Talk:South China Sea Arbitration/Archive 1

Czech Republic
Czech Republic supports the arbitration because the NATO reactio is from the Czech Army. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your logic doesn't work. You will need to provide reliable source that supports the statement that "Czech Republic supports the arbitration". Also please put the relevant statements here, and we can scrutinize Toto11zi (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Palestine
Palestine is listed as supporting China's stance based on this news article:. But the only sentence there is This sentence does not contain anything about the arbitration case, or about seeking bilateral negotiations. I also searched the website of the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website and I cannot find any information provided by the news article. Therefore, I propose to delete Palestine from the article because there is nothing relevant to the arbitration case. —seav (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is reliable source, the more relevant source is this reliable statement from Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Araby "Arab countries support China's position on ‘safeguarding’ its sovereignty and territorial integrity". We're still discussing whether to include all the other countries to the list. If you need more, here's another one, so don't remove, do you agree? Toto11zi (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The newer source is more reliable coming from the Palestinean President himself. It should be used instead of the old one where Hua is relaying the view of Palestine.--203.215.120.114 (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree too. I think that when someone relays the view of Palestine, it may be changed a bit to fit into the view of that person, which in this case would be China's point of view. Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Date formats
This page appears to have a 'hodge podge' of date formats. Most of the lead seemed to be DMY (date) (and I changed a few MDY to DMY for 'consistency before looking further. ).

Now it looks like MDY (date) may be most used, see "timeline" section for example. 220  of  Borg 13:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

AMTI source
AMTI source can be found here, this source has been used in some other sources such as this one. Some of the information found one this site is reliable, while some of the information is not. Let's scrutinize the information.

- The EU declaration source is just misleading, discussion can be found in this talk page under section EU

- Information for Cambodia, Fiji, Poland, and Slovenia is just false, discussion can be found in this talk page under sections Cambodia, Fiji, Poland and Slovenia

Notice also the difference between "Support for the arbitration case" and "Supporting outcome of Arbitral Proceeding as Binding". If you don't agree, let's discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliability of the "International reactions" section?


 * I realize that this link Arbitration Support Tracker: Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative has been discussed before, but given the information provided here, I feel as though the list of nations in this section could give an inaccurate impression of support for the arbitration. For instance, I see roughly 60 nations listed as Opposition against the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants here, while the Initiative (which, backed by the CSIS seems to be a reliable, neutral, third-party source: take a look at the list of contributors http://amti.csis.org/about/ ) notes that, "To-date, we have identified 60 countries that appear to be included in China’s list of supporters. Of those, 10 have publicly confirmed their support, 4 have denied Beijing’s claim of support, and 50 have remained publicly silent or have issued statements that are considerably vaguer than indicated by China. In contrast, 40 countries have voiced support for the arbitral proceedings, said the award will be legally binding, and/or called on China and the Philippines to respect it." Surely the list of nations should take this into account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:268:C017:81B2:AC77:F5C2:9D3F:4C6C (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Each country has been scrutinized. Information can be found on this Talk page. Toto11zi (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Any other sources about UK's position?
The only source ( http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/britain-aligns-us-response-south-china-sea-case-38492670 ) is unavailable. --Vx13 (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternative link: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f1af89489ef440f97aab232779b7c74/britain-aligns-us-response-south-china-sea-case --Chris Hallquist (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Angola's Position
I deleted Angola from the list of supporters of China's position. One of the linked sources for this claim was vague and written in ungrammatical, hard-to-parse English. The other source linked to a claim from China's foreign minister, who I don't think can be considered a neutral, reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You cannot remove reliable information without discussion. Each source whether it's from China or the U.S. will need to be scrutinized. You cannot delete information from Xinhua.net without explaning your reasoning in details. All your dramatic changes will need to be restored. Toto11zi (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to my other reply to you above, I should point out that I *did* explain my reasoning. Rather than engage with the specific points I made, you just made a question-begging reply, variations on which you've littered all over the talk page. Again and again, you say "You cannot remove reliable information without discussion" but that begs the question because doubts have been raised about whether the information *is* reliable. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to your blunt statement "I don't think can be considered a neutral, reliable source.", then I don't agree with you. Toto11zi (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPA notice
I am putting on record here that I consider to be a single-purpose account. This user has been editing since October 2015 and he or she has contributed to only 4 articles, all related to China's disputes in the South China Sea: Philippines v. China, Scarborough Shoal, Spratly Islands dispute, and Nine-dash line.

Note that being a single-purpose account is not in itself a problem. However, edits from single-purpose user accounts are often subjected to closer scrutiny with respect to conflict of interest and advocacy. —seav (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would remind you AGF. There's absolutely no need for this notice. Any editor is free to edit any article they choose as long as their edits are backed by reliable sources. STSC (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith. Note that I never said that being a SPA is bad and I never stated that Toto11zi has acted against Wikipedia policy. —seav (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then remove this notice, you're in fact tagging some other editors as "SPA" which is not acceptable under the tagging SPA guideline. STSC (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me on which of the tagging SPA guidelines has been violated? —seav (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the general test carefully. STSC (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just read the general test, and I agree Toto11zi qualifies as an SPA. In particilar, I think their behavior create a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments are neutral and free of promotion and advocacy. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seav, please tell us what's your point? Again, please concentrate on content, reliable source, and don't do personal attack. Toto11zi (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 July 2016
"The Tribunal did not follow the rules and practice of international law in determining the existence of disputes." Please remove this line. It's not referenced and misleading- there is absolutely no evidence that they did or did not do this.

175.100.48.163 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur, the sentence presents opinion as fact. Hammersbach (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC) in question
 * Concur --Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is a controversial statement and this has to be referenced to a reliable (and not propaganda) source to stay in the article. —seav (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this statement should be removed. It is not supported by a reliable source. Mamyles (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Removed. Airplaneman   ✈  15:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

