Talk:South China Sea Arbitration/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Use of Xinhuanet as a source

I'm going to go through this article and delete all claims for which the only source is Xinhua.net. It's explicitly listed in WP:PUS as a source that needs to be treated with caution, because it's a state-owned media agency that may be considered a propaganda organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Hallquist (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You cannot remove reliable information without discussion. Each source whether it's from China or the U.S. will need to be scrutinized. You cannot delete information from Xinhua.net without explaining your reasoning in details. All your dramatic changes will need to be restored. WP:PUSsays "All mainstream news media can make mistakes", and it doesn't say information Xinhua should be just deleted. Toto11zi (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But the question is whether it's reliable information. There's good reason to think it's not. In at least one case (Fiji), China has been caught claiming support from a nation that doesn't actually support its position. Given the sheer number of citations to Chinese government sources, I think there's serious grounds for questioning whether most of them were added in good faith. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Tell us what's your logic. Have you read the discussion regarding the Fiji case? Are you referring to the joint statement or the statement from Fuji? Again you cannot remove information without discussion, your dramatic changes to the page is just irresponsible way of editing a page. List your facts here and we will scrutinize. Toto11zi (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be best to leave a few reference from Chinese state media, but as the Award ruling is done and this is all part of history, we should treat China sources like Xinhua as WP:FRINGE.--RioHondo (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That Chris Hallquist removed everything from Xinhua.net without discussing or collaborating with other editors is just irresponsible way of editing a page. I would consider that's close to vandalism to the page Toto11zi (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

From WP:VD: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." So no, my edits are nowhere close to vandalism. This is one of many comments you've written on this talk page that suggest you don't actually understand the Wikipedia policies you keep invoking on your side of the argument. If you're really interested in making positive contributions to Wikipedia, rather than just coming up with excuses to insert Chinese propaganda, I suggest you take a little more time to read Wikipedia's policy pages. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You will need to discuss, at least 2 editors including myself don't agree with your unilateral action of removing information from Xinhua.net. Removing information needs discussion and consensus needs to be reached. Toto11zi (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, it is adding disputed content that requires discussion, not removing it. Any editor can remove content if they believe that it is against policy, and the editors who want it to remain must achieve consensus to re-add. I'll also put in my 2-cents that Xinhua, and most other mainland Chinese-owned media outlets, is by and large an unreliable propaganda organization, as stated at WP:PUS. Mamyles (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with some of your statements, but not all. I think the main idea of WP:ONUS is consensus. The information from Xinhua has been on this page for a long time, and editors don't have an issue with Xinhua. Chris has just been become active from a dormant account and done dramatic changes to the page only for that specific purpose. This Chris, not only removed information from Xinhua, but removed all the information from list of following sites, I would consider that's irresponsible way of making edits. Here's what he has deleted:

- Information from China's foreign minister web site "fmprc.gov.cn"

- Information from xinhua web site news.xinhuanet.com

- Information from usa.chinadaily.com.cn

- Information from shanghaidaily.com

- Information from www.globaltimes.cn

- Information from epaper.southcn.com

- Information from english.chinamil.com.cn

- Information from www.chinaembassy.cz

- Infomration from www.reuters.com which relates to information from China's foreign minister

- Information from zm.chineseembassy.org

- Information from english.cri.cn

- Information from sputniknews.com

WP:PUS says all mainstream can media can make mistakes. Specific examples to treat carefully include Xinhua, here you cannot conclude the statement "Xinhua is not reliable". {WP:PUS} does list sources which are not reliable and should not be included in section "Sites that may appear to be reliable sources for Wikipedia, but aren't", also in section "Scholarly journals". Again, this Chris cannot just removed information with a blunt reason like "it's from Xinhua, or it's from China." We should check each source and scrutinize each statement instead, do you agree what I've just said?.Toto11zi (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi: Frankly, every source there except sputnik and reuters receives direction on what to or not to write directly from the Chinese government. They are not reliable sources for any information except citing official Chinese positions. Xinhua is literally an organ of the Chinese government, who imposes a regime of misinformation, censorship and propaganda, and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is a reliable source. Mamyles (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, please read WP:UNCHALLENGED (and perhaps the entirety of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages regarding arguing that material is appropriate because it has been on the page for a long time. Mamyles (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Legobot sent me a notice requesting comment on this topic. I'd never heard of Xinhua, but in reading their Wikipedia article, where it says they are "the official press agency of the People's Republic of China", why would they get a free pass as a reliable source if we widely agree that statements from a COMPANY's press agency (aka PR firm) are not reliable? Compare this to how we would reference a statement from the White House: "In a statement, the White House announced ...etc. etc. ". We wouldn't immediately position the information as factual just because the White House stated it. I think if we use Xinhua content for sourcing, everything should be prefaced with the phrase "Chinese-run media agency Xinhua stated that...etc. etc.", so readers can weigh for themselves the validity of the reported information.Timtempleton (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with your point. Toto11zi (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

While all mainstream media can make mistakes, they are rare. They are still more reliable than Xinhua. Based on what User:Mamyles mention, Chris's reason that "it's from Xinhua" is a good enough reason to remove disputed content. There is no need to elaborate in the edit summary every time; it's a known fact. Regarding the claim that the material is appropriate just because it has been on the page for the long time, by your logic, we should tolerate hoaxes, some of which had been on Wikipedia for a long time or vandalized info (if no one has reverted it in many years). Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to ban information from Xinihua blindly, I don't agree with you. We will need to get more feedback from other editors. Toto11zi (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This Chris lied, he deleted more information than he said, including fmprc.gov.cn. As I said below, facts are transmitted through media and facts may get distorted, here we should concentrate on facts, not media. Toto11zi (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're saying sputnik and reuters are reliable then? Again, your blunt statement doesn't work. As I said, any statements from any media need to be scrutinized. Facts are transmitted through media and facts may get distorted, here we should concentrate on facts, not media. One example is WSJ, I've scrutinized the 4 cases Poland, Fiji, Cambodia, Slovenia reported by WSJ, WSj was just bogus in those 4 cases. So never reject or trust any media blindly, agree? Toto11zi (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Reuters and WSJ are very respected media outlets who known for overall reliability of their coverage.

