Talk:Territorial disputes in the South China Sea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Resource: India Faces Standoff With China on Sea Oil By Jeremy Page in Beijing and Tom Wright in New Delhi September 23, 2011.

Resource: India Faces Standoff With China on Sea Oil By Jeremy Page in Beijing and Tom Wright in New Delhi September 23, 2011. Includes India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation regarding Phu Khanh Basin and Nam Con Son Basin with TNK-BP and Petrovietnam. Also see Sino-Indian relations. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Resources?

• SE Asia close to endorsing plan to end South China Sea dispute despite China’s absence by Associated Press via Washington Post 5 days ago.
• Japan steps into South China Sea territorial feud Sep. 21, 2011 06:48AM JST in japantoday.com
• India’s advances into South China Sea met with criticism from Beijing by Radu Nikolaus Botez, 22 September 2011 on openDemocracy.net

97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wait till this does or doesn't progress in an obvious direction? 99.119.128.87 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputes not covered here

Having just looked at List of territorial disputes#Asia and the Pacific, it appears to me that this article ought to also address the disputes over Macclesfield Bank and Scarborough Shoal. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

POV, need for better balance

The background section of the article has been expanded greatly since my last edit. That being said, some of it isn't referenced and thus subject to deletion per WP:BURDEN and the present content appears to have a pro-PRC POV which is not keeping with WP:NEU. I suggest that the content be reworded, and well sourced from multiple sources (especially if those sources come from different nations involved in the dispute), so that the content is neutral and does not appear to advocate one nation's claim over another nation's claim. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Map out of Date

This map (File:Schina sea 88.png) is way of of date, still showing Hong Hong and Macau, belonging to UK and Portugal

 Done  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A Mahatir interview a significant event?

I consider an interview by an ex-prime minister neither an event nor of much significance and therefore it should be included in the "Timeline of Events". I deleted it. User:STSC disagreed and re-added it. In an effort to reach WP:Consensus, I ask for input. Is this paragraph significant: "November – Former Malysian PM Mahathir Mohamad said that China was not a threat to anyone and was not worried about aggression from China, accusing the United States of provoking China and trying to turn China's neighbors against China.[67] Mahathir believes Malaysia could profit from China's economic growth through cooperation with China.[68]" (Note, I adjusted the date to fit the citation.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• (comment) The article assertion goes beyond what is supported by the source cited. The summing up of the interview there could be further summed up as "... said said that China was not a threat to anyone." I agree that interview statements by an ex-prime minister are not necessarily of much significance, but Mahathir Mohamad might be a special case in this regard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Wtmitchell that the text has gone a bit far compared to the source. The info is useful for this article, but not quite suitable when it is under "Timeline of Events" section. Huydp (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr Mahathir Mohamad is an influential figure in Malaysia; his message is significant in relation to the territorial disputes in the region. The readers should be informed about this event, i.e., a Malaysian notable statesman expressing the pro-Chinese stance. STSC (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic minorities

IMHO, the section is given undue weight given the scope of this article, while the foreign relations and opinions of groups within the ethnic minorities might be worth a brief and neutrally worded paragraph, each, I am of the opinion that the current size is too large given how this article is more about territorial disputes between different nation-states.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Without going through the section paragraph by paragraph, I'll say that this addition to the article struck me the same way when I first saw it. A quick google search for articles citing the "The Cham: Descendants of Ancient Rulers of South China Sea Watch Maritime Dispute From Sidelines" article turned up a number of other WP articles where it is already cited; much of the material in the section would probably fit better in one of those other articles than in this one. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Cham Today even a reliable source? I can see it being utilized for Verification of someone's opinion, but how significant is that opinion, and how much weight should it be given in this article?

Is this an example of WP:REFSPAM?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-reading this section, most of the content falls outside of the scope of this article, and may even be an attempt to advocate for certain POVs rather than neutrally stating the opinions in a balance manner along with opposing opinions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The section gives very useful background information related to the ethnic minorities' connection to the South China Sea and their roles in the territorial disputes. It may need some copy-editing but the complete blanking of the section is unacceptable. STSC (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be useful somewhere on Wikipedia, but how does (for instance)

In 2012, Vietnamese police in Chau Giang village stormed into a Cham Mosque, stole the electric generator, and also raped the Cham girls.

have anything to do with the territorial disputes between multiple nation states?

