Talk:South China Sea Arbitration/Archive 2

71 countries supporting China’s position on various occasions. published with official links on http://thediplomat.com
As follows: According to our team’s research, we have found at least 70 countries supporting China’s position on various occasions. We find that the reason for the controversy over the figure comes down to different definitions on “China’s position.” But no matter how it is defined, the psychology behind these statements is a desire to avoid taking sides between China and the United States, showing the reality of a fundamental global consensus on peace and wide-spread anxiety toward the potential for conflict in the South China Sea. Thus, we should take every opportunity to go beyond the “zero-sum game” in order to maintain peace in the South China Sea, to seek Asia-Pacific economic cooperation, and to make the “cake” bigger using economic and financial means.

All the countries list, see http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/who-supports-china-in-the-south-china-sea-and-why/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmvidyahoo (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. Take note that the source has cross-reference sources from both Chinese, Western and Third Party sources. Also the source asserts that the listing of "Countries supporting China" agrees to at least one of four components of "China's position"

These components are
 * 1) China does not participate in the arbitration, nor accept, recognize, or implement the award. (Support's China's decision not to participate in the case/ not to recognize the ruling)
 * 2) China will adhere to peaceful negotiations and settlements of the South China Sea dispute. (Believe China is not militarizing the dispute/ is reasonable in its dealing with the conflict? Related to point 3)
 * 3) While disputes should be settled by the parties directly concerned in accordance with the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), China will work with ASEAN countries to maintain peace and stability in this region. (Preference for Bilateral talks)
 * 4) The temporally-established (ad hoc) arbitral tribunal is neither a part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) nor the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It does not have jurisdiction over the territorial disputes, which is the core of the arbitration. The arbitration itself is flawed in procedure. Thus, the award is not legally-binding, nor representing international law. (Does not recognize the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal)

Also interesting is other countries claimed by the Chinese media are not listed here namely: Poland, Fiji, Slovenia. Cambodia is listed, however take note that the listing only requires agreeing to one component of "China's stance". In Cambodia's case its component 3. Cambodia is silent on number 1 and 4.

If an editor (preferably not yet involved too much in this article can translate quotations from Arabic and Chinese), it could be helpful for the rest of us editors already involved. Also take note the asterisk (*) on some countries. They are members of the Arab League that made a pro-China stance in the Doha Declaration. Current consensus is not to list countries that has not made any individual statements. Formerly this declaration was taken as the stance of the Arab League as an organization but has been removed at some point of time.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely we need information from other languages. By the way, we are still getting feedback from editors, consensus is not reached yet. I think there are 3 options: 1:list 2:list with (*) 3:the current format (list of those countries right under flags as a note). Toto11zi (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Before jumping to any conclusion we have to take cognizance of one very important aspect i.e. Their definition of 'Support' in the article which is given as below :


 * 'In our view, China’s position on the South China Sea issue can be interpreted as below:


 * 1. China does not participate in the arbitration, nor accept, recognize, or implement the award.
 * 2. China will adhere to peaceful negotiations and settlements of the South China Sea dispute.
 * 3. While disputes should be settled by the parties directly concerned in accordance with the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), China will work with ASEAN countries to maintain peace and stability in this region.
 * 4. The temporally-established (ad hoc) arbitral tribunal is neither a part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) nor the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It does not have jurisdiction over the territorial disputes, which is the core of the arbitration. The arbitration itself is flawed in procedure. Thus, the award is not legally-binding, nor representing international law.
 * To directly support any of those components is to support China’s position.'

Point no. 2 and 3 are not about opposing arbitration but they have included that as such in the article cited above. Collagium (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is clearly an opinion piece—it should not be cited as fact. Before including it, we also need to be careful about WP:UNDUE. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This should cited as fact. What is fact? I think Chris Hallquist should give us a definition. But even you say it out, I think its just your definition. Not everyone's.Mmmvidyahoo (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:VERIFY, which is Wikipedia policy and not just my opinion. Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should take caution in using this source itself as a reference. But I do recognize that at least some of the links posted below the article (the source) may be potentially used as citation. But as I said some sources are in Chinese/Arabic. (Also there is this ongoing dispute regarding sources from Chinese state media). As discussed earlier preference for bilateral talks between disputants does not necessarily means opposing arbitration. It doesn't help that the source does not list which of the four components applies to the countries' statements/stance. Also if we moved away from the dichotomy of Support China/Philippines as I discussed above in prior sections. Then some issues may be resolved swiftlyHariboneagle927 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Mmmvidyahoo You said "This should cited as fact. What is fact? I think Chris Hallquist should give us a definition. But even you say it out, I think its just your definition. Not everyone's". This is an ad hominem attack since you are just thinking that the user is unreliable or that he/she has questionable authority in defining what is fact. Please refrain from any personal attacks. I agree that this source should be used with a high degree of caution for the same reasons mentioned above by Chris Hallquist, Collagium and Hariboneagle927. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The article's authors work directly for the Chinese Communist Party. They are not journalists and are obviously biased. Both authors work for Renmin University of China, a part of/founded by the Communist Party of China, and controlled directly by the government. Also, note that the vast majority of sources they cited are Chinese. They are assuming that everything Chinese media or government says is true, but we know from discussions above that it is not so simple. However, if you believe that any sources in their citations are reliable, feel free to discuss those on their own merits. Mamyles (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I feel like the fact that they work for the CCP is actually an argument in favor of considering their article notable—as long as long as we provide clear WP:INTEXT attribution. To avoid giving undue weight, I'd limit citation of this article to a 1-2 sentence summary, and probably hold off on citing it until we've cleaned up or removed the "academic analysis" section. Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that removal of reliable information needs discussion, dramatic change to the page needs more discussion, consensus needs to be reached. Also respect explicit consensus and implicit consensus from the past discussion. Toto11zi (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