International support for Beijing
It appears only the following countries support Beijing: Afghanistan, Lesotho, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, and Vanuatu -- Namayan (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * not reliable statement. Toto11zi (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you judge this international news magazine to be unreliable, or just this editor at that source who authored the article, of just this particular article? On what basis do you make that judgement? It seems to me that it would be OK to say something like "The Diplomat opined on June 16, 2016 that the critical list of states voicing support for China's position included just seven states (Afghanistan, Lesotho, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, and Vanuatu), with Afghanistan and Lesotho being landlocked states. The article pointed out that other states voicing support were distant from the South China Sea and possibly motivated by considerations of self-interest to placate rather than rebuke China over this issue." in the article (see WP:ANALYSIS).Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Common sense only based on the statement itself "only the following countries support Beijing: Afghanistan, Lesotho, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, and Vanuatu", it's not reliable. Here's what I got with that web site "You have reached the limit of 5 free articles a month.". Toto11zi (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read, understand, and abide by WP:OR, the Wikipedia policy on original research. Granted, the initial statement in this talk page section adds editorial analysis to the analysis done in the cited secondary source, but your application of "common sense" also adds editorial analysis. Editorial "common sense" is often editorial point of view by another name; see WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant this statement "only the following countries support Beijing: Afghanistan, Lesotho, Gambia, Kenya, Niger, Sudan, and Vanuatu" Toto11zi (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll accept that at face value. I haven't been following either the arbitration, the article, or related political developments closely enough to have a good overall feel for this and it appears that you have been. I had noticed your edits earlier and wondered about some of them (e.g. these changes made in 14 consecutive edits, 13 of which lacked explanatory edit summaries; I don't know about the first 13 but I looked at this 14th edit there which did have an ES and eventually concluded that the removed cite did not support the assertion there, but did not agree that this cited source is an unreliable source). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the U.S. from the support list. But the source doesn't have any mention of the support to the arbitration. Toto11zi (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here you go, for additional sources that disputes the Chinese claims of support. -- Namayan (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there statement from the U.S. government? Toto11zi (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The WSJ is well-known for its anti-Chinese stance. Here the source to help you count the countries that support China. STSC (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is fair to include numerous China-based news sources, most of which obviously have a pro-China stance, and then omit WSJ just because you think they are anti-China. We should include relevant reliable sources, and WSJ is certainly considered a reliable source in Wikipedia being used as references countless times in many other articles. —seav (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that wenweipo has an editorial line similar to Xinhua, which would have a pro–China position. It is not reliable in showing which countries support China. A third party source may be better in showing which countries support China. If editors think the WSJ is not a reliable source, then discuss it on Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Venezuela
Venezuela is listed as supporting China's stance based on this news article:. But the only sentence there is I cannot find this issued statement anywhere. I also searched the website of the Venezuelan Ministry of External Relations and I cannot find this issued statement. Therefore, I would like to question whether Venezuela should be included in the article. —seav (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement is very clear, it's between 2 countries, outsiders may not obtain the actual statement. Lu is China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, information should be very reliable. Toto11zi (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Lu is obviously a representative of China and have a clear conflict of interest and Xinhua is a state-sponsored body. To assume that "it's between 2 countries, outsiders may not obtain the actual statement" is nonsense, there maybe excerpts of this somewhere in the web. To clear a source coming from the Venezuelan foreign ministry must be retrieved. Maybe there are Spanish sources regarding this, Toto11zi and seav may ask assistance from Spanish-speaking users. There is a high chance that Venezuela released a statement if the likes of Botswana had copies of statements posted.203.215.120.114 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think people will have difficulty understanding your words. Can you elaborate the "conflict of interest" you just said? also can you tell us why the statement "outsiders may not obtain the actual statement" is nonsense? lastly, have you read the press conferences from the MFA of China here? If the statement is from one of these conferences, would you still say it's nonsense? Toto11zi (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to information from the Venezuelan Ministry of External Relations since this would indicate Venezuela's official position. I searched through their website (type in China under "Buscar") and did not come up with anything related to this. Any press conferences from the MFA of China represents China's position and is not indicative of the other country's position. Venezuela should be removed for now until a proper source is found. While I do know that outsiders may not obtain the actual statement, the fact that it is coming from Xinhua means that it reflects China's position rather than Venezuela's official position. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said in the Fiji case, your logic doesn't stand. If you think "outsiders may not obtain the actual statement" is nonsense, you will need to prove it. Toto11zi (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Country X issued a statement" normally implies a public statement, at least in all reporting on this stuff I've read—or at least all reporting not coming from Chinese propaganda outlets. So agree the idea of a non-public statement is bizarre. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a general question: I don't think anybody supports war, so in what sense does a statement that country X supports "settlement of the South China Sea issue through negotiation and consultation" count as agreement with China's position *as opposed to*, say, the Philippines' position? (Assuming someone can find a public statement by Venezuela to this effect, since as others have said, a claim by one of the involved parties.) Mcswell (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to make this same point with comments in the Poland section on this talk page and was met with comments that were reminiscent of tactics of the 50 Cent Party. China, through its multiple state-controlled agencies, basically claims that any country that states it supports peaceful dialogue and negotiations supports its position and is opposed to the PCA award. Hammersbach (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Court ≠ PCA
This appears to be a common misunderstanding, but the Permanent Court of Arbitration isn't the arbitral tribunal rendering the rulings in cases like these. It acts only as a registry for the tribunal, which is an ad hoc tribunal set up under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It's not correct to say the PCA "ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case" or that it "ruled in favor of the Philippines against China". Woodcutterty (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The PCA is not Formal Court

United Nations and International Court of Justice have not support the PCA.

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) wishes to draw the attention of the media and the public to the fact that the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China) was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The relevant information can be found on the PCA’s website (www.pca-cpa.org). The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case and, for that reason, there is no information about it on the ICJ’s website

In fact, United Nation stated that PCA is not part of UN, PCA is simply renting the location for its own interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonywang122 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The court that ruled on this case is not part of the UN or ICJ. It is part of the UNCLOS treaty, which China and the Philippines are signatories of. I believe that the article currently makes that quite clear. What exactly are you proposing in regard to the article? Mamyles (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * From the ICJ home page, I do not see any explicit statements saying that the UN and the ICJ they have not support the PCA. Just because it does not mention the PCA does not mean that they do not support the PCA. The claim "United Nation stated that PCA is not part of UN, PCA is simply renting the location for its own interest" is biased and comes from an unreliable source since Weibo is a microblogging site. Blogs should normally be avoided as anyone can post content without any fact checking. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Arbitration ,Mediation and Litigation is a difference a concept. I suggest it is a controversial issue.(talk) 17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.92.115.186 (talk)

This case was directed by the U.S. Regime & its Pentagon
The following report by Bill Gertz on the Asia Times revealed that whole U.S. regime machine including the Obama administration, congress and Pentagon has fully and deeply involved in the Case. so I suggest the title of the article should be changed to "U.S. and its Asian fellows v.s. China". http://atimes.com/2016/07/us-china-wage-legal-warfare-over-control-of-the-south-china-sea-gertz/


