Talk:South China Sea Arbitration

Play Pretend?
Are you fake news promoters gonna pretend this article didn't exist and the countries list on this fakewiki is real??? Spin news and fake news do not change the fact that many of the Global South and developing countries (former Western colonies) support China. E.g., African Union, Arab League. https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/who-supports-china-in-the-south-china-sea-and-why/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.91.228 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Before acting uncivil and claiming "fake news" as a fancy way of I just don't like it, that article is flawed on many accounts and was discussed previously here at Talk:Philippines v. China/Archive 2. To summarize, their methodology is flawed because they never listed which countries fall under which category to come up with their conclusion. TAnother red flag is that many of the sources they cite use Chinese news sources (usually that foreign embassy, which have been problematic as they listed some countries that don't officially or deny support for China on their official Ministry of Foreign Affairs website (e.g. Fiji, Montenegro) and Chinese news sources are biased towards to the government due to censorship there. They also play the anti-western card or the logically flawed argument "They are expressed and available in Chinese, French, Spanish, Arabic, Swahili, Khmer, or other languages. Therefore, some analysts in the English-speaking world may have merely failed to find them." rather then refuting the sources directly so it's an opinion article masquerading as fact and the authors have close ties to Chinese government (possible conflict of interest).


 * See Reliable sources/Perennial sources Ssbbplayer (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

ITN Nomination
This article was nominated to be featured on the Main Page as part of the "In the news" section on July 12, 2016. The nomination was closed due to significant ongoing content disputes and allegations of non-NPOV editing.

Does PCA have an association with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea?
It seems like Permanent Court of Arbitration has always been referred as an international tribunal, but it's missing the part that clarifies its connection with ITLOS. Does the ruling reflect ITLOS stance on the issue? Does PCA speak for ITLOS at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.33.83.206 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * PCA only provided venue and recording services and is not the authority. See https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/ for the relationship between UNCLOS and PCA. Of the 5 judges, 4 were retired ITLOS judges. As for why the case did not go to ITLOS or ICJ, it is because China did not accept. --JWB (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Article text repeatedly refers to PCA as if it is the court or authority. All these instances should be changed. --JWB (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Philippines v. China → South China Sea Arbitration – As per WP:COMMONNAME, the PCA case has been commonly referred to virtually by most news outlets as the South China Sea arbitration case/ruling or variations of thereof and not Philippines vs. China which does not really tell much about the scope of the case. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel this should contain Philippines and China in the title somewhere, so combine both titles together: Philippines v. China South China Sea Arbitration; it would also not confuse the currently confusable title, with sports events. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I find the "v." most troublesome. I think for many readers, this will not be a common construct in the context of international disputes. South China Sea Arbitration helps make both the type of proceeding and the subject matter of the dispute more clear. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Descriptive title as with the titling of the Island of Palmas Case article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There has been no other arbitration case involving the South China Sea dispute, so I think retaining China and Philippines somewhere in the title is unecessary.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Although it is most often correct to use the name of a legal case this is not ideal in this situation here because the topic of this dispute of this is larger and goes on for decades. Jorahm (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Compromised B class
I noted this B class article with sources to match had been modified in a potentially non neutral manner by an unregistered single editor who has been very active last 48 hours of multiple topics they appear to feel strongly about and others have reacted to. Reversion of most of the edits to this page was done manually so apologies if mistakes were introduced. ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I also had to add back in a section that was deleted for no reason which was a non neutral "silent" edit buried in multiple other edits over a short period. ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)