New article for International Reactions (ongoing discussion moved forward here)
I propose transferring most contents in the "International section" into a new article called International reactions to Philippines v. China or International reactions to the Philippines v. China arbitration case. I think the section is getting out of hand and gives more weight to diplomatic statements by other states while information about the arbitration case itself receives relative little attention. Only a summary of these international reactions should be on this main article. While responses of both China and the Philippines, (their media, government, public officials) should be given more attention.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My recent edit lengthened the section and may have triggered this. I have no objection but, without having done a draft, I'm wondering whether presenting the international reactions in a table here rather than as a separate section with a bunch of subsections might work acceptably. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please gather more support before creating a new page. Toto11zi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'm particularly worried that the section may escalate into a QUOTEFARM. IMO, the reaction section has already overwhelmed the other sections. If you plan on making a table of grouping the countries into which "side" they are on (China, Philippines, neutral), it's another problem since some countries don't have a clear stand. India has made contradictory statements, the United States says officially they don't take sides but they're action suggests otherwise (reactions includes actions, not limited to statements) and Chinese and Philippine media may claim countries support their respective countries when in reality in some cases they didn't outright support either country and just supported a specific approach (multi-lateral approach, bilateral approach, taking the dispute to UNCLOS).]Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding contradictory statements from particular governments and/or differing POVs within a country, see WP:DUE.
 * However, India's contradictory stance is that of the national government. Although the inclusion of the Confederation of Toronto Chinese Canadian Organizations' reaction is problematic when it comes to WP:DUEHariboneagle927 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * added: How about reducing the size and amount of detail in this section by presenting lists of countries supporting resolution by the PCA vs. resolution by bilateral negotiations, with supporting cites for each listed country? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This approach could be taken with countries grouped according to their latest stand (to deal with countries like India). Potentially vague stands of certain countries could be elaborated in a short paragraph below. Like how Belarus stance on Crimea during the annexation of Crimea in Political status of Crimea. And mentions of concrete action by other countries such as the sending of observers by Thailand, etc. should be noted too. Also countries that outrightedly declared support for any of the two countries should be mentioned as well as those who say they don't take sides with any country although they support a move to resolve the dispute.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also quotations could be transferred to Wikiquotes. Also some reactions while involves the South China Sea disputes does not relate to this particular arbitration case such as Indonesia, which according to the cited source is yet to make a stand. Although it has said that it does not recognize the 9-dash-line. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BOLD, I tried compressing the article based from the discussion. Please feel free to comment regarding this.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is good idea! Toto11zi (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there is no objections involved, I will try to come up with an idea to summarize the reactions of multinational bodies as well. But it seems a consensus has been reached among major editors of the section concerned. Also thanks for Toto11zi for trying to retrieved information regarding these close to 40 countries that expressed support for China's stance / opposed the arbitration.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comments. Sorry Toto11zi, it appears you have mistakenly cited the wrong source (a source on Shanghai Cooperation Organization's response) for some countries (Algeria, Bahrain, etc.). I don't think you meant to do this. I've removed them for now until you come up with the references you intended to use.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The reliable source saying "Arab countries support China's position on ‘safeguarding’ its sovereignty and territorial integrity. ", all the Arab countries should be added, don't you agree? Toto11zi (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You also removed SCO countries, can you tell us why? Toto11zi (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No the source you've added is about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (particularly this one rather than any Arab country's. See ) just prior to my edit and see for yourself. Also the reactions of multinational bodies is already covered below. The section was meant to be reaction by national governments themselves, statements and reaction at their own prerogative. That is why I'm not automatically including the Group of Seven (G7) countries to those who supported the arbitration. (hence the absence of Canada and the European Union, a multinational body). If we insist including member countries of multinational bodies, then how about EU-member Slovenia, which is reportedly has supported China?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this. I think we should gather more feedback on this. Also, please when you remove, discuss first on this page Toto11zi (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, let's gather more feedback for this sensitive topic. If we don't get enough feedbacks especially after many days. I suggest we should request for a Third opinion or make Request for comment. I elevated the issue to WikiProject International relations to solicit comments. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion here to get consensus on the issue. STSC (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I support that this article be split into a new article titled International reactions to Philippines v. China as the content in the International reactions section is getting large now. STSC (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I changed my position to Support. The only thing is if we decide to create multiple articles, how do we handle the ongoing discussion?Toto11zi (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We could link relevant early discussions on reactions on the talk page of the proposed articles, then discussions (especially involving reactions) could be continued there.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this makes sense.Toto11zi (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am not convinced that there is a reason to split off this section. The only reason I see is that the material attracts edit warring, which by itself is not a good reason to split off information that is short and directly relevant to the article. Mamyles (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I think that making the reactions section comprehensive yet neutral would overwhelm the article. I don't agree that we just place a relatively short summary of various countries' positions as these positions are used by claimant countries for propaganda so the reactions and positions are indeed significant and relevant to the arbitration case. So I think the best way is to split this section off into its own article where we can provide a comprehensive look at the reactions and positions without overwhelming this article. I'm don't strongly support this move because this spin-off article I think would tend to devolve into a POV WP:CONTENTFORK, which is not desired. —seav (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. seav makes many good points, but unlike them, I'm not sure it's worth trying to offer comprehensive coverage. I don't think vague, non-committal statements by uninvolved countries (which China has tried to spin as support) is something sufficiently notable to merit detailed coverage. It's enough to to note that China has claimed overwhelming support for its position from other countries, but many of the countries China has claimed as supporters dispute China's characterization of their position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is not enough justification for a new article and this is being done to avoid edit warring which is never a good reason to do anything, as editors have rightly pointed out this will be a case of WP:POVFORK. Also, The resulting article will be a WP:QUOTEFARM with inherent POV issues. Collagium (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus
Let me explain this with facts in details:

Our original/current consensus for the International Reactions (Before the ruling) section has been to include the information from both China and the Philippines (their media, government, public officials) proposed by the page originator Hariboneagle927. And that explicit consensus was reached among major editors including myself, the relocation part is not reaching consensus yet. Discussion and conclusion can be found here