Chinese media is CCP controlled propaganda and clearly defined in WP:PUS. As a matter of fact WP:PUS uses Chinese media as example to elaborate its points.

You are requested to stop diverting an article discussion from its main topic. Please follow community guidelines and if you disagree with guidelines then discuss that in their relevant pages. Not here. Collagium (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Collagium, which guidelines are you talking about, list here so all editors know what you're talking about? I've already explained WP:PUS, please be very specific.Toto11zi (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Collagium, Seav, and Mamyles:Actually, user:Toto11zi unilaterally added in many countries using Chinese sources despite objections from others. I can clearly see that he/she is not listening to other users and has a decided pro–Chinese bias. I think this discussion is becoming pointless and that user:Toto11zi's method of distraction and question begging replies is because he/she objects to the removal of them, even though the article is more neutral. I think this will go the administrators' noticeboard regarding the user's conduct if this cannot be resolved on the talk page. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ssbbplayer, why are you so eager to solve issue quickly? Can you discuss first so every editor understands the issue first? Again, discuss first, list points, give people time, if the issue can't get resolved, we get comments from other editors including major editors. Here we're talking about removing all information from China or all information related to China, do you agree? Answer this question first. Then people may ask to remove all information from the Philippines, or from the U.S. You think you can decide? Answer first Toto11zi (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be okay if Xinhua and Chinese government-sponsored news agencies could be used as sources. However it should be made clear where exactly the claim of support came from (irregardless whether if the source website comes from China, Philippines or a third party).

Exmamples:

1. Was Xinhua repeating a word-by-word quotation of a country's stance "The Foreign Ministry of Country X released a statement saying "Country X understands China's right to reject participation in the tribunal and calls for bilateral talks between the parties concerned".
2. just a non-quote saying "Country X totally understands China's stance on the position" "Country X, Country Y, and Country Z adds to the growing list of countries supporting China" without mentioning a direct quote from a representative of a third-country.
3. The named legal person who expressed the support (Ambassador to China/Philippines, Foreign Ministry, Head of State (e.g. then Philippine President claims that Italy supports the Philippines use of the arbitration case in resolving dispute, no direct word from the Italian counterpart retrieved). Limit to Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers and Head of States only.
4. Sometimes it was only the headline that implies explicit support, true for some sources supporting China or Philippines.

In my opinion by stating clearly the source, readers could discern which countries has expressed a stance themselves and countries that may have just been claimed by either the Philippines, China or their respective medias to hold a particular stance. It is up to the readers whether to take sources as propaganda or not.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Hariboneagle927 and respect Hariboneagle927. We cannot ban sites including China's foreign minister web site or deleted information blindly like this Chris Hallquist did. Toto11zi (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Chinese government sources were and are never "banned". They just cannot be used as a citation for any material stated as fact (except official Chinese positions), and therefore are not a useful source for much of anything. Mamyles (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927 Including unreliable sources (without identifying them in the main text, as in "China's foreign minister claimed...") on the grounds that readers could look at the references section and notice the sources are questionable is not remotely how WP:V works. Chris Hallquist (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Hallquist, sorry If I didn't made it clear, but I am proposing a complete overhaul to the country list to explicitly list the direct sources in the main text. I am yet to come up with an approach to do this with caution to avoid the issue of WP:QUOTEFARM. I am aware that I was the one that originally come up with the listing format (instead of the traditional reactions listing by country which often has WP:QUOTEFARM issues) but I agree that a plain listing of countries is insufficient and without context. (One can't determined which of these countries has issued statements or it is just China, Philippines or the multinational organizations there are members of, are saying that they hold a particular stance). Because as it stands, at first glance we don't know if its an official statement, claim by either of the two countries involved, who made that particular statement (is it the ambassador to China/Philippines of that particular country, the head of state, the third-party foreign ministry; because arguably each potential source had different weight. Its different if its the head of state of a particular country issuing both a verbal and written statement expressing a stance than the foreign ministry just issuing a paragraph of text on its website).02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Hariboneagle927 (talk)

@Hariboneagle927 Ah, I should have read more carefully. I think something like that approach could work in theory, though it will be hard to get any kind of consensus on until some of the more fundamental issues with this page have been worked out. Chris Hallquist (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What if we make two separate list of countries at the moment, one for official statements (made by the countries representatives themselves and not relayed by Chinese or Philippine sources, e.g. the Chinese Foreign ministry said that Country X supports China.) and another for countries that China claims to support them through Xinhua, Chinese Foreign Ministry (etc.) (aka the 40-70 countries they claim), irregardless if these claims are true or not. Paragraphs below can explain countries that have either distanced, denied or retracted support for China could be elaborated below such list (such as Fiji). Same for Philippines, if they have made claims that country X supports them. This would hopefully resolve the issue and interested readers can get to know which countries are part of the 70 or so countries that China has said supports them. One of the important aspects of this case was the rallying of support "from the international community" by both countries.

The problem is several sources have different versions of this "supporting countries list". Also in addition, I am planning a some maps to show these countries depending on the source (Chinese claims, WSJ, and official statements).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

For example:

Claim of support from Chinese and Philippine sources

Support for the Philippines as claimed by Philippine sources

• Country A
• Country B

and so on

Support for China as claimed by Chinese sources

• Country A
• Country B

and so on

The current country listing is retained but should be limited to third party sources (e.g. from the foreign ministry of the countries concerned). And the stances should truly reflect what the statements says at face value ("preference for bilateral talks", "avoid internationalization", "respect for the Philippines move to seek arbitration', "calls against internationalization", "not taking sides"). We don't want the list to be dumbed down to a China-Philippines (some editors insists including the Western World along the Philippines) dichotomy. NOTE that countries may appear twice in the first proposed list and the second list (especially if the country issued an individual statement)Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the level of detail you propose makes sense. It makes more sense to say things like "China issued a statement claiming over 40 countries support its position" and leave it at that, unless there's an interesting argument we can cover (e.g. "Some Country MP So And So said Some Country supports China, but Some Country's foreign minster later claimed Some Country is neutral.") Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think this proposal works best on a separate article. I am more inclined in separate article for reactions so that facts on the arbitration case are given much focus. In this article we can just put a summary of the reactions like "China issued a statement claiming over 40 countries support its position" plus brief rundown on countries that denied, distanced themselves from the statements.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the proposal that Hariboneagle927 proposed is a promising step. It looks pretty difficult with the simple dichotomy due to how some countries have indicate very vague positions. There are cases where China claims they are supporting them but the country denies the support. I really like how the AMTI tracker source divides the level of support into multiple categories that tend to be more clearer and well defined. I think the dichotomy could be the main reason for the dispute since the addition of 70 countries is based on what China claims although the dichotomy may misinform the reader as showing that country x, did indeed support China when the reality may be different (denies support of China). There is a difference between supporting China fully and one that denies support of China (both of which cannot be done in the current dichotomy). Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

