Talk:South China Sea Arbitration/Archives/2016/June

Does Spain support the Philippines?

Before removing Spain from the list of countries which support the Philippines, please check if you can provide reliable source. The current source is not reliable, and it does not contain a single word from Spain.Toto11zi (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Toto11zi (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Analysis and criticsm

Section "Analysis and criticism" as been added, currently there's only one line, more information will be added.

The South China Sea involves many claimants, the unilatery format, or even binary format of the court case can never render justice, the best way to resolve the South China Sea dispute is through negotiation.[34][12]

The main idea of this is from the first source published by Prof. Tom Zwart, Professor of Law, Utrecht University. If you have objection, please discuss here.Toto11zi (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In section, Analysis of academics, quotes which are not related to the case itself should be removed. Toto11zi (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Feedback needed where Arab countries ans SCO countries should be included in the list of countries which don't support the arbitration?

Hariboneagle927 removed Arab countries from the list of countries who don't support the arbitration. The reliable source is based on this statement "Arab countries support China's position on ‘safeguarding’ its sovereignty and territorial integrity" from Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Araby.

Please provide comments regarding these countries should be included or not in the list of countries who support China's position? Toto11zi (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections with the recent additions since according to Interview: Arab states praiseworthy for stance on South China Sea issue -- Chinese envoy Algeria, Comoros, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen supported China, a stance made in the sidelines of the China-Arab forum. I thought you were adding members of the Arab League in response to the organization's statement of support for China and for that I apologize.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In a similar fashion, all SCO countries should be included in the list of countries which don't support the arbitration. Here's the reliable source, it explicitly says "all SCO countries agreed and supported China's efforts made to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea":Toto11zi (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In a statement of SCO Secretary-General Rashid Olimov on South China Sea issue, all SCO countries agreed and supported China's efforts made to safeguard peace and stability in the South China Sea. Directly concerned states should resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation in accordance with all bilateral treaties and the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), the statement said.

I have repeatedly said that multinational organizations can say one thing but it is not unheard of member states issuing contradictory statements. (India (despite the RIC trilateral statement, Slovenia despite being part of the arbitration supporting EU, later denied supporting China's stance). A statement issued by Before adding them, I'm sure most of these countries have reaffirmed their stand made as part of the SCO through their foreign ministry, or diplomats during "sideline" meetings.

Also that's why there is a "multilateral organizations" section. If a reader read that the SCO issued a statement they can click the link to "SCO" and see the member countries. Including them in the list above just for the sake of adding countries (even if they didn't issue a stand unilaterally, which was the original intention of the section "National governments"). I don't agree with this. What I can agree is to replace all the citations as possible with a third party source (e.g. foreign ministry of said country). It is easy for China to say that Country X supports them or the Philippines saying that Country Y supports them and Multinational Organization A says that all of its countries support China's stance (When it comes to automatically adding its members to the "National governments" section,").Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you read carefully? Unless the source is not reliable, the statement "all SCO countries agreed and supported China's efforts" is very clear that "those countries agreed", and not "SCO agreed". Adding a "multilateral organizations" is one thing, but having 2 clear lists of countries which support or oppose the arbitration is different thing. If the requirement says formal statements from individual countries are needed, then most countries on the "support" list should be removed as well, take the source for France as one example, is there a statement from the French government? Toto11zi (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, most countries should be reevaluated both in the support and oppose list. President Aquino can easily say that France expressed support for the arbitration after their talks like Xinhua and the Chinese government can easily say that Country X, "understands China's position regarding the South China Sea issue". Both sides can easily drop names. That is why I still favor creating a new article here in Wikipedia or in Wikiquotes regarding the reactions where each countries statement could be quoted. Where we can state the stance of each countries. Whether it came from their foreign ministry or was just claimed by the Philippines or China that a certain country supports them.

I proposed an article split some days ago because the issue is not black or white to begin with. Some countries were more adversarial against the arbitration court such as Niger, while others just respects the China's abstinence from the arbitration and issued preference towards bilateral talks without criticizing the court. No one could tell the gravity of support or opposition with just a list. But reverting back to the old format would make the article too much focused on the reactions and not the arbitration case itself.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes: the reliable sources explicitly say "Arab countries support China's position" and "all SCO countries agreed and supported China", those countries should be included. Toto11zi (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, [| I was asked to comment here] and have absolutely no background on the subject. Here's what I'm getting out of this: The Arab League has made some diplomatic gobbledy-gook statements, that the Chinese diplomat has termed as "support for China's stance." Next week, the Arab League could have a meeting with the Phillipines, say the exact same thing, only replace the word "China" with "Philippines, and the Philippine minister could say that the Arab League support's it's stance requesting arbitration.

So, should the countries be included in the list? I am of the opinion that, unless an official representative of a country explicitly states it opposes arbitration, it should not be on a list saying that it does. I also don't agree with a separate article. Just put the quotes in a section and collapse the section if it overwhelms the article too much. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not disposed to argue this here, but I'm mindful of the part of WP:NOTNEWS which says, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events"; the key word there being "enduring". The PCA is expected to render its decision in the next six or so months. When that happens, the parts of the article being discussed here will have been overtaken by events and will probably be of little ongoing interest. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - The Doha Declaration of May 12 clearly states that Arab countries support China, therefore all the countries within the Arab League should be listed as such. Similarly, all the countries in SCO should be also listed. STSC (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

All sources which require special permission to access data should be removed.

Sources need to be reliable and accessible, if sources have access control, those should be removed. If you have objection to this, please discuss here.Toto11zi (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the accessibility requirement. Please see WP:CITE. Wikipedia has never had a policy of rejecting sources just because they aren't freely accessible online. This means that offline sources such as old books and journals (which have no digital copies), or reliable sources behind paywalls or access controls are still allowed. —seav (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Single-purpose account discussion

Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative's "Arbitration Support Tracker" Hello, I am not quite sure if we can make use of this source or not. The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative has an "Arbitration Support Tracker" where they list which countries supposedly support or oppose the arbitration case, linked to various sources. http://amti.csis.org/arbitration-support-tracker/ —seav (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC) You created different groups, can you explain why? and how do you categorize? Have you categorized all these countries? Can you discuss first? I oppose your action of creating more groups, we should keep only original 2 groups, unless we editors discuss and reach consensusToto11zi (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC) You created "Support for the Philippines' right to seek arbitration / Calling on China to respect the arbitration decision", please provide source that says "the EU supports Philippines right to seek arbitration". Again, please think first before making irresponsible changes Toto11zi (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC) We need help from a Wikipedia admin Shhhhwwww!! insisted his unilateral dramatic edits without discussion, a lot of information was removed. I think we need help for the Wikipedia admin. Here's his main change here Please check his edit history. Toto11zi (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Shhhhwwww!!, READ: All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively, here, doing dramatic changes without discussion is irresponsible way of making edits Toto11zi (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Okay, sorry. I am just suggesting a more readable article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Please discuss, and don't make dramatic changes especially removal of information, have your read discussion on this page? again discuss, don't make useless edit war Toto11zi (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Did not read it, sorry. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)