This newly activated account from a dormant account violated our established consensus by promoting his own agenda in the following ways:


 * 1. He deleted all the information from China's Foreign Ministry, China's main media and various Chinese sites and claimed the support information from those sites including China's Foreign Ministry is not reliable, he violated our consensus already established, we rely information from both Philippine and Chinese governments. Certainly he did not read our established consensus on this Talk page, he did not discuss first before he removed blindly and dramatically all the information. More information regarding his actions can be found here, also  here


 * 2. Then he's promoting his own criteria for the section here

The table/group issue has been discussed before in various places on this Talk page, we even considered to use the same format AMTI used, but there're issues. Here's discussion, also here

The conclusion of all this is unless we establish a new consensus for this section, we will stick with the original consensus for this particular section. Without new explicit consensus, reverting this section in order to promote one's agenda or new criteria is considered disruptive. Editors may propose a change to the current consensus, however, proposing to change a recent consensus can be considered disruptive.

Since is a new editor joining this complex topic discussion, he might not know our consensus which has already been established in this before he joined.

If you think I described this incorrectly or missed anything. Please discuss with facts here. Toto11zi (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody else agreed with you in the original discussion of Cambodia's position. Also you appear to have ignored Mamyles's recommendation that you read WP:UNCHALLENGED. Chris Hallquist (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope you understand this clearly, if you want to make contribution, collaborate with other editors. I'm the major editor here. If you want discuss Cambodia issue, go to section Cambodia, not this section. Toto11zi (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Wikipedia policy recognized such a thing as a "major editor", though you're welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. Also, this morning I started a discussion in WP:RSN about the issue of using Chinese government sources on this page, and both of the editors who've weighed in so far agree Chinese government sources should not be cited for the position of governments other than China. If that doesn't convince you, I suggest mediation. Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:OWN for what's wrong with your argument about being the "major editor". Chris Hallquist (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's implicit consensus, I didn't invent "major editor". Again for other issues, we can talk in other sections, I will give my comment, not in this section Toto11zi (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE With this pointless section.   by Chris Hallquist  has gathered overwhelming editorial support. Collagium (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Collagium, my goal of editing is to increase my credibility, lying definitely decreases one's credibility. You lied once on this page. If you don't agree, let's discuss on my Talk page or your Talk page, only facts allowed. Toto11zi (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Respect facts. He has done damage to our Wikipedia community. Toto11zi (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is actually a true personal attack made when one claims "He has done damage to our Wikipedia community". If that was the case, he/she would had been blocked multiple times, repeatedly vandalizes/disrupts pages on a mass scale, threatening other users, and all of the worst of the worst. New editors still have a say in this article; consensus can change and they can bring new ideas to the table. There is nothing disruptive about that. Also, making an edit request is not an attempt to push point of views. Anyone can put edit requests. When User:Toto11zi starts accusing those of (see statement above) pushing POV edits in the form of edit requests, that is a clear case of WP:DISRUPT and an attempt to suppress discussion. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I just find it very ironic that User:Toto11zi, who I truthfully tagged as a WP:SPA in a previous section (and being a SPA is not a bad thing in itself), and who objected to being tagged as such, would now repeatedly tag User:Chris Hallquist as a dormant user, as if it was a bad thing, which it is not. We do not discriminate users based on their activity levels in Wikipedia. —seav (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * New users can bring many new ideas to the table. Otherwise issues related to the neutrality of the content on this article would had not been taken seriously. I think repeatedly tagging User:Chris Hallquist as a dormant user, as if it was a bad thing is a personal attack since he/she is commenting on the user, not the content he/she puts on the wiki. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ssbbplayer, I agree with your first sentence. My goal of editing is to increase my credibility, lying definitely decreases one's credibility. You lied twice on this page. If you don't agree, let's discuss on my Talk page or your Talk page, only facts allowed.Toto11zi (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are here accusing me of lying, I would say that would decrease your own credibility in handling others by engaging in WP:Personal Attack since you accuse me of something that lacks evidence. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, editing here requires a certain amount of competence and a willingness to listen. I do not believe that you have that in regard to this topic. While I welcome you to Wikipedia, coming here as a new editor and insisting that you are the "major editor", after we have linked you plenty of helpful policies to get you started, does not bode well for remaining helpful as an editor. I recommend that you continue to edit Wikipedia in areas that you are not so emotionally invested in. Mamyles (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully,I agree with your first sentence. Based on your edit history, you joined this complex discussion topic on 7/14, so you're new editor on this topic and you don't know the implicit consensus here. Major editors here all know. Toto11zi (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Chris Hallquist has requested comments from experienced editors regarding usage of self-proclaimed data in this case here. His statement "both of the editors who've weighed in so far agree Chinese government sources should not be cited for the position of governments other than China" is misunderstanding of those statements from experienced editors. I've put my analysis there as well. In this case, those experienced editors may or may not give more comments. I think in this case, please we will need to think very carefully before we write statements. If you don't agree, please write with caution and clarity. Thank You. Toto11zi (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody has ever been saying Chinese government sources cannot be used period. But pretty much everyone except you agrees they cannot be used in the way they were being used in the material I deleted. Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

To eliminate misunderstanding, we will improve tables so readers understand the flags in the section may be self-proclaimed by governments as we defined in the explicit consensus. Toto11zi (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate level of detail and other general quality issues
Some general quality issues with this page:


 * Much of this page is hard to follow. It suffers from long, run-on sentences, statements made without appropriate context, and other things of that sort, which aren't disastrous in themselves, but could be improved.
 * In some cases, the amount of detail in the article makes it hard to follow. Said detail should either be trimmed back, or better organized. Section 4.3 in particular hurts my eyes, and in my opinion needs to be better organized if all its material is to remain.
 * Similarly, sections 6 and 7 suffer from WP:QUOTEFARM. The current version of section 7 is less severely quote-farmy, but I don't think there's any need to devote entire paragraphs to Fiji and India's position—that's what the talk page is for. "Fiji and India have disputed China's claims that they support China's position on the arbitration" (with appropriate references) would suffice.

