User talk:Scorpion prinz/Archive 07

Username change

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Scorpion_prinz.-- Namayan (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ph seal cavite general trias.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal cavite general trias.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ph Territorial Map.png

20°N 118°E

20°N 127°E

4°45'N 127°E

4°45'N 119°35'E

7°40'N 119°35'E

4°45'N 116°E

10°N 118°E

I see that you (as User:Scorpion prinz) were the uploader of File:Ph Territorial Map.png. The territorial limits indicated there do not seem to match the territory ceded to the U.S. by Spain (see Article II at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sp1898.asp and the image at right showing the boundary points of the ceded territory), and they certainly don't match the points listed in RA3046 (see http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno3046.html). I wonder what your source of information is for the territorial limits indicated in the image. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive the rough estimation I made on the map, but those laws had already been superseded by the new Baselines law (Republic Act No 9522). Even the U.S. does not recognized that all waters within those points are to be considered Philippine territory, but merely a indication that the islands within those points are the ones ceded by Spain to the U.S. The Sulu Sea boundaries are covered by two treaties between the U.S. (for the Philippines) and the U.K. (for North Borneo), until the 1930s.-- Namayan (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have concerns about WP:OR and WP:V here. I looked at RA9522 (http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno9522.php), and don't see any support for the territorial limits shown in the image. The image appears to me to be based on the territorial limits from Section 2 of the 1898 Treaty of Paris (as shown in the map to the right), with adjustments to the boundary line on the southwest and with the "Kalayyan Islands" area added. Do I have this generally correct? If so, would it be possible for you list supporting sources for the territorial limits or territorial claims shown on the Image description talk page on Commons?

Digging around, I have today come across two papers which may be relevant here:

1. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/20270/Colmenares_Philippine-Territorial-Claims.pdf?sequence=1
2. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/20270/Colmenares_Philippine-Territorial-Claims.pdf?sequence=2

I infer from a look at those papers, particularly the figures at the end, that Mark J. Valencia; East-West Environment and Policy Institute (Honolulu, Hawaii) (1983), Atlas for Marine Policy in Southeast Asian Seas, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-05005-1 {{citation}}: |author2= has generic name (help) might be a good supporting source. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that source.

Thanks for helping address this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to the image talk page on Commons saying that the image seems to agree with info in the scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu item, and that the relevant figures in that item cite the book mentioned above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The one I created (somehow) corresponds to this map (Image 3/14), that is in the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), the which produces the official Philippine maps, but this is now obsolete because of the passage of the new Baselines Law which still incorporates Presidential Decree 1596 that defines the limits of the country's claim to the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal. I do hope there would be someone who could create a newer map with updated limits, plus EEZ, and the additional claim to Benham Rise[1] -- Namayan (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I have echoed it on the image talk page at Commons. I might be able to do that if I had the time, but I don't have any decent image editing software installed on my current computer. I'll put that on my list of things I might think about working on at some point in the future. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead links in article 'Antipolo'

Hi. The article 'Antipolo' has some dead links that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix them?

Dead: http://www.antipolo.gov.ph/economy.php

• You added this in October 2009.
• The bot tested this link on 5 April, 7 April, 9 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: http://www.ops.gov.ph/records/ra_no9232.htm

• You added this in October 2009.
• The bot tested this link on 5 April, 7 April, 9 April and today, but it never worked.
• This copy from the archives might be good.

Dead: http://www.cfcausa.org/pdfs/update/UpdateNov.pdf

• You added this in November 2009.
• The bot tested this link on 5 April, 7 April, 9 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

These links are marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Phil. territorial waters map

Hi Namayan,

I have a question about your beautiful map of Philippine territorial waters (File:Ph Territorial Map.png). What sources did you use for the boundaries between the Philippine exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and Taiwan and Indonesia? I see that on your map the Philippine EEZ is cut off between the Philippines and these countries (not extending over their land territory, as in some maps I've seen). I am currently doing some research about territorial waters and exclusive economic zones in Southeast Asia, and I'm very interested to know where you found the information for these EEZ limits. My research so far has suggested that the Philippines has declared a 200nm EEZ without specifying where it would be cut off when overlapping with any other countries' claims.

Any help on this issue would be great. Thanks!