AMTI has been proven to be bogus, Cambodia is a very good example. Please, ATMI has already discussed in section "AMTI source", don't repeat that again. Toto11zi (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Read carefully Toto11zi, Ssbbplayer is suggesting a similar approach to AMTI. He has not commented on the factual accuracy of the source. AMTI also list European Union countries just because the European Union made a statement. There is consensus to exclude countries that didn't made individual stances hence the exclusion of also the SCO and Arab League countries except member countries who made individual stances of their own.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927, first, I agree with your suggestion of creating maps, that's the eventual step, we will need to make sure these 2 lists get stablized before we create maps. By the way, your suggestion of "one for official statements (made by the countries representatives themselves and not relayed by Chinese or Philippine sources, e.g. the Chinese Foreign ministry said that Country X supports China.)" doesn't make much sense, I don't see value in it. You said "another for countries that China claims to support them through Xinhua, Chinese Foreign Ministry", that's our original/current consensus. Fiji is only one special case, there's already verbose description in the main text for the 2 statements. I don't see value in your suggestion of creating mutliple maps depending on different sources, given the fact that in China alone, there're also different sources. I don't agree with you that "The current country listing is retained but should be limited to third party sources", please read our established explicit consensus. As I stated, that's irresponsible and disruptive behavior of Chris Hallquist, have your read the section "Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus"? It's discussed here In general, I think you wanted to more lists than 2, I don't see there's value in creating more than 2. Again, please stick with our established explicit consensus, you cannot change this important consensus that easily. We need to make sure stability is maintained. Toto11zi (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927, note also we have discussed this many times, creating multiple categories doesn't make sense, there's already live AMTI case I rejected long time ago. I don't know why we want to discuss this again. Let's stick with our established explicit consensus. Toto11zi (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927, I'm not sure if you see it clearly, the whole farce is due to Chris Hallquist's lack of understanding of what we were working on, his first action was to delete information when he joined, that's just irresponsible and disruptive, pure violation of Wikipedia policies as I stated. If you check the AMTI page, it's just one category of the countries, and we already rejected that idea including creation of "rejection" category. Let's stick with our established explicit consensus, and his irresponsible edits which violated Wikipedia Policies will be reverted as I stately clearly in section "Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus".Toto11zi (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate, why do you find my suggestions without sense (about the list)? Any comments on the dichotomy? It would be helpful to know your opinion even though I may not agree with it. Because I suggested it because I find China's claim of support important too (and the Philippines) whether true or false. Its illustrates the "diplomacy war" and "propaganda" (meant it in a neutral way although the word propaganda usually has negative connotations) of both countries. Both China and the Philippines wants to say to its citizens that "the world" supports them. However, I also find it important to distinguish which countries released their own statements making a stance (in most cases either affirming or rejecting their support for a particular country).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

For your first suggestion "one for official statements (made by the countries representatives themselves and not relayed by Chinese or Philippine sources, e.g. the Chinese Foreign ministry said that Country X supports China.)", this is one category found on the AMTI page, the current AMTI page format has changed a little bit, basically it's a very small number of countries, let's say 10. But what does it mean? China has already specifically said there're different ways countries expressed their support. This means what's the meaning of creating a table with ~70 countries, then another table with 10 countries? Again even for those 10 countries, their ways of saying are all different. If you want to create this category, then how about other categories? we did that before, something like this, and that's rejected already. The exercise of collecting official statements from other countries regarding the support just doesn't make sense, even for the Philippines' support list, are there official statements from other countries? Like Canada? Germany? Japan? Italy? You name it, you will find difficulty answering right? So let's keep established explicit consensus and improve. Does this answer your question? Toto11zi (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The above editor continually claims "explicit consensus" but when asked to cite it explicitly fails to do so... Hammersbach (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you always disturb? Read this "Newly activated dormant account Chris Hallquist has violated our established explicit consensus" please new comers, respect consensus which has been established before you joined.Toto11zi (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The above editor references a section, that they initiated, that was shut down as off topic. Again, this editor should cease their prevaricating and cite the explicit consensus. Hammersbach (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I ask you to be constructive, AGF. From now on, I won't respond to nonsense, irrelevant comments. Toto11zi (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

All anyone is asking is that above editor stay on topic and answer explicit questions without prevaricating. This seems to be an unusually difficult task for the above editor. Hammersbach (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Replying to Toto11zi, "official statements" are not limited to joint communique or press release. It could come from duly-recognized representative of the country's foreign affairs (the head of state, foreign minister, ambassador of that country assigned to China or Philippines).

For the benefit of the "newcomers" where is this explicit consensus? From the section you dedicate to Hallquist's actions you linked to the section where I propose making a separate article for the international reactions. We disagree on the inclusion of member-states of the Arab League and SCO just because the organization head's said that their member countries support China's stance. What we agreed back then was to gather more opinions regarding the issue on that particular issue or the split. Please, it was never my intention to wait for comments indefinitely we then agreed to wait but not push the issue under the rug never to deal with it ever again. Emphasis on "Then" .Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page consensus has detailed description of this explicit/implicit thing. SCO is fine now, for the Arab League issue, you disagreed, 2 editors agreed, based on the format used on other sites, let's include and use (*) for the remaining countries. What do you think? Our consensus has been that multinational entities are considered as groups, but in this Arab League case, due to way the statement was announced, we should consider those as individual countries, but you disagreed. Toto11zi (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when it comes to this issue, a footnote (*) could be used stating that the Doha Declaration could be mentioned. Soliciting opinion on other editors regarding this proposed solution.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Fiji

For the Fiji case, both statements are listed in the text.