 * }--84.163.129.183 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. One source does not justify the need to change the title of the article. It sounds like an opinion piece too. The court called it Philippines v. China and that is what it should be called. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons given by Ssbbplayer. Also, this is like saying the article on Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker should be titled "Bollea and Thiel v. Gawker". Not standard practice for referring to court cases, even if you can argue it makes some sense. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a pointless discussion. The article is an opinion piece while the suggestion to change the title to "U.S. and its Asian fellows v.s. China" is obviously biased. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 July 2016
Please add Russia as one of the countries that support talks between disputants / opposition to the arbitration. I found two sources that aren't Chinese that support my claim. I am kinda disappoint that wikipedia is inherently biased but it can't be helped. http://www.ibtimes.com/south-china-sea-controversy-russia-beijing-call-negotiation-consultation-settle-2355906, http://asiamaritime.net/russian-ambassador-tensions-in-south-china-sea-created-artificially/ ExGuardianNinja (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worry. This editor Chris Hallquist made dramatic and irresponsible changes to the page without discussing or collaborating, it's just irresponsible way of editing this page. Those changes will be restored. There's no rule saying Russian sources or Chinese sources including Xinhua.net should not be included. Toto11zi (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a little skeptical of the Asia Maritime Review, and the International Business Times is just reporting what Xinhua said. OTOH, based on Googling it looks like the AP is confirming that Russia is backing China on this: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/29/russia-china-north-korea-south-china-sea/83692794/. I was honestly kind of surprised whoever initially included Russia as one of China's supporters couldn't find a more reliable source, but wanted to focus on clearing out the dubious sources before looking into this one case more. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When did you start editing this page? Editing this Wikipedia page involves collaboration, you cannot do whatever you want. A blunt statement like Xinhua is not reliable just can't stand. Toto11zi (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have disabled this request because I'm unsure exactly what is requested or whether there is consensus to do so. Before reactivating please make the request unambiguous and ensure there is time for other editors to assent/dissent. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 July 2016
I request corrections in the second paragraph of the lead. Someone was trying to falsely make PCA sound like a law court that made the ruling. It's the tribunal that made the ruling, not PCA itself. STSC (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC) The correct version is as follows:-
 * Please add "tribunal", or replace PCA or "court" with "tribunal".
 * Please also remove the POV wording "so-called" before the "nine-dash line".
 * And please add quotation marks on the "irreparable damage". a statement to say "China has rejected the ruling."

On 12 July 2016, the PCA tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines against China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. The tribunal unanimously ruled that China has "no historical rights" based on the "nine-dash line" map. The tribunal also ruled that Chinese reclamation activity in the south China sea has also caused an irreparable damage to the environment and asked the Chinese government to stop further activities in the South China Sea. China has rejected the ruling.


 * I agree with adding the word "tribunal". The PCA itself did not give the award, but rather an ad hoc tribunal to which the PCA provided administrative support. I also agree with removing "so-called". However, I disagree with adding the quotation marks around "irreparable damage": The whole sentence already makes it clear that the irreparable damage is an assessment of the tribunal, and not a statement of fact that there is indeed damage nor that it is irreparable. —seav (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I do agree with removing "so–called" before the nine–dashed line to minimize bias. However, I opposed adding quotation marks on "irreparable damage" for the same reason that User:Seav points out (a good point in general). Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The quotation marks would not have been needed if both parties involved had accepted the ruling. The ruling is controversial and China has rejected it. The allegation of "irreparable damage" appears as a fact as ruled by the tribunal, therefore it should be within the quotation marks to indicate it may or may not true. STSC (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There are generally three different ways we can present the claim:
 * The first way is clearly against WP:NPOV as it presents as fact something that is disputed. Therefore, according to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we attribute the controversial statement to the arbitral tribunal, so the second way is already sufficient. Now what's the problem with the third way with the quotes? Adding such quotes when the sense is already neutral in the second way turns those quotes into scare quotes, which is like adding "so-called" to "irreparable damage". These quotes therefore imply a bias opposite of the first way. So to be really neutral as per WP:NPOV, the second way should be chosen: Wikipedia does not claim that there is irreparable damage, but rather the tribunal does. The quotes are superfluous, just like the "so-called" that we agreed should be removed. —seav (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's no consensus on the quotation marks, the alternative is to add a statement that China has rejected the ruling. STSC (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The first way is clearly against WP:NPOV as it presents as fact something that is disputed. Therefore, according to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we attribute the controversial statement to the arbitral tribunal, so the second way is already sufficient. Now what's the problem with the third way with the quotes? Adding such quotes when the sense is already neutral in the second way turns those quotes into scare quotes, which is like adding "so-called" to "irreparable damage". These quotes therefore imply a bias opposite of the first way. So to be really neutral as per WP:NPOV, the second way should be chosen: Wikipedia does not claim that there is irreparable damage, but rather the tribunal does. The quotes are superfluous, just like the "so-called" that we agreed should be removed. —seav (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's no consensus on the quotation marks, the alternative is to add a statement that China has rejected the ruling. STSC (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's no consensus on the quotation marks, the alternative is to add a statement that China has rejected the ruling. STSC (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made the changes agreed above &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrators have a job to do
The page is something of a mess now and cries out for editing extensively. The structure (storyline) and emphasis of the Background, in particular, is very poor. In the hands of the almighty administrators, it is in a state of disarray, with defects as obvious as footnote syntax error. Open it up or take on the responsibility of closure by standing in and doing the work required. sirlanz 23:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

General problems with sources on this page
In general, the current version of this page seems to be full of claims that are either (1) directly from Chinese government sources, presented as if they are from neutral sources (2) from neutral sources quoting Chinese government sources, but cited in a way that does not make this clear. I just uncovered another example—Afghanistan was included in list of Chinese government supporters based on something China claims was said in a private meeting. The original link, actually, is dead, but here is a live source. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, it's just irresponsible that you made sudden and dramatic changes without discussing. You cannot remove reliable information without discussion. Each source whether it's from China or the U.S. will need to be scrutinized. You cannot do what you want here, you will need to discuss and collaborate with other editors. Toto11zi (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To maintain objectivity, I feel this article should only use objectively written media reports. This unfortunately directly precludes reports from Chinese media (Peoples' daily etc) and Philippines (GMA, etc) unless the edit relates to the stance of a particular country. All such sentences must clarify that this is the stance of that particular country. Ditto for reports in other websites that may have leanings towards one side or the other. The best refrences in this case are from the PCA - and their 500+ page arbitration document issued on 12 July 2016. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Objectivity is not judged by one person, it's judged by all the editors. Do you agree? Toto11zi (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Aggrieved parties (in this case, China or the Philippines) cannot count as objective sources, so information from them cannot be used at face value; at the very least, it would need to be sourced in the article, e.g. "China claimed that Afghanistan supported their stand, although this could not be verified by independent means." And I further doubt whether the people who choose to edit this article would count as an unbiased jury, if that's who you mean by "all the editors." Mcswell (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have to come up with a system that clearly states claims of support from Chinese/Philippine sources because both sources from both parties can be biased or assumes support. Country X merely says "peaceful resolution between parties involved"; Chinese news agency proclaims Country X supports China. Country Y says they are "for freedom on navigation and countries are free to use all means to peacefully resolve dispute such as the UNCLOS arbitration" (but does not mention the PCA by name", Philippine media comes up with a news with a headline "Country Y supports Philippines in UNCLOS arbitration case. It should be made clear if its a claim by the Chinese sources (Xinhua, Chinese Foreign Ministry, Xi Jingping), Filipino sources (Philippine News Agency, GMA, PDI, Inquirer, then President Aquino, Department of Foreign Affairs) or third party sources.