Evzob (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Evzob, as far as I know Philippine and Indonesian EEZ overlap with each other especially in the area around Palmas Islands, but there had not been any bilateral discussions to determine their extent. Such as the case the northeastern most tip of Philippine EEZ also touches that of Japan's, etc. I've had some materials about these, but I cannot find them as of now. With regard to Taiwan's EEZ, I believe delimiting it with them through a negotiation would be impossible since that has to be coursed with the Chinese government in Beijing. -- Namayan (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. So what I'm wondering is, how did you choose where to draw the lines on the map, if there haven't been any agreements? Evzob (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I just chose the Philippines extent of claim. Though I have to say as in the previous conversation I have here, this is obsolete as the Philippines now follows the New Baseline Law. The quadrilateral demarcation is no longer in use. -- Namayan (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The quadrilateral lines might be of historical interest but, for that, it seems to me that the Treaty of Paris (1898) lines should be shown as well (as I understand it, that would involve drawing some more lines in the southwest corner area and probably changing colors to distinguish the 1898 lines from the 1930 lines in that area). Adding that historical detail to this map would probably be confusing, though.

As a somewhat related point are quadrilateral boundaries of a claim for "Kalayaan Group of Islands" documented anywhere, or has that claim historically been for the island group as a Regime of Islands?

Another point -- while looking at this, I stumbled across this. See Benham Plateau#Philippine claim.

My graphics editing skills aren't up to the creation of a map such as this from scratch, but I could probably do an adequate job of removing the red and orange lines and the related entries in the map legend. Would it be useful for me to take a whack at that? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wtmitchell - The quadrilateral boundaries for the Kalayaan Group are defined in Presidential Decree 1596, which claims the entire area to "belong and be subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines" (including even air space and subsoil). Confusingly, Republic Act 9522 declares that the Kalayaan group is subject to the Regime of Islands, without elaborating. My guess is that they are just using "Regime of Islands" to clarify that it's not part of the straight baselines system surrounding the main archipelago of the Philippines. Evzob (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To my understanding, this should now be construed, just like the explanation I have below, which islands the Philippines claim/consider its territory. -- Namayan (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the baselines law doesn't change the quadrilateral claim for the territorial waters. The baselines are only being used to (1) bound the "internal waters" within the archipelago and (2) define the 200nm limit for the EEZ. The Philippines has no 12nm territorial waters claim, unless it has been made in the last two years and I haven't seen it. See for example this paper [2]. Evzob (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have to correct you with that, the Philippines found no support, even from the US who was the signatory to the Treaty of Paris to its quadrilateral limits. In one of the materials I've encountered about the UNCLOS deliberations, the U.S. rebuffed the Philippines' claim that its territorial seas were defined by the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. position was, the lines drawn by the Treaty of Paris is just to identify the islands that were ceded to them, it doesn't prescribe the country's territorial waters. Hence, Congress was forced to come up with a New Baselines Law, that conforms to the UNCLOS standards. -- Namayan (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the U.S. does not support or recognize the quadrilateral territorial limits. However, that doesn't change the fact the government of the Philippines still claims the those limits. The New Baselines Law, if you are referring to RA 9522, says nothing about territorial waters - it ONLY defines the baselines. The paper I linked to above makes it clear the the new baselines and the quadrilateral territorial waters claim coexist. Evzob (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, [RA 3046, which first defined baselines for the country, explicitly references the treaty limits as defining the territorial waters, and presents the baselines only as enclosing the internal waters. Evzob (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe RA 3046 as amended by RA 5446 was already repealed by RA 9522. It will help you if you would read documents about UNCLOS, and why countries have to docket their territorial limits and submit it before the UN deadline of May 13, 2009. The Philippines as a UN member is obliged to comply with UNCLOS and cannot unilaterally claim areas that should be beyond the jurisdiction of any country.-- Namayan (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about two different things: (1) What is allowed by UNCLOS and (2) What the Philippine government and laws actually say. You're right that the Philippines should be bound by UNCLOS as a signatory - but the fact is that Philippine law and policy don't actually match up with the rules in UNCLOS. The Philippine government even issued a statement when signing UNCLOS, saying that they reserve the right to their "historical" territories (the quadrilateral claim) regardless of what the treaty says. Illegal under international law? Yes, probably. But the fact is that it didn't stop them. Countries can make unilateral claims all they want. What you're talking about is whether those claims are accepted by the international community. And so far, the Philippines has not made any territorial waters claim that has been accepted internationally. Evzob (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, since you mentioned it, RA 9522 doesn't repeal RA 3046 and RA 5446, it only "amend(s) certain provisions", limited only to the coordinates of the baselines. It doesn't amend the territorial claims, and in fact makes a point of affirming all previous laws defining the national territory. Evzob (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Put it this way, our laws including our constitution are just municipal laws and no country would be bound by that except us. This was the purpose of our RA 9522, to define our territory that would be in conformity with international laws so that other countries recognize our territorial limits too. Best you consult this with NAMRIA which is not publishing any more maps with the quadrilateral boundaries. For "historical" territories it's best you check the discussions of the 1986 constitutional commission why this was omitted in the 1987 constitution. -- Namayan (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from. It sounds the current government of the Philippines is walking in a gray area in order to avoid further inflaming international opinions, despite the laws not yet having been changed to fully support the internationally acceptable position. This is similar to how the Republic of China (Taiwan)'s constitution states that it owns all of China and Mongolia, but recent administrations would never actually claim that as a matter of policy. If you're right about this being the case in the Philippines, I think a lot of people would agree with you that the quadrilateral claim is no longer really relevant. However, it still exists in some de jure sense, and we can't use U.S. approval as a criterion for whether to count claims or not - browse the U.S. Department of Defense Maritime Claims Manual, and you'll see that something like half of the world's maritime claims are not recognized by the U.S. Evzob (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not exist in a de jure sense of way as the government has abandoned its position in it. U.S. opinion mattered as the Republic of the Philippines was the successor state of the U.S. The U.S. government was the authority that exercised sovereignty over a territory and this same territory was transferred to the Philippine government. So the Philippines cannot claim what the U.S. did not even transfer to them as this was initially thought to be the case. It's not walking in a gray area, as it has defined its territorial limits in the light of the requirements of the UNCLOS. During UNCLOS deliberations, the Philippines was trying to find support for its quadrilateral maritime boundaries, but maritime states including Australia and practically all thumbed down the Philippine position.