One April 13, 2016, a joint press release by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Fijian Minister for Foreign Affairs Inoke Kubuabola was published. The press release says Fiji supported China’s proposition, both countries agree that for sovereignty and maritime rights, parties should be committed to peaceful settlement and optional exceptions of the Convention should be respected. SOURCE

On the next day, Fijian government issued an statement saying the joint press release incorrectly depicted Fijian policy and the Fijian government does not support China's proposition SOURCE

203.215.121.111 insisted to include Fiji to the newly created category of "Countries that deny China's claim of support" which I opposed. Here we should read the joint press release carefully, and the statement from the Fijian government carefully. First the joint press release was created by both ministers, it's not just China's claim, second, and the Fijian government said the joint press release incorrectly depicted Fijian policy, the main fault would be Fijian Minister since it's joint press, he must have previewed and agreed on the material, so the category "Countries that deny China's claim of support" doesn't fit the Fiji case. Note also "Fiji supports China’s proposition" is a statement in the joint press release, the Fiji government can revise its view, but again, it's not China's claim, it's joint release. If you don't agree, let's discuss Toto11zi (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In the second source, it clearly stated that the media release was issued by the Chinese, not by the Fijian government. I do not see how the main fault would fall on the Fijian Minister. In this case, the fault would be on the one who disseminated the info which would the Chinese media. I think it should be added on to "Countries that deny China's claim of support" since there are contradictions between two sources (one Chinese, one Fijian). Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The point is not about who issued the joint statement, or who disseminated the info, but the joint statement itself which was created by both ministers, do you agree? Your logic doesn't stand. Toto11zi (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Remember that the 2nd source contains some quotes of the statement of the Fijian government, but the source itself is not the statement of Fijian government.Toto11zi (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on your logic, the same can be said for the first source too. If there is no official information from the Fijian government website, it should be deleted too. I found from the CSIS site that Fiji "Publicly Denied China’s Claim of Support". This is inline with the second source and the AMTI source is more reliable than both sources (on it's about us page, it takes no sides). This would clearly indicate Fiji does not explicitly support China. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

First source is not the press release, but it contains the press release. Again, don't waste my time and your time please. Understand what I said first. Toto11zi (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

More analysis for the Fiji's case. Fiji reverted its own word, it could be very likely due to carelessness of the country or prime minister. In the international policy arena, I think Fiji has destroyed its own credibility. A country without credibility is difficult to survive and cannot be trusted. In the following case, from China's government's standpoint, it still considers Fiji as its support country, here's the map. This implies China's government doesn't recognize Fiji's 2nd statement since words are binding in the international policy arena. For our case, we're relying information from both China's government and Philippine government, Fiji will be included in China's support list. Toto11zi (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That rationale is so flawed it's difficult to determine where to begin to refute it. Hammersbach (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I highly doubt that a country would be careless to revert its own word. There is no information from the Philippine government, only the Chinese government so do not be too quick to make a conclusion that Fiji supports China. You said "I think Fiji has destroyed its own credibility" and "A country without credibility is difficult to survive and cannot be trusted". Sorry, but this your opinion and does not warrant a good enough reasoning that Fiji supports China. Countries can change positions over time; does that mean they reverted their own word and lack credibility? Your analysis is flawed. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

A country without credibility is difficult to survive and cannot be trusted. Do you agree? Toto11zi (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think a country that violated international law/legal system, defy international community, ignore international organization, pushing their unilateral agenda, and lied most of the times to their own people and the world by twisting words in govt-controlled news agency is the one that lacking credibility, can not be trusted, had their own integrity and credibility at stake, and more or less; a rogue nation. Toto, most of your opinions and arguments are lamentable, non-objective and full of one-sided agenda. I think you won't be thinking the same if a reverse event took place; a country switching sides to China, I doubt Chinese media will called them "without credibility". Agree to Ssbbplayer, countries' position on certain issues is their rights, and they may changes over times. So Toto keep your flawed opinion for yourself. Thank you very much. Gunkarta  talk  05:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I would ask you to concentrate on content, logic, analysis, be objective, no slogan please. Toto11zi (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Funny how you defuse others argument by using such nice words such as "logic" and "objectivity". While some of your arguments are lack of it. For all I see from all of your comments here, you are hell-bent to forward Chinese govt's agenda. Gunkarta  talk  05:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I would ask editors, please if you want to discuss, please be objective, think before write, write clearly with clarity. Toto11zi (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The above comment, and many of the comments by the editor above, is just reminiscent of tactics like those employed by the 50 Cent Party; divert, delay, obfuscate, anger, engage in endless debate. Pointless really... Hammersbach (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi Why are you teaching me if you are the one who cannot be objective? You clearly are trying to push the Chinese govt's agenda by diversion (you did not try to refute comments related to usage of Chinese sources) and your arguments are easy to refute on that basis. If I did not think, I would had been making ridiculous claims. Your claims that I need to think before I write is contradictory. You should be saying it to yourself, not to me. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Toto11zi insists on applying a China-Philippine dichotomy of the list or a list of countries the Philippines and China claims to support to them hence he insists Fiji's inclusion. The list was intended at least by me to reflect actual stances of governments (the country making a stance themselves). I have suggested before doing a separate list of countries that China claims that it supports them (as well as the Philippines) and another for official statements from the countries concerned. Fiji's supposed "lost of credibility" or any other country due to its actions according to the opinion of any user is irrelevant.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927, I agree with your points. I believe Fiji is the only country which reverted its own word. But we need to give priority to the government's standpoint as we agreed in the explicit consensus. Based on the facts, China did ignore Fiji's second statement. And Fiji has been always on China's list even right before the ruling. Here's the report from Hong Kong which also supports this, relevant statement is "這些國家包括 (these countries include)：...斐濟 (Fiji)...". So in this case, let's stick with our explicit consensus. For your other suggestions, I will give my comments later. Toto11zi (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The question is which government's. Why would China's claim be any be more superior than Fiji's own actions without taking the "no credibility" opinion into account. The number 1 credible source for a particular country's standpoint is their own, not another countries. For Fiji's stance, the Fijian Foreign Ministry is more reliable than the Chinese Foreign Ministry's claim (or a hypothetical Philippine claim). Also consensus could change and currently I see a problem with insisting a black and white/dichotomy list. You have ignored my points (the latter parts concerning the lists). No one disputes China claims that Fiji still supports them but the Fijian government has said otherwise. I believe this fact should be noted and not ignored.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927, you have a good point, this Fiji is very unique. I believe the situation here is there're 2 statements from Fiji, from Fiji's standpoint, it doesn't agree with the joint statement of Inoke Kubuabola and Wang Yi. We did mention that priority should be given to China's government and Philippines' government for those 2 lists. Let me think more. For your other suggestions regarding multiple lists, there're problems, I will give my comment today. Toto11zi (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, notice how he prevaricates. A classic 50 Cent Party tactic Hammersbach (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor, I ask you to be polite, no slogan, AGF, don't waste my time and your time here!! Toto11zi (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It would help if you stick to the subject, try to be objective yourself, extend your AGF sentiments also to Chris Hallquist that you have been repeatedly bullied as "newly activated account" and accused for violating (bogus) consensus (which one was that?), and stop to prevaricating whenever have your back cornered in an argument. And please refrain using "AGF", "objectivity", and "logic" as empty "slogan", whenever you desired to always have the last words, to somewhat projecting as if you have superior authority and logic/moral high ground above us. It is getting tiring. Plus, I think Fiji's true posistion on so called "support" is best described by their own source (govt's site or news), and certainly not Chinese sources. Hammersbach, I think I've seen the pattern here. Thank you for pointing that out. Gunkarta  talk  06:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph reference to article 298 is both erroneous and not appropriate for the introductory paragraph.