Now if those ethnic minorities, as sub-national entities have a position, such as being an unrecognized state siding with one nation or another, than I can see that. But this article is not for advancing the visibility of those ethnic minorities opposition towards the nation-states that govern them. That falls outside of the scope of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure how relevant the Cham are. Do historic Cham territories even have a coastline?Zmflavius (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire eastern side of Champa is the coastline of the South China Sea. map of Champa. the National Geographic source explicitly talks about the Cham connection to the South China Sea and Cham artifacts found on the disputed islands since they were major maritime traders in the region.Rajmaan (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Learn something new every day.Zmflavius (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this content more be in the history section, as Champa, a former kingdom, once had sovereignty in the disputed area? How does their current status as Vietnamese citizens, and any domestic issues internal to Vietnam fall within the scope of this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the last paragraph should be removed from the section as it is not related to the territorial disputes. STSC (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire section can be removed, and two entries in the timeline can be added about Champa's former presence in the South China Sea, and since MNLF doesn't claim the South China Sea, a sentence of it supporting PRC can be placed in the timeline as well. Neither are significant players in the territorial dispute (which is the subject of this article), and therefore this section is give undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not removing the whole section; it's appropriately under the "Background" section, and it provides additional insight in the issues of territorial disputes in the region. STSC (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Given this inpasse, and that we have not formed a consensus on removing, reducing, keeping, or expanding this section, I will take the to RFC to gather more attention to this impasse. This is keeping with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate; WP:3O is not an option as there are more than two editors already listed in this conversation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the content in the section Ethnic minorities in the Philippines and Vietnam by removed entirely, reduced, kept as is, or expanded? Please see the discussion above regarding previous debate regarding this topic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reduce content. The section reads like a plug/advertisement for the Moro and Cham secessionists. Also the Moro source is not third party (which wikipedia prefers), but directly from the Moro Liberation Front. I vote for the section to be reduced by something like two-thirds. (editor was "randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment") --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Move content to separate article: At this stage, the content is rather undue, and feels forced in regards to sticking to the topic of the territorial disputes. The content should be placed within a page that specifically deals with the separatist movements or ethnic groups. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Leave it as it is - I have already made some improvement on the section and it is fine within the article. STSC (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Still appears to give the subject, especially regarding the Champa people undue weight. Therefore, as shown above, our opinions differ significantly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Remove section. A whole section in background gives the subject too much weight; the historical presence of Champa in the area concerning the conflict should be mentioned, but in the timeline or somewhere appropriate. The current internal domestic issues of Vietnam regarding the Champa should not be in this article, and should be handled in another article where that falls within that article's scope; IMHO this does not fall within the scope of this article. Furthermore, outside of the opinion of the Moro National Liberation Front (and I agree above with BoogaLouie, that we need a non primary source), the content regarding is given too much weight as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Leave it as it is - The sources explicitly deal with the ethnic minority's connection to the dispute between the countries, the entire articles in all three sources are about that. [1] [2] [3] It isn't like some article on another subject has one sentence about the connection and then we used it as a source for the section. The internal issues with Vietnam and its treatment of Cham people is linked by the source article to the dispute. The whole article is about how Vietnam's treatment of the Cham makes the Vietnamese afraid of Champa's influence coming up as a topic in the disputed islands. It wasn't put in there randomly for no reason. There is no shoehorning involved since that was the entire point of the article..Rajmaan (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole article is explicitly not about the Cham within Vietnam, this article's WP:SCOPE is the territorial dispute of different nation states in the South China/West Philippine Sea. MNLF's statement of support of the PRC's claim, while verifiable (but we have not seen a non-primary source provided), should not be given weight of an entire paragraph. If it was so significant multiple non-primary sources would produce reliable sources for editors to source to.

As for the Cham, there should be content about Champa's historical presence in the region which is disputed, and thus should be in the historical timeline. However, the Cham's issues with the present government of Vietnam, SRV, is not within the scope of this article.

Regarding the two group's disagreements with their national governments, please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There are articles where this content is within that article's scope, where those issues should be given weight. However, the issues of the Cham and Moros against Hanoi and Manila are tangential to the disputes between different nation-states.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies to original research by the user and WP:SOAPBOX apply to neutrality/pov of the user, both in the case of bias on part of content made up by the user, not the source. The source tells of grievances the Cham have with Vietnam. We didn't make that up, it's not original research. I don't see how any of the content deviates from the sources used. If you think that the content is advocating for Champa then complain to National Geographic because the content is basically a paraphrased summary of the source. In fact the National Geographic article seems more provocative than the content currently sourced to it. As a primary source the content sourced to the MNLF website is a paraphrased summary with no original research added so its not a violation. And again the content is alot more toned down on here than on the MNLF website. Rajmaan (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that entire article about the history of the Cham relevant, within the scope of this article? I think not. What is relevant is that Champa once had a presence in the disputed region. That is well within this article's scope. What is not is the domestic issues of SRV in regards to the Cham people.

Why should primary opinion of MNLF be given any weight when no non-primary reliable source can be found regarding it? Anyone can publish anything, that doesn't mean it should be given weight. The burden of showing that it should be given weight in this article is on the adding editor. So far I am not seeing it. At least the history of Champa in the disputed region comes from a tertiary source.

This goes back to the heart of the issue that the content in this section is given undue weight in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Misuari's MNLF has at least several hundreds of armed gunmen, if not in the thousands, running around Sulu and the surronding archipelago, he is a recognized and major international figure and is currently wanted by the Philippine government, his presence is repeatedly demanded at the negotiating table by major politicians in the Philippines and by the OIC. MNLF is widely recognized as an actor and a major entity in the conflict, they launched a major operation in Zamboanga last year and continue to pose a threat to security forces in the area. This is not some farmer with a gun publishing rants about the government on his personal blog.Rajmaan (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That has zero to do with the dispute between nation-states regarding what some consider territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, or international waters. That is an internal/domestic issue of the Republic of the Philippines. Therefore, the support of an organization, MNLF, of the PRC's claim is non sequitur to the subject that is this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Misuari's MNLF doesn't see it as a domestic matter- they declared their own state and continue to insist on its legitimacy - Bangsamoro Republik. Just last August Misuari showed up to give a speech on the anniversiry of the Bangsamoro Republik's independence. [4] [5]Rajmaan (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And do other nation-states recognized this self-proclaimed "nation"? And why should their opinion be given weight?

It's apparent that we disagree, that's OK. The point of the RfC is to get non-involved editors to comment to build consensus, to see which opinion has more support. Presently there is no-consensus for this content to be given this much weight in this article.

By creating this RfC I abide WP:CANVASS#Appropriate. If this fails, we can seek other means of gaining additional editors to comment to build consensus.

The two new editors do not support the present weight given to these two groups opinions. And if the current ratio stands, consensus would support content reduction.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Leave it as it is - This would be better in a more holistic section about popular sentiment and international opinion, but nothing like that exists. If something like that comes into existence in the future I'd support integrating it into that. DocumentError (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be better, giving non-Southeast Asian nation-states viewpoints, well cited, briefly and neutrally written, rather than two long sections of uninvolved non-nation-state groups. This would be like this section here Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#International and regional views--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Leave as is - It is useful material for our readers. If there is a concern about UNDUE, expand other sections. WP:UNDUE does not apply when there is potential to expand an article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should the viewpoint of an unrecognized nation be given weight? If anything including their POV could be seen as WP:FRINGE. The opinion of a member of an unrecognized nation has not been given significant coverage from tertiary reliable sources regarding this subject, so why should it be included?