Also the issue statements by countries can't be just grouped into dichtomies or isn't just black or white. Some are calculated statements that are carefully crafted to minimize offending a party and stances can change overtime (it would be interesting to see the change of India's stance for example over time).

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Domestic reactions
This section is more relevant to the case, the reactions of both China and the Philippines after the tribunal decision. Especially the concrete actions such as the mango boycott by Chinese citizens, plans to send Fidel Ramos to China for talks, solidarity protest in support of the Philippines by Vietnamese expats in the country, Chinese protests against the tribunal, continuation of Chinese aggressive enforcement of its claims, etc. For some reasons I can't edit the page even though there is no locked icon on the top right portion to do this myself. Pardon me its been a while since I begun editing again due to an announced Wikibreak.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Improvements Suggestions by Penwhale
There are a few issues I think that needs to be fixed: - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Current contents at International Reactions section was to the filing of the case, not to the decision. Thus, the section either needs to be renamed, made as a subsection (see next point) or moved to International reactions to Philippines v. China.
 * 2) Similarly, post-decision international reactions should be included. Again, this can be a section titled differently, a subsection of international reactions (if we're making pre-decision reactions a subsection of the big reactions section), or incorporated mainly into the new page.
 * I agree with both of your points, for the first point, our consensus is not to create a new Wiki page "International reactions to Philippines v. China", discussion can be found on this page. Toto11zi (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, especially now that post-decision reactions also need to be included. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As one of the initial users to propose a split, I support such move, even more so after the ruling was issued. Such proposed page shall have two main sections, one for pre-ruling and the other are for post-ruling. If the page becomes to long two separate articles may be created instead. One for before the ruling (we should also note the changes of stances, denial of claims of support, retraction of statements) as well as post ruling with the post-ruling reaction page entitled "International reactions to Philippines v. China ruling.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

incorrect comparison to ICJ cases
the court in question is not ICJ, furthermore there are some incorrect general assumption made in the media that this about disputed territory so wording to be careful to reflect the following: 1. the court is ask if the island are considered land feature or sea feature, not who own it. 2. the court does not have power to aware or settle territorial dispute. 3. the court in question does not have power to make final determination, it power lies in the dispute side to accept it arrangement. only ruling by ITLOS is international binding, the fact taht these 3 are seperate organisation with different function should be noted because if indirect referring and comparison; is like comparing apple and orange and should be noted according or referenced to related wiki pages. Akinkhoo (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Vietnamese and phillipines claims?
Can we add the claims of competing countries to the map? Currently we're only representing the Chinese claim, which I think is somewhat unfair to other countries involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.128.226 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am open to another map. Which one would you suggest? However remember that the case is primarily about China's claim. This article is not about all the dispute; it is about this particular court case over China's claim. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * the case is NOT about territorial dispute, it is about the nature of the islands. there should be no map at all other than those describing the island themselves. futhermore, the court has not invited anyother involved parties to the case, this weaken the idea that the court is "international" if only philippine is the only side that presented a position in court. if this is about china claim, then logically shouldn't the rest of ASEAN had been invited? if we treat this is a case about the dispute, then the exclusion of all other party involve would turn it into a "show trial", does it not? Akinkhoo (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Does Germany support Philippines?
Hariboneagle927 added this reference:

Calica, Aurea (4 June 2014). "Germany calls for peaceful settlement of sea row". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 29 May 2016. Asked if Germany supported the arbitration case, Ossowski said his government supported any peaceful settlement that respects the rule of law in settling disputes.

Based on this piece of news and recent news, Germany did not explicitly support the arbitration case. Please share your comments before removing Germany from the list of countries who support the arbitration. Toto11zi (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

But then again according to the source, the question was in response to a question regarding Germany's support/non-support of the arbitration case. If "Asked if Germany..." wasn't in the sentence, then Germany's stance may be too vague. But then I replaced the source with this which was more explicit regarding Germany's support.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Again Germany didn't express explicit support for the case bought by the Philippines. Toto11zi (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

According to AP, the Group of 7 and EU, both including Germany, issued a joint statement supporting using international law as a method to resolve disputes. Merkel herself is more cautious, perhaps because she was meeting with China at the time, simply "suggesting" that the dispute be resolved in international courts. There are no reliable sources that state Germany opposes arbitration. Mamyles (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent misuse of terminology re Permanent Court of Arbitration vs. Arbitral tribunal
This article appears to misuse the terms Permanent Court of Arbitration and PCA. As I understand after reading this explanation (thanks, ), the PCA itself is not involved in the arbitration, and the term used ought to be Arbitral tribunal. See also UNCLOS:Annex VII (Arbitration). The article ought to be updated to use these terms correctly. I could take a whack at that, but I'm not a very good wordsmith. Perhaps someone else can do it? If nobody else steps up and if nobody explains to me how I have this wrong, I'll probably take a whack at fixing this myself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. When the protection is expired, I'll make the necessary edits. STSC (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 July 2016
Put forth and discussed in point no. 51 above, this request is regarding removal of section titled 'Foreign based organizations' (hereinafter FBO).

FBOs have no relevance to the matter and are there in this article for sake of their (pro-chinese) quotes. Irrelevance and POV raises question as to why include these FBO at all? They bring negative value addition to article.

The arbitration was widely covered by the world media and hundreds of organisations have expressed their viewpoints on the matter. Both Pro-Philipines and Pro-Chinese. We can't begin including them as they are all irrelevant to the scope of this article regardless of who they support. The arbitration was between two countries regarding maritime boundaries. How it concerns 'Nepal Workers and Peasants Party' or 'Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations'?

Further, as reactions from countries across the world available and provided in the article, what is the need to include FBOs? We shall stick to reaction of Countries and Major Groups of Countries like North Atlantic Treaty Organization, G-7 and others.