Let's say the Philippines claimed Guam and Northern Marianas and defined it in its territory using historical rights as basis, would the U.S. be obliged to transfer them to the Philippines just because our laws defined it? No foreign country can be obliged by the law of another country, unless they are in agreement with it. I'm sure you can consult a lawyer about this who knows international law. I just do not see any reason why one would have to be adamant in his opinion, when it is contrary to jurisprudence which is factual. -- Namayan (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say they "can't claim" it - "claim" just means they say it, not that they have achieved it. Something like half of the world's maritime claims are not accepted by the rest of the world. You're right that they don't have effective jurisdiction over those areas, but that doesn't mean they don't claim that they should. And the fact still remains that none of the Philippine laws define the country's territorial waters, other than by the quadrilateral boundaries. The straight baselines law is rather clear that it is defining baselines only, while implying that the original territorial waters claim still stands (again, as a claim, not as a fait accompli). I understand that you're talking about what is actually internationally accepted, but if that's our only criteria for discussing territorial waters, then we're not talking about claims at all. As I'm sure you know, China claims a U-shaped dotted line around nearly the entire South China / West Philippine Sea, but that in no way implies that any other country in the world accepts, respects, or is actually subject to that claim. Evzob (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Truth of the matter is, the Philippines does not anymore claim the quadrilateral maritime boundaries. Best consult NAMRIA or a legal opinion on international law on the Philippine position to provide an official position and not jump into any assumption. -- Namayan (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(commenting from the sidelines) I'm not a lawyer, but my reading about this leads me to disagree. See Bautista, Lowell B. (2011). "PHILIPPINE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES: INTERNAL TENSIONS, COLONIAL BAGGAGE, AMBIVALENT CONFORMITY" (PDF). JATI - Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 16: 35–53. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (particularly Figure 2 on page 6 of the PDF). See also this declaration of understanding made by the RP upon signing the UNCLOS (10 December 1982) and confirmed upon ratification (8 May 1984). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Too bad these were all before the adoption of the new baselines law in 2009. -- Namayan (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bautista paper is from 2011. Have you read the new baselines law? Where does it say it repeals the quadrilateral territorial claim (which was NOT based on baselines in the first place)? Evzob (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the quadrilateral territorial claim has its roots in the geographical description in article III of the 1898 Treaty of Paris[3]. That article says. "Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line: ..." (emphasis added), as clarified by the Treaty of Washington (1900) ceding islands lying outside of the geographical area so described (notably Cagayan Sulu and Sibutu), and as further clarified in a 1930 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain which agreed on the exact location of "the line separating the islands belonging to the Philippine Archipeligo on the one hand and the islands belonging to the State of North Borneo which is under British protection on the other hand"[4]. The 2011 Bautista paper asserts, however, that the position of the RP govt is that all the waters embraced within the imaginary lines of the geographical description (as amended, AFAICT) are RP territorial waters. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The RP claim is discussed at more length in another Bautista paper at Bautista, Lowell B. "The Historical Context and Legal Basis of thePhilippine Treaty Limits". Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 10 (1). uow.academia.edu. {{cite journal}}: External link in |publisher= (help), particularly p.25, which quotes from and cites Document:A/CN.4/99 and Add.1-9 : Comments by Governments on the Provisional Articles Concerning the Regime of the High Seas and the Draft Articles on the Regime of the Territorial Sea adopted by the International Law Commission at its Seventh Session : Topic: Law of the sea - régime of the high seas (PDF). untreaty.un.org. pp. 69–70. The Philippine Government considers the limitation of its territorial sea as referring to those waters within the recognized treaty limits, and for this reason it takes the view that the breadth of the territorial sea may extend beyond twelve miles. It may therefore be necessary to make exceptions, upon historical grounds, by means of treaties or conventions between States. It would seem also that the rule prescribing the limits of the territorial sea has been based largely on the continental nature of a coastal State. The Philippine Government is of the opinion that certain provisions should be made taking into account the archipelagic nature of certain States like the Philippines {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); External link in |publisher= (help) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ph seal cavite amadeo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal cavite amadeo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ph seal cavite maragondon.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal cavite maragondon.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ph seal cavite maragondon.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal cavite maragondon.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ph seal cavite maragondon.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal cavite maragondon.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank

I would appreciate it if you read first Macclesfield Bank before reverting my inclusions of the Bank in PH territorial disputes. I placed citations that would prove such claim. Unless you can find sources that tell otherwise, PH claims the Bank, with other countries claiming it as well. Xeltran (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not in the official list of territories being claimed by the Philippines as per the New Baseline law. It is outside the Philippines' EEZ, not even part of the continental shelf, not even within the areas enclosed by the presidential decree that claimed Kalayaan Islands. -- Namayan (talk)

My citations are dated long after the Baselines Law was passed and forwarded to the UN. Do take note that the passing of the Baselines Law does not limit the PH to claim other territories outside of its delineated territory lines (EEZ, continental shelf, etc.). See Benham Plateau for a similar argument used by the PH government to the UN. Besides, my citation that stated that M. Bank was being claimed by the Philippines was posted on June 25, 2012. If Inquirer (for being a widely circulated paper as it is) was wrong in publishing that the PH claims M. Bank, the DFA would have already corrected them by now. Xeltran (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

However, it's not reflected in the official position of the Philippine government, nor the DFA. Otherwise, we could just write Guam and Northern Marianas, Palau there as these had been parts of the Philippines before. I had to personally check that, though that is original research, but that qualifies as a matter of fact. -- Namayan (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably part of their policy of deliberate ambiguity. The Sabah claim has long been dormant, but you've never heard the DFA say that the claim has been withdrawn. The Baselines Law excludes mention of Sabah as a claimed territory as well, but no pronouncement has been made that the PH will not anymore pursue such claim in the future. Guam, Northern Marianas, and Palau are different since they're either part of another state or are now sovereign states themselves. That being said, if they used to be part of the PH, well they're not today, and placing them in a section for territorial disputes is not factual at all. Original research or not, the Inquirer is a recognized newspaper. Like I said, if they have been wrong in saying that M. Bank is not being claimed by the PH, they would have already been corrected the minute they published such. Should a clear, unambiguous announcement be made that the PH does not claim the Bank, then we can just remove it from the template. But no, PH claims the Bank as part of Zambales, so I believe it should stay there. Xeltran (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You have your points right. But there's no official position claiming it, nor a citation in deliberations of the Constitutional Convention which had dropped of historical rights as part of Philippine territory, but it recognizes the principles of international law how a state acquires territory. Sabah has long been under a dormant claim, nevertheless it is being claimed and there are official government papers attesting to that. For Macclesfield Bank, unfortunately a citation in the Inquirer does not make it the Bible truth. -- Namayan (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you weren't convinced of the claim since only one paper published it. I found another reference from a non-claimant party here. It was published in 2005 by the State Department of the US no less. ABS-CBN also published such claim days ago; read here. Again, the PH has made no pronouncement that its withdrawing its claim to the Bank. You can't interpret one law to be the be-all and end-all of all territorial claims by a sovereign state. The Baselines Law after all is just one law; you use many laws/treatises/etc. to prove your claim to other countries. Again, the burden of proof is on you. I've presented citations already. How many references do you want me to present before we get accused of citespamming? Xeltran (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad you rely on these sources that are outside the position of the government. It hasn't claimed these sea formation which is much closer to the Paracels. So, is the DFA wrong in saying that it's not claiming the territory? Best you drop by the agency. -- Namayan (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Which government position? Have you found a source yet that says the government does not claim the Bank? They are all reliable sources. Perhaps you're just too keen on looking for state documents that ordinary citizens are not privy to. Don't interpret one law by yourself. The DFA didn't say, "Hey, we're not claiming that Bank, Inquirer, ABS-CBN, and the US State Department! So please remove them from your published article!" You've yet to prove that my sources are not reliable, are products of original research, or are downright false. C'mon, I'm waiting. Xeltran (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, it is downright factual that it didn't register Macclesfield Bank even as a regime of islands in the New Baselines Law that it registered with the U.N. Can that be interpreted further? -- Namayan (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's because the legislators do not think the Bank fits into the definition of "regime of islands" of the UN. Again, don't interpret law provisions on your own. The Baselines Law is not the only law that the PH government bases its territorial claims on. You're accusing me of relying on third-party sources and not on first-hand government papers. Where do you think the US State Department, ABS-CBN, and the Inquirer based their articles? Are you telling me that what they've posted are all lies? All the citations I've given are reliable sources as per WP; you're the one making them look like they're not. How would interpret the statement, "The Philippines administers Macclesfield Bank through the provincial government of Zambales," as something else? These news agencies would have already been given a slap on the wrist if what they published were contrary to official gov't. claims. Are you expecting the DFA to tell the whole world today that the PH is claiming the bank while it is still embroiled in the S. Shoal issue and risk another heated confrontation with other claimants? It's called policy of deliberate ambiguity. And no, under WP:VERIFY, one does not actually need to go to one physical agency just to verify passages lifted from reliable sources. A laughable suggestion indeed. Xeltran (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently because, as a signatory of UNCLOS, we have obligations to fulfill and comply in international. Who else, but the government of the Philippines has the right to say it claims a territory? No where in the deliberations of the 1986 ConCom and the Baselines Law did Macclesfield come up, which means to say, that all 300 or so members of Congress + their staff + consultants of the committees, including the DFA are inutile? -- Namayan (talk)