Why should the internal disputes between minority ethnicities be given significant weight in an article where that is clearly outside of this articles scope? It might be useful material for readers, but in other articles where that content would fall under that articles scope. Otherwise, one can argue that it would be useful to our readers to read about the sovereignty movement of the Republic of Lakotah, cite it, and include it here. How is the internal domestic issues of the Cham and Vietnam, and of MNLF and the Philippines, fall within the scope of this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Leave as is: the content is certainly interesting and provides greater context for the complexity of the dispute in the region. -Darouet (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I point the above editor to WP:SCOPE, while this might be interesting, the concerns of the Cham people fall outside of the scope of this article. The history of Champa in the South China Sea is relevant to this article, but the internal issues of the Cham and the Viet peoples fall outside of this articles scope. Therefore, why include two articles about content not about the subject of this article?

As for the writings of a single individual from an unrecognized nation-state, why should that be given weight? The used in the Moro people section falls under self-published source and should not be given significant weight as this article does so. If the opinions of the MNLF were significant within the scope of this article tertiary sources would report on it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor of mnlfnet.com is the virtual mouthpiece of Misuari's MNLF on the internet, he publishes the group's official documents for public dissemination. He has inside knowledge of the MNLF, he published the declaration of independence and Misuari's statements on their plans for secession before the operation in Zamboanga. Philippine media uses the website as a source for Misuari and his MNLF. It is not the editor's own private website, it represents the MNLF-NM. Most self published authors do not represent an organization that has hundreds of armed gunmen walking freely around hundreds of square kilometers and who are recognized as a major participant in an armed conflict by the OIC , the UN and other major organizations. .Rajmaan (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't explain why the statements of an unrecognized nation-state should be given a full section to have their opinion stated in this wiki-article. As suggested above, perhaps the model we should go with is the one used in this article: Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#International and regional views. It allows for external and non-state opinions to be included in this article without giving it undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

These sections are useful because they give political context to the territorial disputes in the South China Sea - in that sense they fall wholly within the scope of this article. Nevertheless the text should in no sense be used to justify any claims - including Moro or Champa claims - over others. The second paragraph of the Champa section currently includes a long run-on sentence, and it's not clear to me it's written neutrally. -Darouet (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does Singapore's EEZ really overlap with China's claims?

According to the list of disputes, the area denoted by China's Nine Dashed Line overlaps with Singapore's EEZ. I have never heard of this before and it seems extremely unlikely considering the position of Singapore on the map. It's easternmost island is Pedra Branca as far as I am aware, but that is still ways off from the Nine Dashed Line, and is in any case behind Indonesia's Kepulauan Natuna. Furthermore, this is also not substantiated by the maps on this page. Qense (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This "not" seems to be substantiated by [6] and [7]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the check should be removed with the nine dash line, but kept for the Pedra Branca area.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I see some more info here. Also, I see at Pedra Branca, Singapore#Reactions to ICJ decision (article version as of this writing) that there appears to be some question about whether Singapore is or is not not entitled to claim an EEZ around Pedra Branca. Regardless, though, It seems doubtful to me (in my unsupported inexpert opinion) that Singapore would claim an EEZ extending into areas which would conflict with China's claimed EEZ. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Here we have a news article of the Straits Times posted on the Singaporean MFA website in which PM LHL explicitly says there is no Singaporean claim: "[...], Mr Lee stressed that while Singapore did not have a claim on the disputed waters, it had an interest in preserving peace, stability and freedom of navigation in the area."[8].Qense (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Maps lacking important information

Currently, both maps only indicate China's territorial claims and not those of every involved country. Something similar to the map on the front page of http://www.southchinasea.org/ would be more informative.

Similarly, location of construction projects by all countries in the area would add a lot. 210.72.20.5 (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This map does what is requested, minus the construction.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

China's march to the sea

http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/surround/pdf/ch_d-act_20150728e.pdf

Series of maps provided by a 3rd party showing China's moves. Can we just copy all of these? Hcobb (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I read the Japanese Ministry of Defense website's Terms of Use and from what I have read, it looks like the images may be uploaded, provided that the source is attributed to the image. They did not provide any image restrictions such as non-commercial use only which is good as Wikipedia discourages images that are used for non-commercial uses only. The only image restriction is shown in article 3, though from my interpretation, it looks like the image is free so it can be copied and uploaded. I hope that helps. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Japan is not a 3rd party. It actively sides with the Philippines in the dispute. Go look at ‘China Threat Theory’ Drives Japanese War Legislation where Taoka Shunji criticizes the Japanese government's position as biased. The maps are not neutral and should not be presented as such.Rajmaan (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it is not neutral (I was only concerned if the images are appropriate to upload) given that this is the Japanese government's view but they are useful in providing the Japanese point of view. It is useful as it provides how the islands have been developed by China over the years though it would beneficial to add in images showing how the other countries have developed their islands over the years as well to maintain neutrality (using reliable sources as island building and development have been mentioned in the news). Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is a 3rd party or not in this case. The maps are intended to represent one side and to represent a viewpoint. The source that you mention is not an academic journal; several problems are present. First, I did a quick glance over some of the articles they posted and an in depth look of that article, no citations to back up those statements (seems more like an opinion piece that pretends to sound scientific). Many academic journal articles will have citations for non-obvious statements (eg. data) or those that are likely to be challenged. As well, some of the articles such as this one as an example use youtube and websites for advocacy groups that are questionable, which is not what academic journals do. They also rarely use other academic journal sources (other than their own) which is also an issue (despite being peer reviewed after I checked it on Ulrich's). Since when journals use youtube as a source? Ssbbplayer (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal claims

This article is lacking on legal claims to the islands and numerous sources indicate this. There has been literature on analyzing the legal claims of the claimants and this should be added. It would nice if other editors could look into the literature more carefully to avoid any misinterpretations. Ssbbplayer (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ten times too long?