Thus, it is requested that 'Foreign based organizations' section be removed. Collagium (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. No changes will be made unless discussed and with and agreed by other editors &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 July 2016
As discussed above in point no. 44 titled 'India', the stance of India is wrongly stated in the article to be 'against arbitration' based on claim of a Chinese newspaper despite multiple reputed sources stating otherwise and India's Ministry of External affairs itslef issuing a statement on this very issue.

http://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/27019/Statement+on+Award+of+Arbitral+Tribunal+on+South+China+Sea+Under+Annexure+VII+of+UNCLOS

Thus, admins are requested to take cognizance of this serious inaccuracy and edit the article accordingly. Collagium (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the edit to be taken is to move India from Oppose to Support for the arbitration, and to replace both cited but unreliable sources with a reliable Indian source, such as 1. Mamyles (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. From further research, the Chinese source, Wen Wei Po is unreliable, having an editorial stance similar to Xinhua and is not credible based on research by the Chinese University of Hong Kong (source). Given that a university (third party source) says that it is credible, there is strong justification for removing this info. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I had initially thought the Indian government source was a credible source for this claim, but on closer inspection it's much vaguer than the pro-Chinese side makes it out to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't confuse the issue. The said section is about the international reactions on taking the dispute to the PCA instead of bilateral negotiation. It is not about the reactions after the ruling. STSC (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Chinese base for claim is nothing but reference to a statement wherein there is absolutely no mention of India supporting China.
 * As a matter of fact the statement reads, as already explored by Ssbbplayer that


 * "21.Russia, India and China are committed to maintaining a legal order for the seas and oceans based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS). All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned. In this regard the Ministers called for full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS, as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the Guidelines for the implementation of the DOC."


 * How can this be construed as supporting China and opposing UNCLOS especially when the statement makes clear the adherence to ' principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS)'?


 * If adhering to UNCLOS is supporting China then we should put Philipines, USA and Japan also in support of China and against arbitration. This is nothing but insertion of misinformation based on a singular unreliable source despite multiple reliable sources and official statements clearly saying otherwise.
 * Now, the above argument was based on considering the old statement which a Chinese news wrongly used to create illusion of support. The latest statement issued by India is directly on the matter and it clearly shows the Indian support to arbitration.
 * Thus in both old and new statement the stand of India is clear and there is no proof that India opposed this arbitration at any point of time.   Collagium (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done There seems to be consensus for this request &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that this was recently unilaterally moved back to the "oppose" group. I believe that consensus here proves that India actually supports the Philippines, so it should be changed back. Mamyles (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus was related to India's position after the ruling, not before. See point 39 "Improvements Suggestions by Penwhalefor" for the consensus of separating information, point 45 "India" if you want to discuss more. If you don't agree, discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Chinese POV Given Prevalence
The article does not appear to be balanced in the presentation of the issue. Note the heavy reliance on Chinese sources, which give the article an overall flavor of China having been wronged. Missing from this article is the consensus opinion that China has claimed most of the South China Sea without being able to demonstrate historical control, whereas the Philippines claim follows international UNCLOS convention (http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21695565-sea-becomes-more-militarised-risks-conflict-grow-china-v-rest).


 * I concur. After hearing about the arbitration ruling I looked up this article and have to say that I find it to be unabashedly biased in favor of the Chinese position. Hammersbach (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thirded. This page reads like a Chinese propaganda site. Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. Wikipedia's coverage of the of South China Sea has been heavily slanted in favour of China's claims. But the number of pages involved, and the amount of work needed to restore balance is massive. Thinginblack (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You guys are biased. You deliberately removed information that came from non-Western sources to support the US's viewpoint on the South China ruling. There are definitely way more nations that are against it in comparison with the number of nations that support it. The previous revision of the list of nations that were for and against it is way more accurate than the current one. If wikipedia truly lived up to its name of being neutral, it would also acknowledge foreign sources. But you guys only favor Western sources, which is censorship. I lost respect for Wikipedia. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence to support your accusation against me? FWIW, I don't actually have an opinion on this topic. I started reading this article because I thought I should know more about it, and was instantly shocked by the blatant violation of WP:NPOV. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can add information to the page, or change information, but removal of information needs discussion. Again your unilateral action of removing information dramatically from the Wikipedia page is just irresponsible, editing a Wikipedia page is about collaboration that's consensus here.Toto11zi (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence for the attack on my motives? That I'm doing this to support the US viewpoint? --Chris Hallquist (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We're talking about your unilateral action of removing information dramatically from the Wikipedia page, I don't agree with your action and your explanation. Toto11zi (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ONUS as what the editor mentioned previously. I think this statement that "your unilateral action of removing information dramatically from the Wikipedia page' is not being helpful in this conversation. On what basis is it unilateral? The discussion only applies to addition of disputed content, not removal of disputed content. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've responded all your questions in "Use of Xinhuanet as a source", again, this Chris created multiple sections with similar information and it's just confusing. I complained about this originally. Toto11zi (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina
For the Bosnia and Herzegovina case, there're 3 sources:

First source: I believed it's "seav" who added this source here. This EU declaration was published in March 2016, it has nothing to do with the case. Please read carefully and discuss here, otherwise this source will be removed.

Then this 2nd reliable source here. The main statement is the following


 * "BiH supports China's stance on the South China Sea arbitration, Tadic added."

Again read carefully, this statement was from Ognjen Tadic, not China. The date was May 2016.

Now the 3rd source from wsj here. Since this piece of news requires subscription, I found the statement from here. The main statement from wsj is


 * "Bosnia and Herzegovina also denied official Chinese statements that they backed Beijing on the arbitration."

This statement is not reliable, searching the Internet doesn't return a single piece of evidence that Bosnia and Herzegovina denied "Tadic's statement", or Chinese statement. Now check the cross-reference from this web site here. It points source to the EU declaration which was published in March 2016.

From here, I would conclude the statement from the WSJ was just bogus. If you don't agree, please discuss here with reliable information. Toto11zi (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not see how WSJ nor sources from the US government are not reliable. The WSJ is a reliable source and has been used on numerous occasions in many Wikipedia articles. To claim that the statement is not reliable just because one cannot find it is not a good argument. Please read on Identifying reliable sources and explain how WSJ is not reliable. Many sources cannot be easily found by a search engine on the internet. I see the inherent bias in the comments when the 2nd source (Xinhua) is considered to be reliable while the official website of the European council of the EU and WSJ are not indicated as reliable as well (which it should be). Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Facts are transmitted through media and facts may get distorted, here we should concentrate on facts, not media. So never reject or trust any media blindly, agree? clear? Toto11zi (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2016
On July 16, 2016, the United Nations (UN) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently issued statements reiterating that they have no connection to the temporary arbitral tribunal established under UNCLOS for the South China Sea case brought unilaterally by the Philippines.​

The spokesperson of UN Secretary-General also stated that “the UN doesn’t have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims” at a daily briefing on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the UN’s official account on Sina Weibo, China’s answer to Twitter, posted that the tribunal has nothing to do with the UN.

“The ICJ, located at the Peace Palace, is the principal judicial organ of the UN, which was established in accordance with the UN Charter,” reads the post.