Again, the Baselines Law is just one law. Please don't think that that's the only thing that the PH govt will base its territorial claims on. It's as clear as sky. My reliable source says, "The Philippines administers Macclesfield Bank through the provincial government of Zambales." That's it. Anyone who says otherwise has the burden of proof to provide the citation that what my source says is contrary to the truth. Don't misinterpret that just because the Bank was not mentioned anywhere in the Baselines law means that the PH is dropping its claims on that. Like I said:

• The DFA would have already corrected these agencies by now by telling all of them that what they've posted were untrue.
• It's highly unlikely that they'll post wrong information of that magnitude and risk losing their credibility.
• No official govt statement whatsoever states that the PH is not claiming the bank after these agencies (US State Dept., Inquirer, ABS-CBN, etc.) published such claim.

If you don't have other arguments, I will reinstate the Bank inclusion in the template because the PH claim is verifiable, is derived from reliable secondary sources, and is not a product of original research. Xeltran (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My question wasn't basically answered, so the Philippine government has been wrong in not including the Macclesfield in the Baseline Law and not treating it as a regime of islands either, like what it had done to Scarborough and Kalayaan Islands? Is there any other government or for that matter a news agency that dictates its position? -- Namayan (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Was the Philippine government has been wrong in not including the Macclesfield in the Baseline Law and not treating it as a regime of islands either, like what it had done to Scarborough and Kalayaan Islands? That's not for us to answer, because we don't know how the proceedings went, besides, that's already outside the scope of the issue we have here in WP. We know though that the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality so it should be ok, right? I have a relevant passage in that article to bring up:

The OSG earlier said the petitioners “have misread the law, or worse, have read into the law provisions which are not there.”

This is the main point of my argument about the M. Bank. Just because it wasn't said anywhere there means that the PH govt withdraws its claims on any of its territorial disputes. It wasn't a dictation of any news agency on what the govt position should be. Rather, it was acting as a secondary source on the official position of the PH government. Just think about it, if Inquirer et. al. was wrong in publishing that the PH claims the Bank, the DFA would have already corrected them by now. But no, you haven't seen the DFA telling them otherwise. So why hasn't the DFA released any official government paper that tells the whole world that the PH is claiming the Bank as well? It probably thinks it cannot risk getting into another heated dispute while the Scarborough Shoal issue isn't finished yet. Look what happened when Vietnam passed a new law claiming the territories that China is also claiming.

