even know what they are talking about as they edit.. No wonder this Wikipedia page is all full of Chinese writing.. Bebe0114 (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

37nm..??? I don't think SO.. 200 nm EEZ.. And that was hardly fought in court.. IfChina did not show up after all the chance he was given then .. He has waived himself to be represented.. Thecase proceeds ex-parte..

Bebe0114 (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In hopes of clearing up apparent confusion above re the number 37, I'll say that it seems to me that the number probably comes from this document, where it says on page 76 (page 6 of the PDF):

"In 1992, Jorge Coquia, a legal adviser to the Philippine government stated that “the Philippines has no intention or interest in any area in the South China Sea outside the limits set forth in P.D. No.1596.”$37$"


 * The document quoted above is currently cited in footnote number 3 in the article. The supercripted 37 in the quoted snipped refers to

"37 Coquia, J. (1992) ‘Philippine Position on the South China Sea Issues’, in Pablo-Baviera (ed.), supra note 26, at 53."


 * supra note 6 there refers, I think, to note 26 in that quoted document, which cites PD1596. I don't know what "at 53" refers to.


 * See also PDs 1596 and 1599, which are currently cited as footnotes 44 and 45 of the article, and 60 of the book Law of the Sea in East Asia: Issues and Prospects which is currently cited in footnote number 46 of the article.


 * I hope that adds clarity rather than compounding confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)