Article has lots of problems. I'd like to improve the first paragraph.

The article says:

"On 19 February 2013, China officially refused to participate in the arbitration because, according to China, its 2006 declaration under article 298[6] covers the disputes brought by the Philippines and that this case concerns sovereignty, thus it deems the arbitral tribunal formed for the case has no jurisdiction over the issue.[7]"

This should be replaced with the following:

"On 19 February 2013, China officially refused to participate in the arbitration."

The official reference is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165478-phl-prc-china-note-verbale.html

China said nothing about article 298 at the time, and neither reference suggests otherwise. In fact, I believe the first invocation was more than a year later in here:

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml

The article should mention article 298, but:

1. It should use an accurate reference to do so. 2. It probably should not be in the introductory paragraph, which is just supposed to provide a summary. 3. It shouldn't be suggested that article 298 is the only reason that China refused to participate in the proceedings, as the above references repeatedly demonstrate.

There are various other issues with the text I have proposed for deletion, all of which are obviously solved by deleting it.

EntropyTV (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't access the source being used in footnote 7, but from a stylistic point of view, I agree with you. Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Tell us why you can't access the source? Google books are publicly available Toto11zi (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

My bad, I had initially thought this was a book for which no Google Books preview is available. But searching the book for "19 February 2013" fails to turn up any support for the claim AFAICT, so EntropyTV is correct and the information should be deleted. Chris Hallquist (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The most important question is have you read source [7]? Toto11zi (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Editor, one suggestion for you, don't always think the word "delete", think this word "improve". If you see something wrong, try analyse first, then see if you can improve it. Toto11zi (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies on verifiability require unsupported claims to be removed if no source can be found. Do you know of a source for this claim? Chris Hallquist (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you read this "The most important question is have you read source [7]?"? If you haven't, just wait. Toto11zi (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it. Chris Hallquist (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ted L. McDorman's article (academic analysis section)

Reading the article on Google Books, it appears to be primarily concerned about technical legal matters of tangential relevance to the Philippines v. China case. Drawing inferences about its significance of the case would require impermissible synthesis. Therefore I suggest removing the reference to it. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

His statement "historic waters are not regulated under UNCLOS" is very relevant to the case, and the whole book talks about the South China Sea disputes and Law of the Sea which is again relevant. Toto11zi (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Read this: "Ruling: The Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.", and this "The ICJ in the 1982 Tunisia/Libya case clearly stated that historic rights of waters are governed by customary international law, not UNCLOS.", I would say this statement is very relevant. Toto11zi (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely wrong. The Tunisia-Libya ICJ case was decided in February 1982, while the current UNCLOS (which defined what are the different types of waters there are, including historic waters) was only finalized in December 1982 after the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), and only came into force in 1994 after the 60th country ratified it. So when the ICJ handed its judgment in the Tunisia-Libya case, there was no UNCLOS in its current state at all. Therefore the present UNCLOS supersedes whatever "historic waters" or "historic rights" there are. —seav (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you're looking into this ABSOLUTELY WRONG statement, this is good. If it's wrong, can you improve it? By the way, what is wrong? You're saying the Award is wrong? or the description of the Award is wrong? or McDorman's statement is wrong? or the line description of McDorman's statement is wrong? As I said judging academic work is original research, but here we can at least make sure the line matches McDorman's statement, also the other line matches what's in the Award. Toto11zi (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There's also the question of what counts as "historic waters", which McDorman's article doesn't address. Hence the issues with needing synthesis to apply his views to this case. Chris Hallquist (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What's your point? Remember, Wikipedia doesn't allow copying, so there will be discrepancy between description and the actual source, improve it if you see discrepancy.Toto11zi (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does allow quotation of sources consistent with fair use. Copyright concerns are no excuse for inaccurate information. Chris Hallquist (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 August 2016

There appears to be a typo in footnote 94. I think the correct link is http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/06/05/1331182/canada-britain-back-arbitration, but there appears to be an extra hyphen on the end. Chris Hallquist (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chris Hallquist: Done The typo didn't just mean that the URL went to a generic landing page, but also meant that the wrong title had been used in the ref, so I've fixed that and added author and date too. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request to change "After the ruling" to "Official statements" (about the ruling), request made on 1 August 2016

Subject: change the "After the ruling" to "Official statements"