Isn't the scale rod on the first map wrongly marked? Shouldn't it be 50km rather than 500km? BushelCandle (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Vietnamese fears of Cham autonomy over South China sea disputes

Vietnam fears that if the issue of Cham relations to the disputed south China sea islands are brought up, Cham would demand atuonomy from Vietnam since they were violently conquered by the Vietnamese. Vietnam has put more restrictions of Cham culture and customs recently.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140616-south-china-sea-vietnam-china-cambodia-champa/

Rajmaan (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? These events are unrelated to the topic of the article. Whoever put that did it on purpose to portray Filipinos and Vietnamese in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.22.226 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliable source National Geographic provides the information on the Cham's historical connection of South China Sea. This useful background information should be included in the article. STSC (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to do that, why don't we also include the "useful background information" of China's conquests of the Nanyue peoples in what is today southern China, without which conquests China's territory wouldn't even have reached the South China Sea to begin with.

The continuing blatant and unsubtle pro-China POV in this article is a disgrace. 49.148.12.192 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed --124.149.19.202 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

POV digression in the Moro Conflict section

This edit, which added a paragraph beginning with "The Americans practiced colonial imperialism and ...", citing this as a supporting source, caught my eye. I initially was going to revert the addition as WP:POV and lacking support in the source cited but, on consideration, it appeared to me that both this addition and material which preceded it amounted to a POV off-topic digression. I've WP:BOLDly moved that material here for discussion. The removed material folows:

American and Filipino forces launched a joint operation against the Moros in the Mamasapano clash, in which Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) fighters manage to kill 44 Filipino police commandos and caused massive blow back for the botched raid, putting a decisive halt to American plans for its Asia military "pivot" in the Philippines. Moros have reported that "4 caucasian-looking (American) soldiers" were killed in the Mamasapano clash along with the 44 Filipinos.

Due to the both the Moro conflict and the South China Sea disputes there has been a fall in the Global Peace Index grade for the Philippines.

The Americans practiced colonial imperialism and American companies and Filipino Christian colonizers seized the Moro Muslims wealth and lands. The Philippine government started the war against the indigenous Moros by slaughtering them in the Jabidah Massacre of 1968. The United States under Obama has helped the Philippines wage war against both the Moro Muslims and make anti China moves in the South China sea.

References

If you feel this removal was inappropriate, please discuss the suitability of this material in an article on the topic of Territorial disputes in the South China Sea here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

ibtimes mentions both the Moro conflict and South China Sea. The truth-out article ties American involvement against the Moros in the Philippines to colonization against the Moros and to the dispute in the South China Sea. There is nothing added that wasn't in the source.Rajmaan (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That provoked three separate thoughts:

• I didn't see much topical relevance in the assertion supported by the ibtimes article re the fall in the Global Peace Index grade for the Philippines.
• I had inferred, and still do infer, from the article's lead sentence and from the article generally that this article focuses on current maratime disputes. Given that focus, I didn't see much topical relevance in the assertions supported by the truth-out article. Having used the word current there, though, I'm wondering whether the article has a WP:Recentism#Article imbalance problem.
• The material I removed to here seems to regard Bangsamoro or some similar political entity as having standing to engage in territorial disputes with sovereign nations, and that seems like a stretch to me. The material was removed from a section headed Non-claimant views, though, with "claimant" there apparently referring to sovereign nation claimants in current maratime disputes in the SCS.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The truth-out article is about the American role in the Moro conflict and the American role in the SCS and ties the two together. Its on American policy.Rajmaan (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

But are the assertions ("The Americans practiced colonial imperialism and ...") which the cite of the article supports both WP:NPOV and clearly supported by the cited article? And, if so, do those assertions have sufficient topical weight for inclusion in an article about Territorial disputes in the South China Sea? I'd say no on count 1, and I'm doubtful on count 2. I probably ought to have just removed those assertions and the supporting cite based on count 1, but I lumped them together with the other assertions I moved here for discussion because of count 2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The ethnic minorities have their sub-articles on these issues, so I hope this article focus mostly on the maritime conflicts which I believe are not claimed by the ethnics directly. The ethnic support or otherwise are not major concerns because there are dozens of other uninvolved countries not mentioned here that voice support of either China or other claimant countries.Shiok (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell:, there appears to be a growing consensus to remove content that appears to be falling out of the scope of this article. Therefore, I believe there is consensus for this content to be removed, which I support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Source of Chinese claims?

Could anyone provide a description of the source of China's claims in the South China Sea? Looking at a map, the claim baffles me - about like Denmark claiming sovereignty over the Baltic Sea. Rks13 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but there's some info and supporting cites at Scarborough Shoal#Claims by China and Taiwan. Also see File:1947_Nanhai_Zhudao.png. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See also Spratly Islands dispute#People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Denmark has a great historical claim over the Baltic. The Danish flag by legend came to their king while he was in Estonia. CMD (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Chinese public's opinion toward South China Sea and here is the attitude toward the arbitral tribunal from China JerrrryD (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent Events

Should there be a catalog of notable events, such as this one, that occur due to different nations enforcing their claims on the waters that are the subject of this article?