Just to give you an overview of my references, all of them are reliable secondary sources (since apparently they based their articles on the official government position). As per WP:RS#Reliability_in_specific_contexts:

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

When you start saying that No where in the deliberations of the 1986 ConCom and the Baselines Law did Macclesfield come up... and interpret it as the Philippines is not claiming M. Bank, then that becomes original research...and that is unacceptable as a reference for articles in WP. Xeltran (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it the habit of DFA or any government agency to issue corrections about details of press releases? Unless someone has brought it to their attention.
It is not original research, when going through official references, as I have not seen any official government position or record nor legislation which have already included Macclesfield Bank in its claimed territory. Only in that case I would budge. -- Namayan (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is original research, when going through official references and interpreting it for something else. Government papers are primary sources, and it is dangerous to interpret them on your own without having supporting secondary sources (as I had just explained as per WP:RS). It seems like you're just basing your arguments on one source and that the Baselines Law of 2009 did not mention the Bank at all. Just because you did not find any mention of the Bank in one law means it's not being claimed by the govt at all. You're accusing Inquirer, et al as liars. I'd find it highly unlikely that the DFA is not aware of the content that was published in these nationally circulated and worldwide accessible articles of Inquirer, et al., especially for issues of this magnitude. I'd find it even more preposterous for the US State Department to publish information that was unverified at all. The DFA is just probably too smart to know which fights it wants to start, just like what it did in the middle of the Syria massacre that's why you never see them posting a paper that says it's claiming the Bank in the midst of the Shoal issue.

It's ok if you won't budge; I won't either. ;) Unless I see a reference that unambiguously states that the PH does not claim the Bank, then I will concur with the removal of the Bank from the list of PH territory disputes. There are always other ways to break an impasse in WP afterall. Perhaps you want to bring this up to the Tambayan so other people can contribute their ideas to the issue at hand. Xeltran (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's you who's implying I am saying that the new organizations are lying, it would be fair to say they may be wrong in their reports, which is something probable, and no news organization would will never make a mistake. Why would the DFA say it's not claiming Macclesfield, when it won't say it's not claiming Hainan or the Paracel Islands? Try to get information from them, that would help, because there's no reliable information except a government position in a matter of the state. I have brought the topic before the Tambayan, FYI. -- Namayan (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have already pointed out my main arguments in the Tambayan. Ok, let's give the benefit of the doubt, that Inquirer, et al may be wrong in their reports. But have you heard/read/seen the DFA tell people that the government is not claiming it after it was published in Inquirer, et al? The US State Dept. has stated that the Bank is being claimed by multiple countries, the PH included, in 2005. You haven't heard/read/seen the DFA say that the State Dept. was wrong in their report. Besides, do you think the US would publish unverified official reports that would endanger their relations with the claimants? The Baselines Law of 2009 was silent on the issue of the Bank. It's not right to immediately interpret it that the PH govt is not claiming the Bank because it's only one law and that one law is not the sole basis for resolving territorial disputes. The fact is, there are reliable sources out there to substantiate that the PH is claiming the Bank. You can't say these sources are untrue/false since they all pass WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Why DFA chooses to keep silent is beyond us. Stop looking for sources that are not available when there are other sources that will prove the same. Xeltran (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As I stressed there's a missing link. That you have to provide. -- Namayan (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You're looking for a source that does not exist or cannot be found. I, meanwhile, have proven that my sources pass WP standards as far as the article is concerned. One verifiable and reliable source is enough to substantiate that such claim by the PH government exists. Good luck looking for that government paper you are earnestly seeking. Xeltran (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeking anything, because I had the chance to talk with people at the Carlos P. Romulo Library at the DFA. Macclesfield Bank claim is apparently unknown of. -- Namayan (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell the whole world who will read that article that you've been to the DFA, apparently talked with their staff, and tell everyone that the claim does not exist? That is downright original research. No one else can verify that you had that conversation. Meanwhile, the online sources that I presented can be verified by anyone who follows that link. Xeltran (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I do extensive research for Wikipedia content. All Legislative districts of the Philippines from Malolos Republic to the First Philippine Assembly were done by me, by going to the Congressional Library at the House of Representatives. That backs up the work I do if something interests me on. How can a reference showing the government of the Republic of the Philippines be provided or published when the claim does not even exist? -- Namayan (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that the Inquirer piece about the Bank claim is false just because you can't find a source from the government to prove the same? How many sources will it take to convince you? I've presented 4 separate article from different agencies/bodies. Those are more than enough actually. Online verifiable and reliable sources are no different from books in a library. In fact, these sources can be verified instantly unlike physical books. You're ignoring the content of Inquirer, et al just because you can't find the source you're looking for. If such claim doesn't exist, do you think Inquirer, et al would have published them in the first place? I've presented that thought for you to ponder a number of times already. Xeltran (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How can it be conceived that such a territory is being claimed by the Philippines, when Philippine territory is based on:

• The territory ceded by Spain to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898.
• Treaty in Washington between Spain and the United States on November 7, 1900 .
• Treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain on January 2, 1930 (covering islands off Northern Borneo)
• RA 3046, the original Baselines Law.
• RA 5446, corrected typographical errors in RA 3046, where it reserved without prejudice the delineation of baselines in North Borneo.
• PD 1596, covering the Kalayaan Group of Islands.
• PD 1599, defining the EEZ of the Philippines
• RA 9522, new Baseline Law.
• Plus other international agreements/entitlements that the Philippines is a party to like UNCLOS, which gave the countries the right to an EEZ and extended continental shelf (Benham Rise).

Please guide me, if any of these would encompass Macclesfield Bank?-- Namayan (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You're committing original research yet again. You're not an expert on the subject. Are you sure you've listed everything that will form the basis of the claims of the PH government on its territorial disputes? Inquirer, et al is more credible than someone who collates a number of laws, reads them, and forms his own conclusions. Try harder, because you've yet to disprove that what Inquirer, et al posted are untrue.

You're in a similar situation as to what the Solicitor-General said:

The OSG earlier said the petitioners “have misread the law, or worse, have read into the law provisions which are not there.” (Emphasis added.)

Xeltran (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get an answer again. How can it be deduced from these legal documents that such a territory is claimed? -- Namayan (talk)

Are you even sure that all the documents you've looked on are the only basis for the claim? You shouldn't act like an authority of the subject you're not an expert of. Inquirer, et al are recognized reliable references. You should email them if you want to ask where they got their source for the claim, since you are persistent on searching for government papers that you do not have access to. Prove that what Inquirer, et al published are false. Until then, there are sources that tell us that PH claims the Bank. I do not have the burden of proof of looking for sources since what I have are already sufficient as per Wikipedia policy. Xeltran (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't need to. I done my part of inquiring at the Carlos P. Romulo Library at the DFA. Why would a document "not claiming" Macclesfield exist, when the Philippines doesn't claim it? -- Namayan (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have an article from a reliable source that says otherwise. I don't care if you've been to the DFA or not, because that's not verifiable at all. It's simple really. I have a source that says PH claims the Bank. Now if you're contesting that, prove that the article is false. You're the one insisting that the claim is non-existent afterall. Can you prove that the article in Inquirer, et al is not true? Because if you can, show me a source that says Inquirer, et al was wrong in posting that information. Xeltran (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the Inquirer the official arm of the State that can indicate a state policy? Apparently this topic requires a source from the government. -- Namayan (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:VERIFY do not require such. You're interpreting things on your own. Do not removed clearly referenced statements on the M. Bank article. That's disruptive editing. Xeltran (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the duty of every contributor to make sure that Wikipedia articles are accurate at least. Shall I say, that Inquirer's article is being interpreted as official state position? -- Namayan (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You should read the Inquirer article and lift information from it for inclusion in Wikipedia. Inquirer, et al are reliable and verifiable sources that passes WP policy. Of course, whatever posted in a reference of such caliber should be taken as truth until one can present solid proof that what Inquirer, et al posted are not true or biased. Who are we to say what the official government position is or not? Are you accusing Inquirer, et al of posting wrong information? Because you just attempted to remove a clearly referenced claim at the M. Bank article. If you think Inquirer, et al are not reliable at all, present something that says Inquirer, et al retracted their statement about the claim. Xeltran (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I still have to believe that Inquirer reflects official Philippine government position. -- Namayan (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No one's forcing you to. You just have to convince the rest of us who reads the article that what Inquirer posted is not true. Afterall, I still see that you can't prove that Inquirer, et al are not reliable sources. Xeltran (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove perfectly attributable information in the related articles like you've done here and here. As per Wikipedia:Citing sources, I have provided the references necessary to support that claim. If you're not convinced that what Inquirer, et al publishes are true, then by all means prove that their credibility is questionable. And no, referring to only one source (like the UN website) and come to the conclusion that just because the Bank wasn't mentioned there, means that there's no PH claim to the Bank, when I have provided reliable sources to prove otherwise. Xeltran (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please back it up with references that will reflect the accuracy of the news articles. -- Namayan (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There were 4 sources that I presented. Assuming that these unrelated news agencies have irresponsibly posted something false in downright wrong. Xeltran (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Do these 4 references, represent an official pronouncement for the Philippine government? Because I have supplied all laws relating to Philippine territory/claims and the Philippine government submission to the repository of demarcations and limitations of the nation's territory. -- Namayan (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you've presented ALL basis that will be used to back up a claim? Historical titles, continued territorial control, etc. are used as well. That's original research for the nth time. Are you assuming these agencies will post false information? Just because you can't find the primary source means that it's not true. You haven't proven that what the article says is false, non-factual, non-reliable, poorly researched, etc. Xeltran (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What can be original research with official public documents? Again, for the nth time, do not insinuate these information are false, because there's a great difference between false and inaccuracy. -- Namayan (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:OR? It happens when you read primary sources with no backing of a secondary source and interpreting it at face value when editing Wikipedia. Prove that the sources are false (or inaccurate for that matter) because I have mine to back up the claim (4 and counting). Xeltran (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not my fault, if the information being suggested to be represented is not backed up Philippine government information. -- Namayan (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Or you just can't find it. I'm right to assume you don't have access to government files or know how the UN works. Unless you can disprove the credibility of all my 4 sources (and counting), you have never proven that the PH claim doesn't exist. 4 is greater than 1 afterall. Besides, are you sure you've been looking at the right source for information all along? You don't have access to everything that the PH will present to the UN in the first place. Xeltran (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Just churn out a Philippine government position on the matter and that I will rest my case. I will subscribe to that, until then, your 4 references cannot substitute U.N. documents and legislation on Philippine territory. -- Namayan (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to. My sources are reliable and verifiable as per WP:RS and WP:V. WP policy does not require me such. You haven't proven that Inquirer was wrong. So no, the claim stays. Xeltran (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When did these references substitute official state positions? Unless Inquirer runs the government. -- Namayan (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands". Thank you. --Xeltran (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So be it. -- Namayan (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Isabela