I suggest to change the subsection title "After the ruling" to "Official statements" about the ruling (response to the ruling) since the governments statement is official position of nations concerned. It is also meant to prevent further misquoting of positions of nations. And to avoid a jumble of mess and unclarity that plagued the "International reactions" section owed to some editors insistence on wrestled, contested and argued incessantly for the so called "international supports" for certain party. We shall rely on official statements posted on their respective ministerial sites or their country's news media as far as possible. Also it is important to note that one country's position on this ruling may not be easily categorized as black-white, pro-cons, etc. It is important to faithfully describes their official position. Thank you very much. Gunkarta  talk  07:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Support rationale to limit official statements in response to the ruling. To avoid presenting problematic dichotomy.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose definitely "After the ruling" and "official statements" have very different meanings, but I would suggest "Official statements after the ruling" if you insist to change. Again, think about the U.S. case, can we consider Kerry's words official statements? I think we need to think more. Toto11zi (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Request clarification I understand the desire to limit claims in this section to official statements, but it would be odd to have our two subsections be "before the ruling" and "official statements". If we're going to change the article along the lines you suggest, it would make more sense to apply the same policy for statements both before and after the ruling. Is that what you're suggesting? Chris Hallquist (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes.., Maybe if we also change the "before the ruling" to "initial response" or "overview of legal process" which describes early responses (prior of the ruling result) made by some countries/international organization regarding the legal process that (at that time) still ongoing in the Hague. These however, are mostly done in diplomatic events (such as during foreign ministers' or PM/Presidents' visits) and usually subject to foreign relation's lobbying, and mostly quoted by news. For example, some country may encourage or concur to the arbitration/ legal process, while some might prefer on bilateral settlement. But I think, they hardly translated into the "official position" regarding the result of ruling/legal process in the end. Gunkarta  talk  23:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. I'd have to look at the sources currently being cited in the "before the ruling" section to have a firm opinion, though. This doesn't seem ripe for a protected edit yet, but it's worth continuing to discuss. Chris Hallquist (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, after looking at the section more, the sourcing for the claims in the "before the ruling" section still needs work. But it's worth making a distinction between:

1) Second-hand reports of what supposedly happened in closed-door meetings of diplomats, or attempts by analysts to "read between the lines" to divine what a country's "real" position is.

2) Stuff said at e.g. press conferences and media interviews, which might not quite have the weight of an "official" statement, but is still much closer to an official statement than the stuff in category (1).

Chris Hallquist (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong Support This will lend much needed clarity to the article and avoid ambiguous national stands.

As a matter of fact, I will go on one step ahead and say that I believe that there is no need for Before - After sections and we can merge them under "Official statements" section. There is no proper reason for keeping two separate sections of before/after reactions to a legal ruling. What we need is to look at a) authenticity, b) relevance c) readability and d) ease of understanding. All these criteria may be met by merging the above two sub-sections and make the article much more easier to read and understand. Collagium (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually your idea is quite brilliantǃ by only recognizing "official statements" of government's position on the ruling, that will tremendously clears things up, and will leave no (less) room for misinterpretation/misquoting/misrepresenting. Thank you... Gunkarta  talk  06:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Add adverse effects on the USA and Japan's claimed EEZs due to the ruling

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-07-28/u-s-japan-and-other-nations-could-lose-exclusive-economic-zones

Rajmaan (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This is very good info, France has the same issue, it should be very unhappy about it. Let's add this info once the protection is removed. There's no rush. Toto11zi (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this could be included. However a source for France should be retrieved. The given source only names Japan (Okinotorishima) and the United States (Wake Island).--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea is similar, here's the source. I think more info will be coming out soon, especially analysis of the ruling itself. Toto11zi (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: There is nothing here to describe exactly what should be added. There is also a suggestion that any such edit may be deferred until the article is no longer protected. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 July 2016

Page is full-protected due to an edit dispute, requesting a grammar fix. For the sentence within the lead paragraph "China has rejected the ruling, as have Taiwan", please change "have" to "has". There is only one country being listed after the comma, which means that the sentence is grammatically incorrect:

• "Alice has finished eating her dinner, as have Bob, Carl and David."
• "Alice has finished eating her dinner, as has Bob."
• "Alice and Bob have finished eating their dinner, as have Carl and David."
• "The students have finished eating their dinner, as has the teacher."
• "The students have finished eating their dinner, as have the politicians."

--benlisquare_T•C•E 10:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 July 2016

Please add this reference for India in the reactions list [1]. Also requesting use of footnote "Template:refn" to clarify the non-listing of certain countries saying that the secretary of the Arab League says that its member countries is supportive of China as per [2] but no individual statements from these countries has not be retrieved.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Note, India's statement listed was made on June 12, 2016 it must be verified if the statement was made before the verdict (could be hours before the verdict).--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the sentence 'India has noted the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal' makes it clear that it was issued after the award of arbitration ruling. You can further confirm this with refs I posted in Topic 'India'.

On to issue of including ref [3]. I Support. Collagium (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Did not noticed that. Thanks for pointing out regarding the India's statements. Also India shouldn't be included in the support for arbitration prior to the ruling (for now) since the current reference speaks of India's "indicting comment" against China issued after the ruling.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: I read the press release. It was made on July 12, 2016 and when I checked on the mea's website, this statement was produced after this article [4]. They sort the press releases by chronological order (newest first, oldest last). Yes, it should be included in the support for arbitration prior to the ruling but this is because there is an older source (times of India) that indicates its position coming from India's government. The mea source is after the ruling and is a really good one!Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 July 2016

Unless someone wants to volunteer to dramatically re-write the section, I suggest removing the entire section on academic analysis. It blatantly gives undue weight to the Chinese point of view, borders on WP:QUOTEFARM, and it's unclear how many, if any, of the academics are sufficiently notable. (I could modify my stance on this, if anyone is able to offer an informed opinion on the notability of the sources in that section.) Chris Hallquist (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the editors have actually discussed this section. And unless you have a particular and precise edit request, then you shouldn't have used the edit fully-protected template yet. —seav (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, should I remove it? Chris Hallquist (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose your action. The simplistic view of Chinese point of view or non-Chinese point of view doesn't work. Toto11zi (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

While the section is prima facie a case of undue weight and WP:QUOTEFARM, but as @Seav has rightly pointed out, it hasn't been discussed. Let's have a debate on this topic and then make a complete/partial removal or rewrite request. Collagium (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing reliable information is the not way to go. Judging academic work is original research. Toto11zi (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I'm not making any claims about the quality of the academic work qua academic work—just questioning whether all of that material belongs in this article. Chris Hallquist (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 July 2016

This edit request is was made after discussion above at Point No. 18 titled 'Cambodia'.