Thoughts? Note that I do not want to use this section to discuss the appropriateness of citing Chinese government sources. I'm not sure we've quite reached consensus there—Hariboneagle927 has some ideas proposed in the "Use of Xinhuanet as a source" section that merit further discussion. But I created this section because I don't want all other discussion about how to improve this page stalled until we resolve that issue. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a very reasonable point. Quality issue discussions are being disrupted even when article is in bad shape.
 * First suggestion - Agree. This article is hard to read and flow is broken at several places.
 * Second suggestion - Agree but Sec 4.3 is the crux of the article i.e. the arbitration ruling. Formatting can be changed but modification of sentences may cause distortion in understanding finer points.
 * Third Suggestion : Agree especially Sec 6 is definitely a case of WP:QUOTEFARM. Sec 7.2 is easy to read and may be emulated in Para 7.1 to quickly give a gist of stance of nations without making it a long winded para. Collagium (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Sec 4.3, I'm inclined to prioritize "make this article accessible to laypeople" over trying to convey the "finer points" of the award. Of course, the best outcome would be if an editor who's both an expert in international law and has experience writing for general audiences were to show up to write a version that does both—but we may not wind up being that lucky. Chris Hallquist (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After re-reading Sec 7.2, I agree it's well-written and worth emulating. Chris Hallquist (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. to OP in this section Does anyone have any ideas on how to salvage the "academic" section? It would be nice if the answer were "yes", but in this case I think "I don't" is valuable input. Chris Hallquist (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of Chinese government sources in International Reactions section
There is almost an edit war over the use of Chinese government sources to cite positions of other countries. Please discuss this content to achieve a consensus here before re-adding the disputed content.

Personally, I believe that official sources of the countries in question should be used, as the Chinese government has lied about other countries before (see Cambodia and India above). Also see the section pertaining to Xinhua, where consensus is that is not a reliable source. Mamyles (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur Collagium (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur  Gunkarta  talk 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

All of the sources I used to add the nations to the Support China list aren't from Chinese sources. I even used the Guardian as one of them. Also, the same exact article that currently shows that Australia supports the Philippines, supported many of the nations, that were foolishly removed from the Support China list. This article is being edited to distort fact for the American point of view. Let's be real here: If I used an American or Western source, you people are fine with that. But if we used any non-Western source, then it is not all right with you guys. Then, you guys accuse all non-Western sources as being unreliable even though most of them are valid. Therefore, I accuse you pro-American editors for censorship.--ExGuardianNinja (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the usage of the Guardian source, it says "In late May the foreign ministry in Beijing said Vanuatu, Lesotho and Palestine had joined its side". What this means is that the Chinese foreign ministry claims that these countries support China so China is speaking on behalf of those countries, which can be misleading (as in the case with Fiji and Poland where Fiji and Poland both said that China misrepresented their position). While the Guardian is a reliable source, the fact is coming from the Chinese foreign ministry so it is unreliable. It was just inserted in there to give a false impression that it is a reliable statement so that's WP:Citation overkill. You are wrong about saying that the exact same article is being used for Australia. It has a different title, url, and content. Also, your accusations of editors who think non–Western sources as being unreliable as being pro–American is baseless if reasoning has been used. Plus, many of the non–Western sources are Chinese sources, which would have to write in line with the Chinese government owing to pervasive media censorship over there. Your accusations indicates that you cannot explain why Chinese sources are better. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ssbbplayer, and I'd add that I already made this point under "general problems with sources on this page." Furthermore, "I accuse you pro-American editors for censorship" could be construed as a personal attack on other editors. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you guys intend to ignore the Chinese perspective, then it is fair to say that this article is only one-sided. Also, your actions is censorship since you choose to select only Western sources. A lot of non-Western sources aren't from China at all. If you guys truly were neutral, you should had kept "United Arab Emirates", and other nations, which were supported by the same article that indicated that Australia supported the Philippines. IT HAS THE EXACT URL, TITLE AND CONTENT. IT IS THE SAME KOREAN SOURCE (http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/753617.html). The source clearly states that Laos, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Poland support China's stance. If you choose to deny that, then it is very evident that your censorship is prevalent. If you change Australia's source, then your censorship actions are very obvious. Also, the source that showed that Syria supports China is from a local Syrian source. Yet, it was removed. If the consensus is going to be only run by pro-American editors, then the consensus has no meaning because it will only favor the American point of view. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Korean source is reliable but the content is based on statements coming from China’s state-run newspaper, the China Daily (first section of the article). Even though it is a reliable non–western source, it is being misused to show that certain countries support China because the content is coming from the China Daily . This is what China claims, not the respective countries themselves. Regarding Poland, I do not see how sending a person to China to its military parade indicates that it supports China. One can send delegates to China for the military parade yet not support China on the issue with the South China sea. Because the countries were being mass added, it would be better to revert back to the old version and discuss it (per WP:BRD) to ensure that each addition is reliable. Syria can go back because it is coming from a Syrian source but other countries have to be done on a case by case basis. Also, stop accusing editors of being pro–American or censorship. That's not going to lead to a productive discussion. Also, how is it censorship if older versions of this article can be seen? Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Seconding the point that one can send delegates to a parade with out supporting the host country's position on any particular issue. Chris Hallquist (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you choose to accept and disregard certain parts of the source. And you choose to doubt only Chinese sources. I still have many disagreements, but I am glad that you will let Syria go back to the list. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't "accepting and disregard certain parts of the source". It's just accurately recognizing what the source does and does not say. Chris Hallquist (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you truly did recognized everything the source said, you guys would allow Malaysia, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Laos, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Poland to be added to China's support list. Funny that you guys only kept Australia. The source did say that and it will be funny to see what outrageous reason you would use to justify the exclusion of these nations. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