I understand WP:NOTNEWS, however if we can find that events reach the point that they themselves meet WP:GNG, as their are notable due to the subject of this article, should those events not be given due weight? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Though in the background section the article lists the "South China Sea Arbitration", I think we should extract some critical points in the arbitration , e.g. the start of arbitration, to provide a brief up-to-date introduction. JerrrryD (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on minorities views

We have reached the consensus on minorities views in section 12.1 RfC above. The content is duly attributed to the sources, please don't keep removing it. The sources are not individual personal self-published websites. STSC (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE I have canvassed RightCow as they have "participated in previous discussions on the same topic"

WP:SOURCE says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

WP:QUESTIONABLE says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

WP:ADVOCACY specifically says that Wikipedia is not for "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment" for political causes. This precludes the use of political pamphlets from separatist groups on pages not about the separatist group.

The 2014 RFC process was an attempt by RightCow to remove the section - not a vote on sourcing.

The phrase "The New York Times claimed" is a violation of WP:SAY - which explicitly advises not to use the word "claim". The section is used to cherry pick quotes and push conclusions that the sources don't reach (WP:SYNTH). The wikipedia editor has pushed their opinion into wiki voice, and is making anti-NYT statements that the NYT refs do not support.

-- Callinus (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC) @STSC:

Thanks for the notification. I have not been as active editing Wikipedia since July 2015, and am onlu semi-active now. I am not retired from Wikipedia, but I have not cought the editing-bug again, yet.

While previous consensus was to keep it. As stated in past discussion, IMHO the section is given undue weight in this article and should be minimized. Furthermore, there are questionable sourced utilized in the section whose content should be scrutinized. Unless more reliable sources can be found to verify the content, it maybe best to remove said content until those sources can be found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the multiparagraph Moro Conflict sub-section. It largely copies content from another article. While a summary maybe understandable if the subject was a sub-subject of this article, it is not, and thus the majority of its content here is questionable. Most of the content falls well outside the scope of this article, and should be removed. The editorial opinion of the NYT regarding a completely different subject need not be in this article and should be removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes the second paragraph seems largely out of context.-- Callinus (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To user Callinus: What you just did is effectively another revert. I would remind you not to remove the content until you have the consensus to do so. STSC (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

STSC please look at the policies on questionable sources making claims about third parties and political advocacy and justify to RightCowLeftCoast, who has commented above, why the pro-separatist political website of the MNLF should be included. The onus is on people adding materials to justify why those materials are worthy of inclusion. If you would like to gain consensus for the addition of the pro-separatist website mnlfnet.com then you can explain to RightCowLeftCoast why you believe that is a reliable source. You might also want to ask the reliable sources noticeboard whether the pro-separatist website mnlfnet.com is a reliable source. -- Callinus (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained to you the content is duly attributed to the sources, whether they are bad guys or good guys; i.e., it just expresses what MNLF's position is. The consensus above agreed to include this information. I'll put back what was agreed on that date. STSC (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

STSC (talk · contribs) Please read the the policies on questionable sources again - they are "unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties" - the page MNLF can include material published by the MNLF - but pages not about them cannot include references to articles by the MNLF making claims about third parties such as the United States.

To help gain consensus, I have asked Number 57 about the RfC process, and invited them to comment here. -- Callinus (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been asked "did you intend to freeze the content of the article so that it could not be changed in future". In response, I see no problem with minor changes to the text, but I would say any significant changes to that section of the article (such as large-scale text addition or removal) should not proceed without first reaching agreement on the talk page. Number 57 11:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason for devoting an entire section to the Cham and Moro issues, which frankly are irrelevant to an article on territorial disputes in the South China Sea, without at least making an attempt at fairness and also including China's conquest of Nanyue, as outlined in this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanyue#War_and_the_decline_of_Nanyue

The forced inclusion of the Cham and Moro issues here seems like a clumsy and ham-fisted attempt to paint Vietnam and the Philippines in a bad light. If whoever is behind this inclusion thinks they're so relevant, then may I suggest that China's conquest of Nanyue, which is southern China today, is equally relevant. If said conquest had not taken place, China's territory would not reach the South China Sea and they would have no basis for claiming territory in that sea to begin with. I expect fairness from Wikipedia, not one-sided propaganda red herrings. Champa, Moros, and Nanyue - either all of them are relevant, or all of them are irrelevant. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 49.148.12.192 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The founder of Nanyue was a Chinese Qin General from northern China named Zhao Tuo, who founded his territory on a former commandery of the Qin dynasty and who defeated a kingdom founded by another migrant from China, An Dương Vương. By the way proximity has nothing to do with claiming territory. Britain owns the Falkland islands, Bermuda, and Saint Helena while France owns Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Indonesia owns Miangas. And to the actual relevant part since your personal opinion has no bearing on the article- you have zero sources linking Nanyue to the dispute. The sources mention Champa and Moro in relation with the island dispute and there are no sources which talk about Nanyue in relation to the island dispute.Rajmaan (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... See the Nanyue and Han–Nanyue War articles and sources mentioned therein. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Rajmaan's reply above clearly shows where his bias lies.

So I ask again, what is the reason for including "Cham and Moro viewpoints" in this article, and not including the viewpoints of, say, Tibetans, or Taiwanese aborigines, or Bornean tribesme, or Uighurs? What is it about the Cham and Moro, who do not have their own states, that privileges their alleged viewpoint (as if an entire ethnicity all shared the same opinion on the issue) above that of all other ethnic groups that do not have their own states?

I am frankly shocked that this section has been allowed to stay up for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.68.166 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Moro section appears to have unnecessary content.