It is requested that Cambodia may be removed from 'Before the ruling' section showing 'Support' for China.

Cambodia is neutral on this issue. The Govt release [5] states clearly that :

'Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict of permanent court of arbitration who will render its decision on the dispute between the Philippines and China.'

In light of the above statement of the Cambodian Government's 'Ministry Of Foreign Affairs And International Cooperation' there is need to rectify Cambodia's wrongly stated position. Collagium (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose, the source was the statement after ruling, not before. Toto11zi (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi Wrong. The statement is dated 09-07-2016. Arbitration ruling came out in 12-07-2016. Collagium (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me change my statement. We are still discussing this in section "Cambodia", there's no consensus yet. Toto11zi (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What is your objection? The matter was discussed and notice was given to give any objections but you didn't. Building consensus doesn't mean you can perpetuate wrong information even when you have no proof other wise.

The statement is dated 09-07-2016. Arbitration ruling came out in 12-07-2016. Thus it is evident that Cambodia does not belong to Support Before Ruling Category.

Further, the statement is from Cambodian Government's 'Ministry Of Foreign Affairs And International Cooperation'. Collagium (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This is more reliable than any other media source (both western and non–Western). Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's my conclusion, you team of 2 Ssbbplayer (talk · contribs), Collagium (talk · contribs), go up and read!

"Obviously this statement does not reject its previously announced support to China's position, it only aligns with that support. The statement "Cambodia does not support any side" is just bogus analysis.Toto11zi (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi Please be civil. Also, you have not read the statement properly.[6]. Kindly go through it.

I am reproducing statement for Admins to decide themselves.

"STATEMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Over the last few days, after the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague set 12 July 2016 as the date for issuing its final award concerning the arbitration case initiated by the Philippines against China on the South China Sea issue, there are debates, analysis and concerns occurring within and from some countries.

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

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation would like to reiterate the position of the Royal Government of Cambodia on the above-mentioned arbitration process, as follows:

1- Cambodia views that this arbitration case is to settle dispute brought by the Philippines against China, and this proceeding is not related with all of the ASEAN Member States;

2- Therefore. Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration who will render its decision on the dispute between the Philippines and China; and

3- Nevertheless, as a friend of both sides of the dispute and with the intention to maintain peace, security and stability in the South China Sea as well as to sustain enormous interest for the whole region generated from the good cooperative relations, mutually beneficial strategic partnership between ASEAN and China. Cambodia would like to call on the Philippines and China to continue settling their dispute through peaceful means. Phnom Penh. 09 July 2016 "

How can this be construed to be supporting China when they specifically say otherwise. Collagium (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will be surprised to know I concur Chris Hallquist (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur that Cambodia is a neutral state and insist not to be involved in this case. Let me offer my explanation regarding this Cambodian position from ASEAN perspective. You know, ASEAN is based upon consensus when they tried to issued a joint communique/statement regarding a certain issue like South China Sea (SCS) dispute. A single (maybe two or three) member's refusal to sign a joint communique could "sabotage" the ASEAN joint statement and undermine ASEAN unity. Background: compared to other ASEAN nations, Cambodia, together with Laos and Myanmar are quite heavily dependent to Chinese economic aid and business, thus prone to be "influenced" by Chinese interest when it came to this issue. The Philippines and Vietnam on the other hand, are quite openly against China in SCS. They urged other ASEAN members to be involved in ASEAN joint communique, which express a firmer stance against China on SCS issue. Indonesia, which I think quite unhappy with Chinese assertive behaviors; that it repeatedly breaching Indonesian EEZ, began to move its stance from neutral position to leaning to support Philippines' and Vietnam's cause to issue a stern position against China. Singapore, which rely heavily on freedom of navigation in SCS is quite vocal and supportive in this cause. Surprisingly, Malaysia and Brunei (which are also a claimant state), is a lot shy and quiet, some analists suggests that they do not want to upset China, yet Malaysia and Brunei does not mind to sign an ASEAN joint statement. Thailand although neutral and non-claimant, still do not mind to sign the ASEAN joint communique. Cambodia (and sometimes also Laos and Myanmar) on the other hand insist to remain "neutral" and repeatedly refused to sign the ASEAN joint communique. By doing this, Cambodia like to think that they are neutral and do not want to upset China. Yes, Cambodia do not oppenly support China in SCS issue. But by refusing to participate in ASEAN joint communique to issue a more assertive position against China's aggresivity, Cambodia (sometimes together with Laos and Myanmar) in practice "sabotage" ASEAN joint statement mechanism, thus undermine the ASEAN unity. In practice, this action is quite "helping" China. The latest 25 July 2016 ASEAN joint communique is said to be the victory of ASEAN unity to finally convince Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar to participate in it. Despite the recent joint statement was "toned down" by not mentioning the Hague ruling, yet still an improvement. More often ASEAN joint statements on SCS was "vetoed" by them. So, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are NOT (openly) support China in SCS. But more often their "neutrality" has harmed ASEAN joint communique mechanism and "sabotaged" ASEAN unity. This happened many times, thus led some nations that has been irritated by Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar action, suggesting to expel them from ASEAN membership. I hope my explanation shed the light on this issue. Gunkarta  talk  07:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No, China ally Cambodia did not want to join ASEAN to express a common position, this implies it's not neutral, Cambodia wants ASEAN to be neutral. Cambodia did explicitly side with China. Read it here, and China thanked its support on China's stance, read here.

To Collagium (talk · contribs), go up and read! Toto11zi (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those sources state that Cambodia is against the arbitration ruling. The second article is paraphrasing Chinese officials, who are not a reliable source for Cambodia's position. The first states that the premier is against the agreement, not necessarily the government itself. The source above, directly from the Cambodian government, says that Cambodia is neutral. Mamyles (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi Kindly go through the Edit request and understand the issue.

The edit is regarding stand of Cambodia BEFORE the ruling. The news you cited is AFTER the arbitration ruling. Furthermore, statements of Ministries issued by government itself is the most credible possible source to a nations stance.

Let me make it even simpler :

1- Cambodia is included among nations who supported China BEFORE arbitration ruling. This is the issue of this edit request.

2- Cambodian Government issued a statement on this very issue specifically stating it is neutral on 09-07-2016.