For the list that didn't support the attribution, I just wanted to add that even if you removed all Chinese sources, at least 40 nations were supported by international non-Chinese sources and few other Western sources. I saw nations that had non-Chinese sources and they were removed as well. I think this move has a hidden agenda to promote the American perspective of the court ruling instead of accepting reality.--50.35.84.247 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User50.35.84.247 said "I saw nations that had non-Chinese sources and they were removed as well. I think this move has a hidden agenda to promote the American perspective of the court ruling instead of accepting reality". It is a personal attack. I did took the time to carefully analyze each source from the previous version where 70 countries were added before I reverted it. Cambodia and Poland has been discussed recently. As well, many of the countries being removed had 1-3 citations with a mix of Chinese and non–Chinese sources. If I did remove the non–Chinese sources (you should had done that rather than the other way around), only the countries that could be included would be substantial but less than 40 countries (Afghanistan, Brunei, Kenya, Laos, Malaysia, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) could be included because they are discussed in the article in depth. Cambodia and Poland are not included based on the talk page with the former having an official statement from its ministry of foreign affairs and the latter due to it denying support to China. Cameroon would be included but Slovenia, Niger and Mozambique are excluded because from the reuters source, the statement "Countries including Burundi, Slovenia, Niger and Mozambique had pledged their support for China, the Foreign Ministry said this week." is based on what the foreign ministry of China says, which has been accused of misrepresenting their position on this issue. As well, for South Africa, I found the official statement from the government (link). The statement indicates SA's vague position and appears that it does not take sides. The source BRICS post and DNA India (non-western nor Chinese) are not proper due to a couple of reasons: First, the statement from the DNA India source "Angola, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, among others, have expressed their support for China's stance since early July, according to Lu" is coming from statements made by China's foreign minister, Lu Kang. This is problematic due to its systematic misrepresentation of the countries' stance when info is coming from the Chinese government (the source is obviously not Chinese) towards this. The BRICS post source is not good. First it says "South Africa backed China on Wednesday against the US’ so-called freedom of navigation..." and then in the next statement, it uses the quote coming from the South African government (source) which is “South Africa has noted with concern the recent trend in the global arena to politicise the situation pertaining to the South China Sea,” The statement indicates that it does not take sides since politicization can occur on both sides. As well, the BRICS post article claims that it supports China using this statement "South Africa supports the position that the sovereign states that are directly concerned should resolve their relevant disputes through direct consultations and negotiations, on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, as well as to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea." A simple google search has shown that the top results come mostly from pro–Chinese sources that are being used as a basis that South Africa supports China. It is not true since it is very vague and does not seem to appear that South Africa is taking any sides. Taiwan and Vanatu should obviously be kept. Yemen should be removed since from the reuters source, that information that Yemen is supporting China is coming from the Chinese foreign ministry, not Yemen's foreign ministry. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Some sections overtaken by the award event
The main International reactions section should probably be renamed as International reactions re the venue or International reactions re arbitration vs. negotiation or somesuch, as a section about international reactions to the award will probably need to be be added -- given that the article makes such a big deal about the reactions currently covered, it can hardly neglect to cover reactions to the award. That renaming would remove the current HTML anchor ambiguity between that renamed section and the currently identically named International reactions subsection in the Academic analysis section of the article.

The Potential ruling subsection should probably be removed now that the ruling is no longer potential. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We can just put two sub-headings(level 3) under the International reactions main section: "Before the ruling" and "After the ruling"; and push down the existing sub-sections accordingly. STSC (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Two subsection headings like International reactions before the ruling and International reactions after the ruling would work. I mentioned in passing that the page currently has two separate subsections headed identically as International reactions. MOS:HEAD currently doesn't identify that as a problem but, glossing over the details (see e.g., ), it does present a navigational problem with an undocumented solution for navigating to a particular one of these identically named sections by using e.g., "[Article name]#International reactions" in the URL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That International reactions heading under Academic analysis section was originally named by me as Other issues. Someone should not have changed it; it should be changed back to Other issues or something else to avoid the navigational problem. STSC (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Removal of information is always tricky and needs discussion. Antonio Carpio's analysis can be probably shortened into one line like this:
 * Philippine Associate Justice Antonio Carpio concedes that thearbitration would not resolve the dispute completely.
 * and this line can go to section Role of the arbitral tribunal. By the way, the other piece of analysis was removed somehow in this section, that needs to be retrieved back and improved. Toto11zi (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO, such move would dumb-down the analysis into a generic "the arbitration case would not resolve the case completely/ the case would not resolve the dispute in general completely" which I believe has been repeated by other analysts. His analysis may be vital to illustrate the Philippine POV of a arbitration case victory. And his proposal of 100 year suspension of claims has not been repeated elsewhere. As somewhat with a more direct connection with the government, his comments has more weight than a professor in a state university. So even if some consensus resulted to the removal of the academic analysis section. Carpio's view might still be used elsewhere in the article to illustrate the Philippine POV on the case.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, this line becomes general and it doesn't contain much information, again, if it's repeated, then it can be moved to the body instead of the analysis section. His proposal of 100 year suspension is unique, but I don't think it carries so much value, that's my feeling. I think we will need to think more. Toto11zi (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

What's worth saving in the "academic analysis" section?
Re-reading the "academic analysis" section, one thing that jumps out at it is that little of it makes me feel like it's improving my understanding of this case. The one exception is the bullet that begins "Philippine Associate Justice Antonio Carpio..."—that's substantive enough that I feel like I'm actually learning something. OTOH, maybe some of the sources would have useful information, if explained better? If anyone is feeling brave, reading through each of them carefully one by one could be helpful. Chris Hallquist (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion of Carpio's statement is here. Improving this section is challenging, constraints are we don't want to lose information, also we want to improve quality. Yes we will need to analyse each one, and this will take time. Toto11zi (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the issues the section has with WP:UNDUE and WP:QUOTEFARM, I think we need to be selective about what we keep. If a cite isn't adding something significant to the section, it should go. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that a number of sources in this section come from Chinese government-controlled news media. Even if the issues with bias in these sources did not exist, it's hard to get useful information on a particular scholar's views out of a brief quotation in a piece of journalism. In contrast, while I don't think the citations from the Chinese Society of International Law, Antonios Tzanakopoulos, and John Norton Moore add much to the article in their current form, they at least could be reworked to add something. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Poland
Alphama removed Poland from the Support list here. And here's the link Alphama put in the comment. This web site requires subscription, so I don't have access. Based on the following reliable source (Wang Yi Holds Talks with Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski of Poland), Poland supports China, the actual statement is:
 * (Foreign Minister of Poland) Witold Waszczykowski said that Poland supports China’s policy of peacefully resolving disputes over some Nansha islands and reefs through dialogues and consultations.