The Peace Place is built to house the Permanent Court of International Justice, the predecessor of the ICJ, by the Carnegie Foundation. The UN donates to the foundation annually for using the building, the post explained.

“Another tenant of the Peace Palace is the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) established in 1899, but it has no correlation with the UN,” the post further pointed out.

Former ICJ Judge Abdul Koroma confirmed the UN’s post to People’s Daily. He said that the temporary tribunal is not a UN institution and the PCA is not a court in a real sense.

“Many people who are not familiar with the situation would confuse the tribunal with the ICJ who shares the same office building,” Koroma noted.

The PCA is merely an international mediation agency that allows arbitration for non-state entities and individuals. According to Koroma, only 16 arbitration requests have been accepted in its 117-year-long history.

The ICJ also released a statement on its official website on Thursday, stating that “the Award in the South China Sea Arbitration was issued by an Arbitral Tribunal acting with the secretarial assistance of the PCA. The ICJ, which is a totally distinct institution, has had no involvement in the above mentioned case.”

According to insiders of the ICJ, the temporary tribunal only used the hall room of the PCA during its court hearings. The arbitral tribunal is just a provisional organization set at the unilateral request of the Philippines for compulsory arbitration.

An unnamed staff member of the PCA told People’s Daily that arbitrators of this temporary set-up have no work ethics and they only care about money.

“This institution is no place for justice. It has been reduced to a commercial venue for private interests,” said the employee.

In an interview with People’s Daily, Rao Pemmaraju, former Chairman of the International Law Commission, explicitly pointed out that territorial issues are not subject to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and delimitation issues have been excluded from compulsory arbitration procedures in statements of the Chinese government, thus the tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case.

Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/un-and-icj-reaffirms-non-relation-to-south-china-sea-arbitral-tribunal/#YmFVrHvIqo40H7FX.99 Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/un-and-icj-reaffirms-non-relation-to-south-china-sea-arbitral-tribunal/#YmFVrHvIqo40H7FX.99 175.143.74.177 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Although there was no consensus to add this in, the article is borrowing content from the People's Daily, a mouthpiece of the Chinese government. Thus, this is showing the Chinese government's point of view on PCA as being "a commercial venue for private interests". I highly doubt it is a reliable statement and is very biased towards China, given that it is coming from People's Daily and reproduced on another site. Ssbbplayer (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of those statements seem to be reliable, and can be easily verified. You cannot reject statements with a blunt reason. That statement “This institution is no place for justice. It has been reduced to a commercial venue for private interests,” was from an unnamed staff member of the PCA. Even that one has some logic inside. Obviously Koroma's statement supports this. Again Koroma's statement can be verified easily. Toto11zi (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because it is verifiable does not mean it is reliable. As well, just because the statement is coming from an unnamed staff member of the PCA does not mean the statement is reliable or is logical. By your logic, we should trust a person with a Ph.D who claims vaccines cause Autism or that Homeopathy works (as an analogy). Also, my statement is not blunt as what you claim and what do you mean by "blunt" statements? You better define it before accusing me of "rejecting statements with a blunt reason". Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly you don't get the point. I'm pointing you to the moon, but you're looking at my finger. Concentrate on facts, not media. Facts are transmitted through media and facts may get distorted, here we should concentrate on facts, not media. One example is WSJ, I've scrutinized the 4 cases Poland, Fiji, Cambodia, Slovenia reported by WSJ, WSj was just bogus in those 4 cases. So never reject or trust any media blindly, agree? clear? Toto11zi (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not get your point because your point is wrong. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight to reactions of foreign based organizations
In my opinion, the reactions of Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations and Nepal Workers and Peasants Party are irrelevant to this case that we are giving WP:UNDUE weight. The Toronto organization may hold some water due to the membership of ethnic Chinese.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This indeed is puzzling as why they are mentioned in the article. I read the article again and 'Foreign based organizations' section felt out of place.
 * This news was prominently covered by all media outlets across the world so naturally reactions from lots of organisations, NGOs and other groups are there. The question that we need to ask is what is the relevance of such groups and what value addition did they bring by their inclusion? The answer appears to be negative.
 * We shall stick to opinion of countries and major organisations of countries like NATO, G-7 etc. Collagium (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is giving undue weight to certain organizations. I recommend restricting it to only countries and major organizations. Given that there are so many organizations that have voiced their reactions, we would run into the issue of which ones to include which is impossible to do. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , suggesting the 'Foreign based organizations' section to be removed. Collagium (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing this section. It clearly falls under WP:UNDUE. —seav (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Not at all "undue". The reactions of foreign based organizations are valid encyclopedic content. STSC (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Its not about valid/invalid but whether they are relevant? Care to elaborate how they are needed despite reactions of nations being available? Collagium (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course it's very relevant because it shows the viewpoints at local and grass root levels. The readers should be fully informed about this. You don't remove the sourced content just because you don't like it. STSC (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Grassroot level opinion? How does that justify giving undue weight to an non-party to the dispute? What is the relevance?
 * The reactions on a dispute between two nations shall include reactions from only nations or group of nations not the 'grassroot' especially when said 'grassroot' are totally irrelevant to the law suit. This type of 'misinformation by inclusion' is precisely what WP:UNDUE deals with. Collagium (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * According to your argument, any mention of non-party to the dispute is "undue" apart from China and Philippines? I think it's a clear case of "I just don't like it". STSC (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I argued that 'The reactions on a dispute between two nations shall include reactions from only nations or group of nations not the 'grassroot' especially when said 'grassroot' are totally irrelevant to the law suit.'


 * Thus I request you to read what is written before replying.


