Talk:Second Thomas Shoal

Second Thomas Shoal laser incident

Shouldn't the Second Thomas Shoal laser incident be mentioned in this article (if only briefly)?? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Why Is It Disputed?

And by why I mean what's the REAL reason there is a dispute? Strategic? Economic? If one side (or the other) "wins", then what happens? Also the Lede says it's disputed by "several nations", but only mentions China and the Philippines? Who else? And why? Here because of recent water cannon incident, and the Article seems very deficient in any real details.2603:8081:3A00:30DF:19BE:D09C:B6AA:5F75 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Terminology: West Philippine Sea vs. South China Sea

Here, I have reverted two anonymous edits [<> here]. The anonymous editor says, 'Since the Ayungin Shoal is located in the Philippines waters then the peculiar terminology used by Philippine government should be correct. It is located in the West Philippine Sea because it is part of the Philippines - Philippine territory uses Philippine terminology". I disagree. The article says, "It is a disputed territory and claimed by several nations.3", so the assertiom that it is located in Philippine waters is clearly WP:POV. Also, the designation, West Philippine Sea is peculiar to the Philippine government, referring to the part of the South China Sea that is covered by the Philippines EEZ, and including waters that may be in the EEZs of other nations. I have invited the IP editor involved to discuss this here. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Here I reverted another edit changing the SCS term to WPS. That reversion was unreverted here, saying The Philippine Maritime Administration which administers the shoal's waters and provides UNCLOS navigation of the waters around the shoal, identifies it as part of the West Philippine Sea. I have undone that unreverrsion, and this begins a WP:BRD discussion re the use of the WPS term vs. the SCS term.

The WPS article mentions, "The term West Philippine Sea has sometimes been incorrectly used to refer to the whole of the South China Sea.", citing a source reporting that the Philippine government's chief presidential legal counsel was apparently confused about that. WP should not spread that confusion. Also, the assertion that the shoal and the waters around it are under the administration of the Philippine government is not WP:NPOV. This article explains that, besides the Philippines, the shoal is claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam; those countries probably do not share that viewpoint. I'll not belabor it further but, as I said in the edit summary of my initial revert, the term West Philippine Sea is peculiar to the Philippine government. The NPOV term to use here is South China Sea. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell another user, @Aeonx:, added the term in the infobox which I reverted. There is no site-wide consensus on English Wikipedia to permit the use of "West Philippine Sea" in the Philippine geography-related articles. Such suggestion needs serious discussion, like some Wikipedia:Requests for comment forum. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a presumed consensus since it is simply factual. The West Philippine Sea exists, by virtue of law, and it's widely accepted and used across the world, especially in English speaking countries. If we were on the Chinese Wikipedia it's a different story with massive NPOV issues - seriously go check it out.

For here howeve, we shouldn't need to seek a specific consensual, instead there should only be an argument IF the presumed consensus is questioned. Is that what you are doing? If so, I think the onus is on you to raise the RfC. Aeonx (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aeonx can you site the sources and outlets "used across the world, especially in English-speaking countries"? From the cleanup edits made by Wtmitchell (for this article) and ChaseKiwi (for Kalayaan, Palawan), it does appear that there is no established consensus in using WPS in geographic articles, let alone as the only location identifier. Only an RfC will change that, and that RfC should be started by an uninvolved user, IMO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As said any change requires serious discussion and a new consensus of how to use WPS without ambiguity in Phillipines orientated articles, which are not just read by Filipinos or those familiar with the relatively new term. I personally have no issue if every use in a geographical sense is consistent with the observation that the term WPS is not defined in international maritime law and it did not even reach the stalled 4th IHO 2002 draft.(IHO draft 4th edition) ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@ChaseKiwi@Wtmitchell how about the phrasing at Balabac Island? Is it OK or needs some rephrasing? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok by me. There is no POV at all and it certainly helps that no other state claims the island. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Me too. I tweaked some nearby phrasing there before seeing this ([1]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes your tweak showed how careful you have to be with POV when there are conflicting names associated with these claims ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

But also, the contention may spillover into the acceptable first-mentioned name in the lead paragraph. "Second Thomas Shoal" should be the first name to be mentioned; I reverted an edit that appears to push for pro-Chinese name narrative, made by an IP editor apparently based in Singapore (as per their IP contributions page). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Dates

I just noted that article needs a bit of MOS:DATEUNIFY. Not willing to be brave but there seems a logical solution consistent with present occupying culture. ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)