If you have reliable source suggesting Poland has changed it's policy. Please provide a reliable statement from the Polish government. Searching the Internet didn't return such statement. Toto11zi (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here. -- Namayan (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is what I get with that web site: "To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In". Can you post statement from the Polish government, or Polish official? Toto11zi (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the quote. —seav (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, we can describe this in the page briefly. Adding another section "Conflicting reports of support vs. opposition to arbitration" doesn't make much sense. If the statement from the Poland's Foreign Ministry is reliable, then we should remove Poland from the support list. Could you check if you find that statement from any other place other than this piece of news? Toto11zi (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Now I can retrieve the information from here. The description consists of 3 lines.

1. Polish officials were taken aback in April when Beijing suddenly issued a statement that hadn’t been approved by both sides following a meeting between their foreign ministers.

2. It said Poland supported China’s policy of resolving the dispute “through dialogues and consultations,” making no mention of arbitration.

3. The statement “did not accurately reflect Poland’s position on the issue of the South China Sea, which has been communicated to the Chinese side,” Poland’s Foreign Ministry said. “That position remains unchanged and is in line with the entire EU’s policies.”

For line 3, I tried to google the specific quote, and it only points this WJC news, I also searched the web site of Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland, I couldn't find any quote like that, here's only piece of information I found for Waszczykowski's visit to china on that web site, here. This would suggest line 3 is probably bogus like the other 3 cases (Fiji, Cambodia, Slovenia) WSJ reported. Anyhow, let's scrutinize these 3 lines. Line 1, we don't know which Polish officials and we don't know when they were taken aback, this line is not relevant anyways. Line 2, here the statement was from Waszczykowski, not China, line 2 emphasizes "making no mention of arbitration", but it ignores the phase "Poland supports China’s policy".

Line 3 does not specify which part of the statement did not accurately reflect Poland's positionand and what has been communicated to the Chinese side. Based on the few other EU cases, supporting China's position does not violate EU's position, and the first and main way to resolve disputes is through peaceful means based on UNCLOS.

Here I don't see any indication that Poland has rejected Waszczykowski's statement which is


 * (Foreign Minister of Poland) Witold Waszczykowski said that Poland supports China’s policy of peacefully resolving disputes over some Nansha islands and reefs through dialogues and consultations.

If you don't agree, please discuss here with reliable information. Toto11zi (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your logical argument is like this: You think the WSJ source is not reliable because you cannot find any information from the Polish government website. Using your same logic, we can then also reject news sources like Xinhua if we cannot find any information from the government website of Egypt, Tanzania, South Africa, and many other countries. For example, Palestine's support for the Chinese stance is sourced from a news item from Xinhua. But if there is no official information from the Palestinian's government website, then let's delete Palestine from the article, OK? —seav (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, my logic is this question, has Poland rejected Waszczykowski's statement? If answer is yes, then remove Poland from the list, if answer is no, then keep it there. Do you agree? Toto11zi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nie. The list specifically states "Opposition against the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants". I don't see either of these two words attributed to Poland in the ref cited. Hammersbach (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood, Seav's question was about the statement from the Poland government, it's not about Waszczykowski's statement.Toto11zi (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I understood quite clearly. Again, the list is titled "Opposition against the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants". Therefore to be included on such a list a country would have to state specifically state that they “oppose” arbitration and/or that they support “bilateral” negotiations.  It is decidedly inaccurate to include countries on this list because they state that they support peacefully resolving disputes through dialogues and consultations.  It can quite easily be argued that arbitration is in fact a form of peaceful dialogue and consultation.   With respect to Poland, a country whose name I deleted from this list, neither Poland nor Waszczykowski included these necessary qualifying words in any statement Hammersbach (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC).
 * If you want to discuss the title and quote issue, then it's different topic than what's I'm discussing with Seav in this discussion thread. Could you rearrange lines in this section so editors can follow easily? I will include my comment once you're done. Toto11zi (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not discussing the title and quote issue, I am discussing the erroneous attempt to list Poland as opposing arbitration/supporting bilateral discussions, but then I am sure that you are quite aware of that. As for formatting lines in this discussion, that is something that should properly be done by you as you are the one who was commenting. Hammersbach (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Countries have different ways of expressing support, in this case, it's very explicit, "Poland supports China's policy", do you agree? If you are saying supporting China's policy is different than "Opposition against the arbitration", or "Support for bilateral talks between the disputants", then it's title or description issue, adding "Support for China's stance" should fix the issue, agree? Toto11zi (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * According to The Wall Street Journal, Poland officials claim that their position has been misquoted by Chinese sources, and that Poland in fact stands with the European Union's position in support of the arbitration.
 * Again, Chinese sources are not reliable and should not be cited for any information other than official Chinese government positions. Mamyles (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mymyles, have you read what I've analyzed? I bet you haven't, we're done discussing WSJ! and you're saying "according to WSJ"? Do you have new facts to add? Please don't waste your time and my time, your slogan doesn't work, WSj has been proved to be bogus in this case. Discuss only with reliable information, reliable information means what statement from which official in this case. Clear? Toto11zi (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misanalysed the source. It is very clear that Poland denies supporting China from this quote. "The statement “did not accurately reflect Poland’s position on the issue of the South China Sea, which has been communicated to the Chinese side,” Poland’s Foreign Ministry said". This precedes the quote "It said Poland supported China’s policy of resolving the dispute “through dialogues and consultations,” making no mention of arbitration". WSJ is a reliable source so they do not obviously make up facts. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on your comment, you haven't read the analysis. You must at least read the analysis and understand first before adding your comment with sound reasoning or new facts if you don't agree. Agree? Toto11zi (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a lie. I do not agree with you. I analyzed the statement to see anything to comment before. Do not accuse me of not reading the analysis when I spent time looking at each statement using specific quotes from the source. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Make the article's focus narrower
Currently, the article is in danger of becoming a whole dissertation on the background and issues on the South China Sea. We already have an article for that: Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Please let's make this article more focused on the arbitration case itself. Any substantial and non-summarized background material should be added to other more relevant articles. —seav (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Soliciting opinion from seav regarding the split proposal, since the goal of the proposal is to give more due focus to the arbitration case and less focus to the diplomacy/PR "war" between China and the Philippines and transfer the "international reactions" section into a new article for a comprehensive discussion regarding the matter. This has been done with many terrorist attacks article where the international reactions section was split into a new article. The difference is reactions to the case has more impact (e.g. diplomatic pressure) than condolences usually expressed following a terrorist attack.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the reactions section is too big that it overwhelms the article just yet. I think the details of the case itself as well as the narrative of events for the case is missing. —seav (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @seav how do you feel about the current form of the article on this front? Chris Hallquist (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Cambodia
Based on various sources including the recent ones, Cambodia obviously backs China.