3- Arbitration ruling came on 12-07-2016.

4- The news sources you gave are AFTER arbitration thus irrelevant to the scope of current Edit Request.

Hope it makes thing clear. Collagium (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Cambodia's stance is neutral. How dare Wikipedia denied a government declaration? Consensus passed Y, please remove Cambodia in the support side. Alphama (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You lied. Consensus not passed. Did you even read? "China ally Cambodia did not want to join ASEAN to express a common position, this implies it's not neutral, Cambodia wants ASEAN to be neutral. Cambodia did explicitly side with China. Read it here, and China thanked its support on China's stance, read here."Toto11zi (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any serious question Cambodia's official position is neutral. If notable analysts have argued Cambodia's move to water down the ASEAN resolution amounts to implicit support for China, I can see mentioning that (though I'd be very careful about notability), but flat statements of who Cambodia supports should be based on their official position. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Cambodia has already expressed their strong support for China's stance that is not referring the dispute to PCA. Please don't mix this with other issues. STSC (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Warning to user Collagium - Please don't abuse the "edit protected" template, only use it when there's a clear consensus for the alteration requested. STSC (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• The source that Toto11zi provided is older than the government release. You say that you should not trust or reject media blindly, but here you are trusting the media sources more than the official statement. Also, your claims that I work with Collagium and that I did not read (with a big exclamation mark) is a personal attack; you are not critiquing my content. You are also blind to the statement no.2 "Therefore. Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration who will render its decision on the dispute between the Philippines and China" which is very explicit. Your claim that my analysis is bogus is a way to deny this statement. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• I don't believe this warning is justified. The section of this talk page on Cambodia, above, looks like a pretty clear consensus to me. Consensus does not imply unanimity, and Toto11zi's arguments for including Cambodia in the list of China's supporters is based on a fairly obvious misreading of the sources, including a hand-waving appeal to "common-sense". Taking Toto11zi's objections as indication of a lack of consensus is rewarding WP:STONEWALL Chris Hallquist (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This 'warning' is totally baseless. @STSC Read before making frivolous threats. The edit request was given after discussing matter and specifically stating in topic that :

'There is need to rectify Cambodia's wrongly stated position. Objections, if any, are welcome.'

Only when no objection were received the request was given. The fresh objections started coming after Edit Request was put up.

The only reason of this baseless 'Warning' is to divert attention and avoiding edit in face of clear consensus and facts. Collagium (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, the discussion of this section is done. If you want to discuss more, go to section Cambodia. The issue of the whole thing is your understanding of "common position", it means "ASEAN position", not "Cambodian position. Toto11zi (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi Please stop disruptive behaviour. Let Admins decide whether to allow or disallow on merit of facts. Collagium (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 July 2016

I propose renaming the section headings "Support for the arbitration / Support for Philippines' stance" and "Opposition to the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants / Support for China's stance" to simply "Support for the arbitration" and "Opposition to the arbitration". The current headings look like bad style to my eyes, and are potentially confusing. For example, Taiwan does indeed oppose the arbitration, but it's misleading to describe Taiwan as supporting China's stance, because Taiwan emphatically does NOT support China's territorial claims—it's opposing the arbitration because it has its own conflicting territorial claims which it does not want to subject to arbitration Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose your suggestion, keep the existing titles. Toto11zi (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I Concur the two positions is not perfectly interchangeable. Suppose (in alternative universe) the arbitration went to Chinese favour instead of the Philippines, that will be all messed up. While we at it, I suggest to change the subsection title "After the ruling" to "Official statements about the ruling" (response to the ruling) since the governments statement is official position of nations concerned. Gunkarta  talk  16:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Headings 'Support for the arbitration' and 'Opposition to the arbitration' avoids confusion and adheres to the subject matter of the article.

Also, Support to suggestion by @Gunkarta. We should name the section Official Statements to prevent further misquoting of positions of nations. We shall rely on official statements posted on their respective ministerial sites as far as possible. Collagium (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Support for the same reasons mentioned by Gunkarta, Collagium, and Chris Hallquist. For Toto11zi, please provide a reason why you oppose it. Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose our consensus was to include China's stance / opposed the arbitration / talk, the idea was to include the 40 countries China claimed. Now there're more than 70 countries support China, we should at least reflect this fact. I know your intention of reducing the number to single digit number, this is just meaningless. Also creating different categories of countries is also meaningless since there's no objective way of determining what is what. Toto11zi (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Toto11zi Don't talk about intentions of other editors. Collagium (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Because this case was adjudicated by The Hague, two choices are enough: support or oppose the arbitration. Alphama (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment In point 65, User:Toto11zi said "then he's promoting his own criteria for the section ..." with the link pointing back to here. This is the purpose of creating an edit request before the article is changed. Why are you complaining for a simple procedure like this one? Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Are any of the Philippino media orgs used as sources on this page state-controlled?

I haven't found any examples yet, but it looks possible. For example, the Philippine Star is own by PLDT, which used to be government-controlled, but isn't any more. Chris Hallquist (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You're really abusing this Talk page, irresponsible!! Toto11zi (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, at least officially. But some of the newspaper owes their existence to the People Power Revolution, which the mother of then President Benigno Aquino III was a major figure of that revolution. But I will give some examples of state-controlled sources (some not used yet, but some private firms sometimes source their news from these like news orgs souring reports from AP, Reuters): Philippine Information Agency, the Presidential Communications Operations Office, Radio Television Malacañang, Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. Take note that some private firms quote government officials, such as in the case of Italy's citation, where the presidential spokesman relayed Italy's stance through Aquino's bilateral talk with his counterpart.

Also, I don't see Hallquist, distrupting in this case Toto11zi. Even if such users has a history of disruption in the past, we judge a user's action on a case per case basis. Here, he only asked on the degree of government control on Philippine sources.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Toto11zi, please stop it with your harassment of Chris. Not everything that Chris does is abuse or irresponsible. I really cannot see how starting this section is an abuse of the talk page. Please assume good faith. —seav (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I seriously do not understand why a user can be accused of abusing this page, rather than addressing his comments. -- Namayan (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:DISRUPT. This is what they do when facts are not on their side. Abuse/disrespect towards other editors sidelines the discussion away from main topic. Collagium (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)