The Moro Conflict[107] is an ongoing insurgency in Mindanao. In 1969, political tensions and open hostilities developed between the Government of the Philippines and Moro Muslim rebel groups.[108] Nur Misuari, a political science lecturer, established the Moro National Liberation Front in 1972,[109][110][111] which fought against the Philippines government in a conflict that lasted over four decades.[112] The Peace process with the Bangsamoro in the Philippines led to the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, a peace deal that was signed with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a splinter group from the MNLF.[112][113]

This content is a good summary of the Moro Conflict article, but the Moro conflict doesn't fall within the scope of this article. If ethnic minority views have a consensus to remain, which there does not appear to be, these sentences should be removed and the section condensed as to not give it undue weight. Only the following appears to fall within the scope of this article:

The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) has declared its support for China against the Philippines government in the South China Sea dispute.[114] calling both China and the Moro people as victims of Philippine colonialism, and noting China's history of friendly relation with the Sultanate of Sulu in the region.[115]

Otherwise, if we are to summarize the Moro conflict in this article, why is the Sino-Vietnamese War not summarized here, or the Pacific War, or other past conflicts within the South China/West Philippine Sea? To only include this summary of the Moro conflict, and not other conflicts, baffles me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup header: section organization

I see that the article has a cleanup header dating from 2016 saying that the sections should be re-organized. However there was never any associated discussion (at least that I can see). Anyone know what the header intended, or have any ideas on how to cleanup the article? If it is actually well organized then the header could be removed. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple issues

There are a lot of problems with this article. Some unsourced claims, poor organization of the 'events' section, outright mistakes (one of which I have already corrected), plenty of ommissions, including the maritime disupute in Indonesian waters near Nantuna Island. I will try to fix some of these, time permitting. I think we need a multiple issues tag at the top of the article, however. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of the external links also do not work, e.g. [13] and [68]. We should provide some related information otherwise these contents would lose credibility. Also we should do a more detailed research on some Non-clairmant views as these one sentence content is not that convincing. JerrrryD (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Would be great to get some impartial editors to help rebuild this so it is more reflective and informative of all sides of the dispute SiJoHaAl (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"the PRC took" needs clarification, etc.

I'm not a regular editor of this article or of closely related articles.

This came up as I was trying to decide where to add info from this December 22m 2020 news article headed, "China expels US ship from disputed waters in fresh escalation in South China Sea" to the maze of articles related to the SCS dispute. In this article's History of the South China Sea dispute section, I saw "In 2012, the PRC took the Scarborough Shoal as a response to the Philippine navy's actions of stopping Chinese fishing boats in the area", supported by cites of two sources which are unavailable to me online. I think that the word "took" there is intended as a synonym for "occupied", but I'm not sure, and I was unable to find any info about this in subsections here or in the 2012 section of the Timeline of the South China Sea dispute article.

Here, I've added the some info from the 2020 news article which brought this up into the History section following that "In 2012 ..." item there mentioned above. Please improve this as needed, As for the "etc." part of the header here, I'm guessing that some events between 2012 and 2020 probably ought to be mentioned there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Map issue

Can was address the fact that the map in the intro places Hong Kong 1,000 miles from where it should be? OgamD218 (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: -- This appears to need urgent attention. Compare with the image from this online web page which is identified on the image page as the source of this image. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: Oh, shoot... I'm on it! —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@OgamD218 and Wtmitchell:  Fixed. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The heady little triangle...

Hello, Do anyone knows what's the name (or denomination) of the tiny triangle of water claimed by Malaysia, Vietnam, Phillipines, Brunei and China/Taïwan of course at the same time at the center of the SCS ? Simpler it's in Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia claimed borders. And if it does not have a name, what are it's coordinates ?

Thank you very much !

Nicolas de Bourgoing (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: JerrrryD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jigolay. Peer reviewers: Myhumbleopinions.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Map of territorial disputes in the South China Sea.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Claim the territory of the exclusive economic zone2023.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Unclear if history section Neutral

User:103.152.9.17 has recently done a number of edits to the history section using editorials in Filipino newspapers and a video documentary as secondary sources and removing some potentially verifiable text with no individual change justification. The section does not generally use, where they may be available, academic and peer-reviewed publications which are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history. Attempted verification of the name of a document in French removed without explanation suggested it is possible that WP:CIRC might apply in potential 2011 Vietnamese language sources. The section as presently written may not be neutral so I have marked for improvement. ChaseKiwi (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to take even stronger action and restore the last clean diff. All of IP's edits lacked edit summaries. The profusion of timestamp-less YouTube sources is unhelpful and an obstacle to verifiability. YouTube is, of course, a disfavored source. This is an extensively discussed topic in the academe and perennial RS, there are Wikipedia:BESTSOURCES available, which these are not. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The nature of recent reverted edits to Strongylodon macrobotrys suggest we do have a neutrality issue that I was unaware of when notice posted. I have also noted recent edits to Timeline of the South China Sea dispute and South China Sea Arbitration that have not been justified and are using similar sources. ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The edits that concern you all seem to have been recently made by anon editor 103.152.9.17. Perhaps it is better to target that IP and those edits for a closer look. The ones I have looked at involve two sources, both badly cited in the articles. One is this 1+ hour YouTube video by retired Philippine Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio, who has taken a special interest in the Nine-dash line and everything related to it. Carpio is a notable, knowledgeable, credible, expert, weighty source on these issues who takes a very one-sided POV on that topic. Other weighty sources disagree. WP:DUE describes policy regarding and provides guidelines for handling such that such POV disagreements between weighty sources. I don't think that the fact that Carpio's views are cited there in a YouTube video vs. an academic journal de-values those views, but I do think that the source needs to be cited in a way that is useful to WP users reading the articles -- see my edits to cites here to clarify what I mean by that, and note that my edits do not solve the citation problems, but do suggest how they might be solved. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the Wtmitchell approach. I have specifically tried to identify the silent deletions and rewording the anon editor did after a closer look. Using Carpio is fine by me if the source is easy to verify and as you say there is evidence of bad citation which is time consuming to identify from written Carpio sources. I have also tried to provide feedback to the user as they have contributed some useful information in my personal view. ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason for any new POV since 17 June has emerged in mainstream news media. There remains potential historic POV with unreferenced statements. So dust will take some time to settle. ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