Cambodian premier won't back South China Sea ruling June 21, 2016 3:33 am JST, here

The ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) said yesterday it fully supports Prime Minister Hun Sen’s backing of China in the dispute over control of the South China Sea. FRIDAY, 24 JUNE 2016 here

Cambodia not to support decision over South China Sea issue: PM June 28, 2016	Last Updated at 09:24 IST here

seav, since you moved Cambodia from the non-support list, can you provide reliable source with Cambodian statement to support your action? Toto11zi (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In April, the Cambodian government spokesman Phay Siphan played down the ASEAN split, and it's not rejection to China's position. []. In June, the Cambodian position is very clear that Cambodia supports China. Toto11zi (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is the reliable source that indicates that Cambodia does not support any side. It is the official statement detailing Cambodia's position on the ruling coming from its ministry of foreign affairs. From the source, it does mention that Cambodia does not take any sides in this dispute so it should be removed. It is more recent and is the official position of Cambodia. It should be removed from the list of countries supporting China. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? The U.S. also says it does not take side. I think the Cambodia case is really common sense, use google to search, there's Cambodia news everyday. If you insists Cambodia doesn't support China, we can discuss. Foreign ministry of China has detailed information for this case. Agree? Toto11zi (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother reading the statement from that link? Common sense is not a good way to answer this and using the foreign ministry of China should only be used to cite official Chinese positions. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I Agree with Ssbbplayer.
 * Using 'common sense' (whose?) to contradict a Official Government Release is obviously a case of you don't like it. Collagium (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the sources cited above and there is no doubt that Cambodia is neutral on this issue. The Govt release states clearly that :
 * 'Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict of permanent court of arbitration who will render its decision on the dispute between the Philippines and China.'
 * In light of the above statement of the Cambodian Government's 'Ministry Of Foreign Affairs And International Cooperation' there is need to rectify Cambodia's wrongly stated position. Objections, if any, are welcome. Collagium (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As the official statement is clearly stating Cambodia's position and there are no objections I am requesting editors to make necessary correction to the article. Collagium (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's scrutinize this statement from Cambodia. There're 3 paragraghs and 3 points, let's check each one.

Paragraph 1, there are 4 important concepts, 1. "issuing", 2, "debates", 3, "analysis", 4. "concerns"

Paragraph 2, the important part is the last sentence, "not to get involved in the above-said process", this implies Cambodia does not want to get involved in the "issuing thing", in the debates, in the analysis, and in the concerns. This statement has nothing to do with its support to China's position.

Paragraph 3, reiteration

Point 1: ASEAN has nothing to do with the arbitration case. Very clear statement.

Point 2: Cambodia will not expressing any position on the verdict. Very clear.

Point 3: not relevant. peaceful means.

Here I would conclude obviously this statement does not reject its previously announced support to China's position, it only aligns with that support. The statement "Cambodia does not support any side" is just bogus analysis. Agree? Toto11zi (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Kindly read the statement properly. Please don't distort facts. The statement is reproduced in full in the Protected Edit request for all editors and Admins to see. The statement of Cambodian Government that

'In light of this Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo HUN SEN has already twice, on 20 June and 28 June, publicly made clear Cambodia’s position not to get involved in the above-said process.' and

' Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration who will render its decision on the dispute between the Philippines and China' are unambiguous. Collagium (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is my point 2 not clear enough? Read: "Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict"relates to point 1, it's about ASEAN, it's very clear, Cambodia will not join with the ASEAN to express a common position on the verdict. 2 important words are "join" and "common". Toto11zi (talk)
 * Read the statement and it is clear as day that Cambodia is neutral on this issue. The subject matter and the content clearly states the position to be neutral. Kindly don't twist the words. If you followed the recent developments you will notice that even the ASEAN statement is neutral and it is doubtful how much this issue was really discussed. . Collagium (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You will need to read carefully, Cambodia wants ASEAN to be neutral. Toto11zi (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another point you must remember this common position means ASEAN position, not Cambodian position Toto11zi (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Take note of the joint statement of Cambodia and Myanmar. I concur Toto11zi's assertations that Cambodia wants ASEAN to be neutral and express preference for bilateral talks between China and Philippines while officially stating they wont join any common position which is a calculated move to remain officially neutral.


 * The confusion might have arose from the interpretation of "/" in "Opposition to the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants / Support for China's stance". Which depending on the interpretation might equate to "either" or "and".