 * Also, instead of diverting issue kindly state how is this not a direct case of WP:UNDUE. Collagium (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * STSC, it seems you haven't really read WP:UNDUE. —seav (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Up to now you still have not come up with an explanation as to why the content is "undue". STSC (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's undue because although most of the news has been focused on the viewpoints being expressed by the countries' reaction to the ruling, in the wiki article, viewpoints from organizations that are less known are being given equal weight with more well known organizations. For example, I did not even know the Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations existed until I read this article. For example, the responses from the two foreign based organizations have the same amount of content as responses coming from G7, NATO and SCO which are more prominent and relevant. To a reader, they may consider the responses from those two foreign organizations as carrying the same weight as those coming from G7, NATO and SCO. It is similar to giving 50/50 coverage between those who believe in climate change and those who deny it despite the widespread consensus that climate change is real. As well, both of them use sources that are connected to the Chinese government, so I do not see on how is it at the grassroot level. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I observed the objection to the inclusion of the section because the content expresses the support for the Chinese government. It is in itself relevant to the topic but I want to be fair, as these organizations are quite insignificant so I agree some readers may not be very interested in them. STSC (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Support : As discussed above, the Foreign based organizations section is a case of WP:UNDUE and may be removed by the admins. Collagium (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly! I think the insignificance of the organizations is what makes it "undue" and very prone to bias if included from both sides (the same issue would occur if insignificant organizations were used to express support for the Philippines). Support for removal. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you elaborate WP:UNDUE? Are you referring to the views/statements/reactions made by those organizations? or those organizations themselves? There's a big difference. Toto11zi (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Kindly read the discussion before raising same question again, specifically reply of Ssbbplayer just four paras above elaborating WP:UNDUE and that it is about Organisations regardless of their affiliation. Collagium (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any relevance in Ssbbplayer's comments, if his theory holds, we should add more views from those 70 countries which support China's stance. I believe there's disconnect here, WP:UNDUE is related to views, regardless who hold those views. In the discussion, we should discuss the viewpoints, but not organizations themselves. Can you read carefully WP:UNDUE? I also noticed this line: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", please don't misinterpret, this refers to "tiny minority views", but not "tiny organizations" themselves, you can equate those only when there're no other  people who hold the same tiny minority views. The "Flat Earch"  example in the description clearly explains this concept, obviously it's not the case here. Also if there's no viewpoint comparison, not organization comparison, the whole WP:UNDUE thing is not applicable. If you don't agree, please discuss here.Toto11zi (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You want editors to explain (again) that these organisation are not relevant to the topic as they are not party to the ruling? The issue is about International Maritime Boundaries, thus nations and Group of Nations are relevant.
 * A small organization like 'Nepal Workers and Peasants Party' can not be given same weight as a nation, eg USA, France, Nigeria or block of nation like G-7, NATO? This is clearly WP:UNDUE. Collagium (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Typical misinterpretation of my theory. Your addition of 70 countries mostly use Chinese sources. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Time
To all editors, major editors, old editors and new editors, please don't be so eager to solve disputes quickly, I know there're always disputes. Give people time to think, to digest information, to discuss. What do you think? Some new editors here want to remove all the information related to China, then later new editors may want to remove all the information related to the Philippines, or related to the U.S. I think for major issues, we need more time to think and discuss. What do you think? Toto11zi (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

India
The info that India backs China against arbitration is factually wrong and is based entirely on claim of Chinese media. Several reputable and trusted news sources have covered this topic stating that Chinese claim of Indian support are baseless.

Moreover, Indian Ministry of External Affairs itself has stated that :  "India has noted the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) in the matter concerning the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China.

India supports freedom of navigation and over flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS. India believes that States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability.

Sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development. As a State Party to the UNCLOS, India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order of the seas and oceans." Ministry of External affairs statement: http://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/27019/Statement+on+Award+of+Arbitral+Tribunal+on+South+China+Sea+Under+Annexure+VII+of+UNCLOS

Other Sources: http://qz.com/731553/chinas-state-media-is-wrong-to-claim-india-supports-beijing-in-the-south-china-sea/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/does-india-back-china-on-south-china-sea-beijing-seems-convinced/story-EeTHSHo3l9JH5JDFvoIP7N.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/South-China-Sea-ruling-a-shot-in-the-arm-for-India-a-damning-indictment-of-Beijing-say-experts/articleshow/53180365.cms

http://thewire.in/51444/reactions-south-china-sea-ruling/

If any one has objection or counter then please put it forward. Otherwise we should remove this grave misinformation based entirely on Chinese news papers despite Indian ministry issuing statement to the contrary. Collagium (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved this to the bottom, where new sections should go. In terms of the content itself, I agree that the article should reflect what the most reliable sources say about the subject, which is definitively that India does not reject the authority of this arbitration. From my browse-through, it looks like all non-Chinese sources quote India official statements that call for China to "show utmost respect" for the UNCLOS treaty. Mamyles (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that non–Chinese sources should be used. They are more reliable in reflecting India's official statements. I read through the mea source provided for India that claims that it supported China but the only relevant one was on paragraph 21. It stated ''

21.Russia, India and China are committed to maintaining a legal order for the seas and oceans based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS). All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned. In this regard the Ministers called for full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS, as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the Guidelines for the implementation of the DOC.'' I do not see how this shows that India supports China (nor the Philippines) so it should be removed from that list. When it mentioned negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned, it did not explicitly mention whether these negotiations are bilateral or require a third party. We cannot interpret it as saying that it supports bilateral talks; that's WP:OR. It also fails to mention whether India opposes or support the tribunal. The Chinese source is not reliable as what seav indicated previously. It is more related to India upholding UNCLOS rather than taking sides. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS" means respecting arbitration provisions, therefore they support the Philippines, rather than countries that actively state that the arbitration was a farce. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is there were edits done on the premise of "talking for all relevant parties" concerned means equates to support for China.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is true and that is both a POV edit and original research/synthesis. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your whole discussion was related to new statement from India after the ruling, someone has already put India's statement in the page. Check point 39 for the consensus. If you have facts regarding India before the ruling, please put those here. Toto11zi (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @Toto11zi There is no point no. 39 in joint statement. Its a 30 point statement. Again, Please read before posting and stop making disruptive edits.


 * The Protected Edit request on this issue discussed Old statement. In addition, the same was discussed in this very heading just four paras above.


 * Your edits that go against clearly discussed matters are a case of WP:DISRUPT. Kindly refrain or the matter will be reported to Admins. Collagium (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Countries that have accused China of misrepresenting their position
Under the "international reactions" section, I think it's worth adding a clear and concise statement that a number of countries have accused China of misrepresenting their position. Like, a sentance or two immediately following the sentences about China claiming 40 or 70 countries supporting it.

Based on quickly skimming this talk page, countries that have publicly disputed China's claims appear to include Cambodia, Fiji, India, Sloveni, maybe others—I haven't been keeping careful track. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Poland. At some point today I'll try to draft a precise protected edit request, unless someone else beats me to it. Chris Hallquist (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

ASEAN position
On July 25th, 2016, in Vientiane, Laos, ASEAN issued the joint communique regarding South China Sea disputeː

Here some useful links for refs (since I can not edit the "After the ruling" section)ː