For suspected meatpuppetry how is that usually handled, at SPI? Vacosea (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead

The assertions that the 1734 map or China has recognized Filipino sovereignty do not appear to be supported in academic or non-Filipino sources. Should those statements be qualified? I will remove them from just the lead for now; there are exact copies in other sections of this article. Vacosea (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibly related to the above section #Unclear if history section Neutral. CMD (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The new editor picked out only certain events from the History section to add to the lead making that part non-neutral as well. Vacosea (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree whole article now reads as biased. As a potentially separate issue only arising today the active editor User:Ed8694 added a misquoted entry w.r.t. events as reported by news organisations in the public domain. I have drawn attention in their talk to basic wikipedia policy. There are now editors with administration rights monitoring the issues here but for us lower down the pole not fully familiar with how such issues may have to be dealt if they escalate, I mention Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Ed8694 to note an administrator decision that means correctly that only edit summaries are now available in page history from 06:03, 18 June 2024‎ to 13:19, 19 June 2024‎. ChaseKiwi (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It transpires that editor User:Ed8694 may be privy to personal knowledge not yet in public domain given the content of an edited paragraph inconsistent with sources I reverted and documented on their talk page a few hours after they made the entry. See that editors talk page and a subsequent time stamped article at Philippines faces 'barbaric' knife, axe wielding Chinese sailors in WPS. ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Spratly Islands

There is a paragraph in this page that states, "According to Filipino sources, China released its "China Handbook (1937-1943)" in 1943, where it reiterated for the second time that its southernmost territory is the Paracels, specifically Triton Island. China again changed its position and published in 1947 the "1947 China Handbook", where it claimed that its southernmost territory was the Spratly Islands. This was the first time in history that China claimed the Spratlys. Under the new handbook, China also admitted on record that the Philippines and Indochina also claimed the territory, effectively making China's claim as "defective" under international law."

The statement "China again changed its position and published in 1947 the '1947 China Handbook', where it claimed that its southernmost territory was the Spratly Islands. This was the first time in history that China claimed the Spratlys" is inaccurate. Historical evidence shows that China's interest and claims over the Spratly Islands predate 1947. In the early 20th century, particularly in the 1930s, the Republic of China had already issued maps that included the Spratly Islands as part of Chinese territory, and Chinese fishermen and naval patrols were active in the area during that period. Therefore, the formal assertion of claims over the Spratly Islands by China was not a novel occurrence in 1947 but rather a reiteration and formalization of earlier claims.

Here is an excerpt from Daniel J. Dzurek's paper "The Spratly Islands Dispute: Who’s On First?" which provides more context on earlier claims: "China's interest in the Spratly Islands dates back to the early 20th century. In the 1930s, the Republic of China issued maps showing the Spratlys as part of Chinese territory. Additionally, Chinese fishermen and naval patrols were active in the area during this period." This excerpt shows that China had shown interest and issued maps that included the Spratlys before 1947, contradicting the claim that the 1947 "China Handbook" marked the first time China claimed the Spratlys. This earlier activity and map publication illustrate that China's claims predate 1947. Alexysun (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@ChaseKiwi @JArthur1984 @Vacosea @Chipmunkdavis You all seem to be active on this article, so I will ping you if you don't mind. Additionally, the reference for that paragraph was from a Filipino research group's YouTube video so I'm not sure how NPOV/unbiased it is. Alexysun (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably related to the preceding two sections. Given this is the third section perhaps the drastic "last clean diff" approach is needed. Finding a way to incorporate later edits is slightly hampered by the copyright suppression unfortunately. CMD (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have temporarily reverted Alexysun's brave try - his reference was incomplete but is good independent verifiable source and as issue raised in talk best as CMD suggests that we revert to Vacosea's last edit until reasonable consensus (by others than me) on way forward with this paragraph. ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The reversion also deals with copyright issue as someone might just come along and remove the long quote and block access to the edit change. I have given original source below in a full reference so consensus way forward still possible if the copyright bot triggers. ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize; I am not well-versed in the copyright regulations pertaining to academic papers. Alexysun (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither am I as its complex. See WP:C, fair dealing, fair use and fair dealing in United Kingdom law. Your use in talk page is even different in UK law to use in the article I suspect. Best to paraphase where possible opinions and keep quotations short in articles. Possibly I am overreacting as the copyright reversions done recently to this and other articles by a bulk copier wasted lots of good intentioned editors time recently.ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I am only interested in the POV issues that were first drawn to my attentions when I tried to rationalise a map over articles. I think the recent removal of the 1947 Handbook reference is wrong and likely introduced a new POV issue. There were changed circumstances in China between 1943 and 1947.

The article had read as of 04:53, 26 July 2024 edit:

China again changed its position and published in 1947 the "1947 China Handbook", where it claimed that its southernmost territory was the Spratly Islands. This was the first time in history that China claimed the Spratlys. Under the new handbook, China also admitted on record that the Philippines and Indochina also claimed the territory, effectively making China's claim as "defective" under international law.