 * Officially according to the statement issued by Cambodia, Cambodia only falls under "Support for bilateral talks between the disputants". It has no comment on the arbitration case itself (preference for bilateral talks does not necessarily equate to opposition to the arbitration process; e.g. The US supports a Philippine-China bilateral talks while supporting the arbitration even after the ruling), only opposes using ASEAN as a vehicle for arbitration support, and "Support for China's stance" is not applicable (except from various interpretations of Chinese media sources) since Cambodia says its not trying to pick a common stand on the issue.

As a side comment, the presence of "Support for China's stance" and "Support for Philippines's stance" is problematic since most of the cases are interpretation by Chinese (usually in phrases such as Chinese FM says that "Country X totally understands China's stance on the South China Sea" and Philippine media (usually in headlines). It should be removed, also for conciseness and we shouldn't underestimate readers. It is implied that in most cases "support for arbitration alone" usually equates to support for Philippines seeking arbitration and Opposition usually means support for China.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I added "Support for China's stance" to address the Poland issue, and someone added also "Support for Philippines's stance", that seems to be also reasonable, otherwise Australia will be out of that list. Since Australia, like the U.S., has never expressed its support to the specific arbitration, but very indirectly.Toto11zi (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion you are making here is exactly what is proposed in. Clearly stating Support for arbitration or Opposing arbitration will clarify things. All of the editors are supporting the edit request. However again @Toto11zi is opposing the edit and he even went ahead and did this. Collagium (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The citation of Antony Carty's article is inaccurate
The intro to the anthology in which it was published summarizes his argument as saying the case "invites the criticism that the Arbitration Tribunal is face with a dispute which is non-justiciable". Saying something "invites" a certain criticism is not the same thing as a flat statement that the criticism is correct. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Carty made the assumption that PCA may judge. One is UNCLOS articles 74 and 83 related to delimination of EEZ and continental shelf which PCA did not judge. (psge 27) Another is UNCLOS article 121 related to Rock/island and Carty assumed that PCA may judge whether not only rocks but also islands must be able to sustain human habitation and economic life which PCA did not judge. (page 47) So Carty's justiciability argument is not valid for the actual PCA dicision. Therefore the description should be removed.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain more? Google Books isn't letting me see enough of the relevant section of the book to have a clear idea of what's going on with that article. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think there's discrepancy in the description, then improve it. Due to the copyright issue, Wikipedia doesn't allow copying Toto11zi (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies allow quotation consistent with fair use Chris Hallquist (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 July 2016
I would like to add information taken directly about the contents of this case. I will be using the official case documents of the Permanent court of arbitration as my root source and will use the same as reference.

This includes the correct legal name of the case, the exact judgment (there appears to a be a little too much media hype in these edits and thus making the article lose its objectivity). I am well versed in maritime law, and hence will only be using facts. Please do let me make these edits. You are free to correct / edit / discuss any of them subsequently with me - Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ When making a protected edit request you must explicitly state the specific changes you want to make. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I will clearly outline the proposed changes and place them on this talk page. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Need for edits - and request to be allowed to edit (Notthebestusername) -
Hello,

I am going through the wiki of this (rather contentious) page and find that it urgently needs edits / improvements.

1) There are a large number of grammatical and sentence construction errors that need "cleaning up"

2) There is some bias in this article - towards both sides - and unfortunately, perhaps due to this, actual facts are few. For example: The opening paragraph needs to mention the case number (2013-19) of the PCA, the names of judges with their wikilinks, the actual contents of the PCA final documents which clarify that the judgement relates to certain maritime features, the right to them and the veracity of historic claims in this case, but NOT the sovereign rights of any country. Similarly, the legality of the PCA's right to arbitrate this case is addressed in their 12 July 2016 press release para 2-6, using UNCLOS Art. 296 and Art. 288 / Annex VII.

3) What is and is not contained in the case papers and judgement (the judgement clearly mentions that it is not ruling on sovereignty over any islands)

4) The exact UNCLOS articles that the case alludes to (with relevant wikilinks)

5) Most people seem to have used popular media as the resource for citation and not the actual 500+ page judgement (which I am currently going through)

6) That the PCA does not make rulings - it issues awards.

May I request the administrators of this page to allow me to address the above by allowing me to edit this page? You can always double-check the edits made by me, and revert any edits that you deem unsuitable. I have good maritime legal knowledge and used to be a lecturer on this subject. Thank you Notthebestusername (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In cases like this, you would first figure out what you would change, and put the proposed text here so people can see what you are proposing, and when there is consensus for the change, the changes can be made. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 07:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd support a lot of these edits, though non-lawyers aren't going to care about the case number—I think that kind of thing belongs in a footnote, not the main body of the text. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to ad 6). The PCA does not make rulings, nor does it issue awards. It only provides administrative support and acts as registry for the tribunals under its auspices. In this case the award was given by the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UNCLOS. See for example this press release: . Perudotes (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Re opening paragraph - I think the intro to the article should not be as detailed as you propose. The article is for both a person looking for general info and a person who is looking for specific details. I would even water down the intro as it is - take out some dates - such as when china refused to participate and when it did write a position paper. Also take out all or most citations. All of the information and its sources in the intro should be stated in article itself. This could be put at the beginning of the Arbitration section. What's your take?
 * Having the official name (if its not too long) and the case number is the usual intro to court cases, so I think we should put that in. I also think we should have allot of details in the main article (not in footnotes) but have those details in the Arbitration section.
 * --Also, how about we break down the required sections among editors - I would like to look into and do more detail on the Phillipines/Chineese main arguments. But am also willing to switch to others. Rybkovich (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you're right, I stand corrected. I had thought you meant "This is case number 2013-19" but you actually meant using as the first sentence "Philippines v. China (2013-19) was an arbitration case..." --Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @ Chris --Chris Hallquist/Penwhale Penwhale/all - Thaks a lot for the comments. I'll frame the suggested edits and post them here for yourselves / all to decide on the edits.

Regards Notthebestusername (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)