ASEAN 'united' over South China Sea

After Days of Deadlock, ASEAN Releases Statement on South China Sea Dispute

Diplomasi RI Berhasil Yakinkan Semua Anggota ASEAN untuk Bersatu  Gunkarta  talk 18:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is really good info! This should be added to the page, preferably using the source coming from ASEAN itself. It is a major organization much like Arab League and SCO. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Huge Deletion of Nations that are Against the Attribution/Support for China List seems to have a hidden agenda.
Many pro-American editors deleted many nations from the list that is against the arbitration/support for China because they think that their sources are mainly from Chinese government sources. But that is not the case, most of those sources also had international sources that weren't endorsed by Western media or China at all. Some nations weren't supported by Chinese sources, yet they were deleted as well. Did you know that the source article (http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/753617.html) for Australia mentioned that Laos, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Poland, Malaysia, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo supported China's stance? Of course you don't, because the pro-American editors deleted it on purpose to cover that up. They are willing to deny that fact to ensure that they aren't added to China's list. Therefore, I have to say that the huge deletion move by the pro-American editors is used to cover up the fact that most nations don't support the attribution case at all. I used to believe that Wikipedia was a neutral page, but it is not. It is actually an American propaganda mouth piece to promote its interests and viewpoints. I wouldn't be surprised if these pro-American editors work for the US government. Due to the massive censorship of nations that are against the attribution by the pro-American editors, I guess Americans employ double standards since they always accuse China for censoring information. They are doing the exact same thing by deleting any source (regardless if it is Chinese or International) to ensure that no nation joins the list that is against the attribution. I am writing this message to inform everybody my perspective on this issue.--ExGuardianNinja (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of the countries you list already have lengthy discussions on this talk page about whether or not they support China's position, which you are choosing to ignore in favor of making personal attacks. For what it's worth, I support having Russia included in the list of China's supporters—but WP:ONUS is clear that Russia should not be re-added until we've built consensus on the talk page. Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly, this claim of 'conspiracy' in face of facts and open discussions is ridiculous. Please be civil and avoid derailing on going discussions here. How you can possibly blame editors, when it has been proven in this very talk page, that in several cases Chinese Media was blatantly lying e.g. In case of India, Cambodia. Even Vietnam has lashed out on China for wrongly stating their position. Other nations are also being discussed. Instead of attacking other editors you can make your point by finding out the statements from their respective govts stating their position. Collagium (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Source for the claim about Vietnam? I believe you, but it's useful to have documented. Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This newly activated dormant account deleted blindly (let me emphasize the word again: blindly) all the information from the following sites is purely against Wikipedia policies I listed in section "Wikipedia policies", let's check the proper way to handle this irresponsible behavior, today, all the information from China got deleted, tomorrow all the information from the Philippines gets deleted, and the next day, the whole Wikipedia page will probably become empty, that's the not way it should work at all.


 * Information from China's foreign minister web site "fmprc.gov.cn"
 * Information from xinhua web site news.xinhuanet.com
 * Information from usa.chinadaily.com.cn
 * Information from shanghaidaily.com
 * Information from www.globaltimes.cn
 * Information from epaper.southcn.com
 * Information from english.chinamil.com.cn
 * Information from www.chinaembassy.cz
 * Infomration from www.reuters.com which relates to information from China's foreign minister
 * Information from zm.chineseembassy.org
 * Information from english.cri.cn
 * Information from sputniknews.com

Toto11zi (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Hallquist Sure mate, here is the report from Bloomberg titled 'Vietnam Rebukes China for ‘Untruthful’ Reports on Sea Ruling' Collagium (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies
I would like to list relevant Wikipedia policies so we are on the same page:

1. Rejecting non-English sources is against the Wikipedia policy

2. Rejecting mainstream newspapers including Philippine or Chinese newspapers is against the Wikipedia policy

3. WP:PUS is NOT a Wikipedia Policy or Wikipedia Guideline

4. Don't remove, improve and fix instead. 

(more relevant policies will be added soon)

Please following Wikipedia policies, if you don't agree, please discuss here. Toto11zi (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in WP:V does it say we are required to treat government propaganda outlets as "mainstream". Also while WP:PUS is not official Wikipedia policy, it appears to reflect the views of many editors on this talk page. Furthermore, WP:IRS and WP:NPOV are official Wikipedia policy, and make clear that Wikipedia policy requires that concerns about bias in sources needs to be taken seriously. On top of that, the fact that China has been caught lying about at least five of its "supporters" should remove whatever initial presumption of reliability Chinese government sources would have had. Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At least 6 editors including myself don't agree with your behavior of removing blindly (let me emphasize the word again: blindly)the information from different sites Toto11zi (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Toto11zi.
 * Chinese Media are WP:QUESTIONABLE especially, when it has been established in this talk page that they have wrongly stated position of nations. Why does same point is being raised again. This has been discussed in great length in Point No. 33 of discussion 'Use of Xinhuanet as a source' which discussed reliability of Chinese media. This derails an ongoing discussion and is waste of every editors time to respond to same questions over and over again.  Collagium (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are your 6 editors that are on your side? Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Only these 3 new editors agree to delete blindly all information from China/Russia, deleting blindly all information from different sites of China/Russia is irresponsible. But again, here we only talk about policies.
 * started activity from a dormant account on 11 July,
 * started activity on 12 July.
 * started activity on 14 July from a new account.

Toto11zi (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointless and baseless. In the edit summary and here on the discussion page, we explained why it was deleted. Your point that we remove info blindly does not hold. I am not even a new editor as what you claim. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @Toto11zi But what is your point? What bearing it has on the facts presented or arguments made? This is not a chat room. Remain on topic and discuss content instead of derailing discussions. I will reiterate that this is the same discussion as Point No. 33 'Use of Xinhuanet as a source' already discussed in length above. Collagium (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:V specifically Questionable sources. Chinese media is controlled by the state so it falls under 'apparent conflict of interest'. With few exceptions, you could use Chinese news/state sources for the position of the Chinese government, but not for others without corroborating sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * doesn't have the authority to determine whether those 12 sites, not only one, are reliable or not. As I said, all media can make mistakes, so never reject or trust any media blindly. China has thousands of sites, attacking Xinhuanet is just meaningless. Please provide source for your 2nd statement/sentenceToto11zi (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a matter of "authority"—I and other editors are explaining why Chinese government sources fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE, and you're responding by ignoring our explanations and repeating talking points you've made many times already. Please read WP:STONEWALL and WP:LISTEN. Chris Hallquist (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I don't agree with you, at least 6 editors don't agree with you. Rejecting White House statement from the page, or rejecting statement from the China's foreign minister is against the Wikipedia policy, your WP:QUESTIONABLE doesn't work in this case. Toto11zi (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You should WP:LISTEN! Toto11zi (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have been asked before who these six editors are. Out of curiousity, could you help us out and let us know who they are? Hammersbach (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The number of editors is not important. The quality of arguments is what matters (see WP:CONSENSUS). I have yet to understand why we should put statements into the article as fact simply because they are stated by one biased source. We have already proven in sections above that the Chinese government is lying about their list of supporters (Poland and Cambodia). If we used information from every source, regardless of accuracy or quality, Wikipedia would claim that the world is flat. Some statements from sources simply aren't true, and not including that information in a Wikipedia article is abiding with policy. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, sockpuppets with different IP addresses do not count as separate users. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)