Much of this paragraph might be editorialising, possibly from a propaganda video which I am not going to verify myself. If a claim has been found defective under international law I note such can be directly sourced. The 1947 China Handbook likely exists. The revision as of 06:48, 30 July 2024 contains quite a long quote and might be better put in someone's own words to minimise potential copyright issues. So the recent rewrite of this paragraph might have better read:

The Chinese position changed in the "1947 China Handbook", where it claimed that its southernmost territory was the Spratly Islands. Under the new handbook, China also placed on record that the Philippines and Indochina also claimed the territory. Daniel J. Dzurek in his paper "The Spratly Islands Dispute: Who’s On First?" mentions that China had interests in the Spratly Islands earlier in the 20th century. Chinese fishermen and naval patrols were active in the area and a map was published in the 1930s by the Republic of China that showed the Spratlys as part of Chinese territory"

I draw to your attention as someone more interested in history than I am, that two Qing dynasty maps are held in USA Library of Congress. They both are catalogued as having being created from original 1767 work. An 1811 version Chinese language title has been translated as "The great Qing Dynasty's complete map of all under heaven" and this map has labelled detail on many of the islands. A later version has been translated as "Complete geographical map of the great Qing Dynasty, Complete and general map of everlasting China" Further interpretation of the significance of these maps is not for Wikpedia but the USA Library of Congress catalogue entry itself is unlikely to have major POV issues. Any interpretation of the significance of these maps should come from at least verifiable secondary sources. ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't able to locate the "1947" China Handbook. The Republic of China (ROC) published one that covered the Second Sino-Japanese War between 1937 and 1945. The People's Republic of China (PRC) after it won the civil war publishd another handbook I believe in the 1950s. I doubt there would be a 1947 version specifically, and some of the Filipino articles' claim that Beijing (by which I assume they mean the PRC) revised things in 1947 raises many questions because the PRC did not control China yet while the ROC was still holding onto Nanking as its capital. Statements should be phrased as coming from Filipino sources such as Antonio Carpio and not directedly cite any handbook that cannot be verified. Vacosea (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No its real - a 1947 edition exists - see China Handbook 1937–1945, New Edition with 1946 Supplement. Compiled by Chinese Ministry of Information. New York: Macmillan Co.; 1947. Pp. xvi, 844. at Cambridge core : search China Handbook 1947 ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That should be the one then. It still has 1937–1945 in the title but was supplemented in 1946 and published in 1947. Vacosea (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Lead is becoming excessive, needs trimming

The two paragraphs starting from "A 1970s memorandum..." and ending at "(FONOP) in the region" are pretty much not covered elsewhere (aside from the US conducting freedom of navigation operations). This is against a tenet in the MOS:LEAD policy which says: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It also says that "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". So I propose incorporating the aforementioned two paragraphs into other sections of the article. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree and the first 4 paragraphs are better composed. Your challenge is not to lose useful hard information that could be best mentioned early in article before you get to the history section such as more on the sovereignty claims, the current actual outposts and the island building. But some of this detail, especially on strategies and island building is best later in article.

This article still after over a month since 17th June and there about events has not had corrected the Tønnesson 2006 reference error so continues to need lots of work as getting a clean diff was inpractical. Best wishes. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice to know we agree. I'm thinking the "1970s memorandum..." paragraph can be moved to the History section while the "salami slicing"/"cabbage wrapping" sentence can be split & individually attributed to be placed in the 'Analysis' subsection of 'Non-claimant views'. As for "France and the United Kingdom have conducted freedom of navigation operations", this is not supported by the cited reference; so we can either modify it to just the US conducting FONOP or delete the whole sentence from the lead? I'm fine either way.

Ah yes, that Tønnesson ref. The full name of the reference appears to be 'The South China Sea in the Age of European Decline' by 'Stein Tonnesson'. I think it was added by editor 'Neko-chan' as shown here. If a url of the source is not readily available to verify material I would just prefer deleting the ref...but I have no problem if you wanna keep it. Best wishes to you too (glad to have a civil discussion with an editor for once, as my recent encounters with a few others on this site have been remarkably disappointing). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on the source you are looking for there: See Tønnesson, Stein (2006). "The South China Sea in the Age of European Decline". Modern Asian Studies. 40 (1). Cambridge University Press: 1–57. ISSN 0026-749X – via Jstor. I'll replace the citation in the article with that aourcing information. I wasn't able to get online access to attempt verification, but it ought to be available online to an academic or a university student or generally available at a library. I'm located on an island in the Philippines and have no library available. I oppose yourr suggestion that the cite be removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Tonnesson is available to me via this link -does it work ? If so I will tell you how I find such, as its trivial and allowed at least on the island I am on. ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

PS the link if it works might expire so save the pdf as its might be related to my research status and articles publisher or be geofenced in which case it will not work for you ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Try Google Scholar and see if link shown for yourself. Remember Google Scholar can be gamed just like wikpedia. ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I'm perfectly fine with keeping the Tonnesson reference—especially now that an open-access version of it's been found by ChaseKiwi. The question is does it support the statements it is cited to, like "The southernmost territory that China previously claimed was Hainan", "China did not protest the claim of France over the Spratlys, as it never claimed the Spratly as part of its sovereign territory" or "actual sovereignty [of the Paracel and Spratlys] was under the American territory of the Philippines"?

Page 3 of Tonnesson's paper says "In the 1910s–20s, the French Ministry of Colonies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs more or less agreed that the Paracel Islands were under Chinese sovereignty, and that France should not try to claim them either on behalf of itself or Annam." Page 7 says "Chiang Kai-shek’s Chinese government, or the government of Guangdong province, was also later said to have protested the French occupation [of Spratly Island], but the French Foreign Ministry did not register any such protest." Page 21 says "However, although the US Navy had itself displayed an active interest in the Spratlys, it did not seem to encourage the Philippines to assert itself in this island group. Not all Filipinos were enthusiastic." Page 22 says "A French report said the Philippine government had rejected a proposal from the Ministry of War to occupy the Spratlys, but that Quirino was harbouring the idea of buying the Spratlys from Chiang Kai-shek for money." It all seems to contradict the statements above and a lot of what's currently in the article. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am glad link worked as in due course identifying and acting on such misquotes, which is not a trivial task, especially when sources are in paper or behind paywalls, will benefit the greater wikipedia community ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)