Talk:South China Sea/Archive 2

sometimes called by different names in China's neighboring countries
Should be "sometimes called by different names in other countries", because it implies that the sea is somehow the territory of China, when this is famously in dispute. It is also factual that countries that are not neighbours of China (however that is defined) do not use the name "South China Sea"; so the statement is specifically incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.105.162.130 (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed that clause altogether. As written, as you rightly point out, it implied a particular point of view. But removing 'neighbours of China', so it becomes 'different names in other countries', renders it vague and redundant: what different names? what other countries? As the rest of that section actually gives that detail there’s no need for it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What about delving into history first instead of writing outrageously ignorant comments? What do you actually know about the dispute? You probably never even heard of this body of water before it got attention from the media. There is a dispute, oh, China is involved, fuck this country, she is always wrong, hell, the government there isn't even legitimate or whatever kind of ridiculous arguments people have been bringing up in previous discussions. Pardon my French, but this is exactly what's going in your heads. How are you letting these people talk you into "neutral" contributions? It's rather about eliminatinig every little thing sane people wouldn't have interpreted as favorable towards China. One has to be very obsessed and biased to find them. The fact is that the Chinese language doesn't even use the term "South China Sea". It has always been the "South Sea". There is no need to add one's own country in when it's already clear what "south" means. Also the name "China" is problematic. Westerners have been using this word throughout history, but the Chinese themselves had a totally different concept. There were many names, but none were understood as names for a country because even the modern state is an Western invention. Historically, Westerners needed an additional reference point since using whatever cardinal direction alone didn't make any sense due to Europe's geographical location on the other side of the world and just subconsciously picked a country without further thought. China was huge and influential at that time, so the choice was obvious. Moreover, there weren't hardly any countries in that region anyway because they were European colonies. Now, people pop up here, using today's China's "aggression" as an argument to keep the article as clean as possible, even demanding to change the article name. China is not responsible for how Westerners named this place centuries ago. You've been arguing about the wrong things.--88.65.125.237 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We (the original poster and I) were not arguing. I agreed with their point, and resolved it as best I could. Apart from that I am not sure what your point is. Remember this page is for discussing changes, hopefully improvements, to the article, so if there is something you think needs changing in the article please be more specific.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

illegal obstruction/Freedom of Navigation
There needs to be clarification in the article making mention as per below; *existing or historical Embargo(s) *existing or historical Blockade(s) *Treaty Ports *internationally agreed methods of tackling Contraband — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.94.243.43 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2018
Hɐıʞ (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 09:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019 about the disputed sea
The title (South China Sea) must be changed into West Philippine Sea since the United Nations uses that name after the Past President Benigno Aquino of the Philippines officially named South China Sea waters off the country’s west coast the “West Philippine Sea.” An administrative order released by the presidential palace on 2012 said the “West Philippine Sea” would be included in government maps and charts. “In the exercise of sovereign jurisdiction, the Philippines has the inherent power and right to designate its maritime areas with appropriate nomenclature for purposes of the national mapping system,” it said. “The maritime areas on the western side of the Philippine archipelago are hereby named as the West Philippine Sea. “These areas include the Luzon Sea as well as the waters around, within and adjacent to the Kalayaan Island Group, and Bajo De Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.”

And after that, UN recognizes this order and hereby named South China Sea into West Philippine Sea. For stronger basis there is a citation from the page of Department of Environment and Natural Resources; International Agreements on Environment and Natural Resources. In there it was stated: "UNCLOS sided with the Philippines after the presentation of its arguments in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the The Hague, a 501-page decision in favor of the Philippines was promulgated on July 12, 2016. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) invalidated China's nine-dash line maritime claim and concluded that the said claim lacks legal basis. It stated that China's claim is excessive and encroaching into the Philippines' 200-nautical mile EEZ. The Tribunal opined that China violated the Philippines' sovereign rights in its EEZ by interfering with fishing and petroleum exploration and and constructing artificial islands. Chinese authorities also did not fulfill their obligation to stop Chienese fishermen from harvesting endangered species in the SouthChina Sea. (Source: In The Matter Of The South China Sea Arbitration, PCA Case No. 2013-19)."

"Despite the ruling affirming Philippines' rights to the WEST PHILIPPINE SEA, the dispute between the parties still stands because China's refusal to accept the verdict. Meanwhile, the Philippines, through the DFA, expressed its faith in intenational cooperation and international law to protect its right and interests." PH-Laban (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ The WP:COMMONNAME in English is still by far "South China Sea". Please provide very substantial (i.e. more than just one or two, or handful or links) evidence to the contrary and follow Requested moves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Depths
Has anyone got information or data on its depths? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A465:6D01:A997:4290 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020
In the section Islands and seamounts, "Macclesfield Bank and Scarborough Shoal" is tacked on to the end of the intro to the list. That, and the comma following the closing parentheses, should be deleted. &mdash;⁠184.207.241.117 (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done! GoingBatty (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese "Sovereignty" over Paracel Islands
There is a problem on the South China Sea page. Because it is locked for editing, I can't fix it myself.

The problem is that towards the end of the "Territorial Claims" section, there is a reference to US warships entering the 12 mile limit of the Paracel Islands, which the article says is "sovereign" Chinese territory. However, as acknowledged earlier in the same section, these islands are in fact claimed by China and two other countries. It is therefore incorrect or at least misleading to say they are sovereign Chinese territories.