I noticed that you changed the political map of Isabela in its wikipedia article. Can you help me find the most accurate map of the province, since there are like 4 versions of it, from different sources. The one you removed is from the Provincial government, so i bet it is the most accurate one and it should just be improved. jmarkfrancia (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it's map accurate, based on the land areas of the municipalities/cities of Isabela. The way the provincial government presented it is disproportionate from the city/municipality's land area, most especially that of Ilagan vis-a-vis Palanan and Divilacan. I am to believe that the land area is official information since IRA is based on it.-- Namayan (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding on the map you put, i believe on its accuracy on the western and central part. But on the coastal areas, i believe more on the government's map. Because as far as i know, Isabela has only 4 coastal municpalities (Divilacan, Palanan, Dinapigue and Maconacon). Ilagan and San Mariano is not a coastal town. But on every map of Isabela presented on other websites like Wikimapia, it says that the two towns also extend on the coastal area. So confusing. jmarkfrancia (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.... See San Mariano, Isabela and Ilagan. See also [5]. See also WP:V, WP:Verifiability, not truth, WP:Truth, not verifiability. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

how about this? [6] You may want to check this also, scroll down on Coastal Development on the bottom, and in Inland Water and Maritime Resources under Resources section. [7]

jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC):::

I do understand we want the best presentation of boundaries, and I have seen that version too, but it seems to be a "unique" map. I have also obtained this image, it's the map of Isabela in a 1959 Philippine Atlas, though the atlas is criticized for its poor cartography it somehow clear how the boundary is projected, also this image from the National Statistical Coordination Board. It can't be zoomed by you can distinctively identify Ilagan there. -- Namayan (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I saw the maps. Since, many sources say that the map of Isabela is the one with 6-towns in the coastal, then it should be the one that will be used in the article. I just wonder why the map on their website is different, is there a possibility that they changed boundaries without announcement or notice? jmarkfrancia (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made some comments on the LGU discussion, I am interested to find a good map to trace to somehow reflect that 3D map.-- Namayan (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, i would love to help also. By the way, i am from Isabela. hehe jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind. :) -- Namayan (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Can you help me create a map of Isabela which reflects the 3D map? jmarkfrancia (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably do so around October, I'm still busy with Wiki Loves Monuments Philippines. I'm in charge of it. -- Namayan (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine with me. hehe. Thank you so much! jmarkfrancia (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Happy New year. :D Is there any update regarding the Isabela map you're doing? jmarkfrancia (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pangasinan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alaminos and Urdaneta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ph seal cavite tanza.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal cavite tanza.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)