Further, as sovereignty over these islands is a contentious geopolitical issue, Wikipedia should be careful to ensure neutrality on the question of ownership or sovereignty.

So, somebody with editing rights, please fix the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.242.164 (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

-- Personally, I didn't even understand why this paragraph ("In December 2018,...") was there at all. First of all, it suddenly talks about "possible solution to tensions with the United States", tensions which were not previously mentioned nor sourced. Second, the USA aren't part of this conflict, have no legal or moral authority or jurisdiction there at all. I don't really see the link between the south china sea and some gossip from a retired general (somebody who, again, have no jurisdiction or authority), especially when they happen to underlie articles named nothing less overtly propagandist than "China should think twice before threatening to attack Americans - Fox news". Friendly reminder that not all readers are from the anglosphere. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is meant to be universal, and thus, american supremacy isn't a given. As a reader from the rest of the world, I simply do not see why wikipedia should relay the position of specific country regarding a conflict that's happening on the other side of the world. I'm sure the american government have its own website for that. tldr: US position on this isn't relevant at all in my opinion. 86.7.239.49 (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea (again)
Here, I have WP:BOLDly removed the "commonly known as West Philippine Sea" assertion from prominence in the infobox and the Names section. The name West Philippine Sea is sometimes mis-applied to the South China Sea as a whole, and this is done almost exclusively by persons who do not understand the proper application of that term, which is explained a bit in paragraphs three through five of that Names section of the article. To summarize here, West Philippine Sea is a term used officially by the Philippine government to "include the Luzon Sea as well as the waters around, within and adjacent to the Kalayaan Island Group and Bajo De Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal." -- essentially, the portion of the South China Sea which overlaps the the Philippine EEZ. This is explained in the fifth paragraph of that Names section of the article and is codified in Administrative Order No. 29 s.2012, which is cited there.

What happened, as I understand it from this and this, is that, sometime in 2011, Walden Bello drafted a resolution calling on the executive branch of the Philippine government to rename the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea and, following on that, the term started being used informally, and sometimes formally, by some officials in the Philippine government. The confusion which this caused led to the issuance of the aforementioned AO29 clarifying this with a formal definition which I have partially quoted above. Unfortunately, this is commonly misunderstood in the Philippines, leading to confusion in some Wikipedia articles which I sometimes try to correct (see e.g., this edit, reverted here). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My experience is that the formal distinction between the Philippine EEZ and the rest of the sea is not reflected in most everyday speech uses, and as your sources support the original idea was to replace the South China Sea name entirely. That said, it's a minor name in terms of usage, and should not be that prominent. CMD (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the original intent of the proposer was as you say.The proposer was a Philippine congressman who was not speaking with the voice of the Philippine government when he made that proposal. Rather, he filed House Resolution 1350 urging the Philippine Congress to conduct an inquiry into the process of renaming the South China Sea to Western Philippine Sea or Kanlurang Dagat ng Pilipinas. I don't know what became of that resolution, but I would guess that it was not adopted. The confusion stirred up by the proposal, however, eventually resulted in the issuance of AO29, which did not attempt to rename the SCS and did not establish an alternative English language name for the SCS. AO29, with the voice of the President of the Philippines, established West Philippine Sea as the term to be used officially by the Philippine government to refer to a small portion of the SCS which was and is of particular importance to that government. Yes, that distinction is not reflected in most everyday speech uses within the Philippines. However, it should be reflected by Wikipedia. This article is central to this within Wikipedia and, as I came across it, reflected some of the confusion. My change hopefully lessened the confusion, and discussion here hopefully raises awareness and visibility within the WP editorial community regarding the confusion. This article contains some clarification regarding this in those paragraphs of its Name section. If the confusion resurfaces, that clarification probably ought to be made more visible within this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding a minor edit in the preamble/introduction
Does the text in parentheses in the second sentence of the intro not contradict the article's first section on the origin/meaning behind the name? Aforementioned text: " It is bounded in the north by the shores of South China (hence the name)" versus the source cited--"Then, presumably, when they later needed to distinguish between several China seas, they differentiated between the 'South China Sea'". I would posit that the "South" qualifier is in regards to this seas positioning in regards to other seas, wholly independent from it's relation to land--whose named borders changed over time whilst having no immediate relevancy to maritime navigation. A simple, minor edit that would resolve the conflict between the second sentence of the intro and the first section of the article would be to remove the text "(hence the name)" as it causes unwarranted conflation, insinuates a connection that the citation does not directly or explicitly support, and suggests an unsolicited or required addition that could be construed as partiality. I would like to hear a point by point rebuttal in defense of "hence the name". TibbersSpice (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just adding the info that this appeared in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Names in the infobox
This edit caught my eye and made me wonder about some of those names. Most of them are a mystery to me, but in the Filipino section (going by the English version of the Filipino names), Luzon Sea is a redirect to West Philippine Sea and, as I understand it, Luzon Sea encompasses only part of the West Philippine Sea, which encompasses only part of the South China Sea (there is more info about that at, and there is often confusion about that). I'm guessing that similar nitpicks might be made re some of the names listed for other languages. It seems to me that all of this needs to be clarified in a note and/or in the article body if it is to remain in the infobox; otherwise, it is a potential source of confusion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC) (stricken while I take a closer look -- wtm)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wenli zhou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)