Talk:Sabina Shoal

Editing

This article appears to be now start class. The request at Talk:Kalayaan, Palawan seems appropriate as there has been recent reverted POV. ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Good progress in a month to B class. thanks all ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

WP:NPOV should be referred to. There has been discussion over many years in Wikipedia (see for example recently Talk:Kalayaan, Palawan) and current consensus is that South China Sea is the usual name under WP:COMMONNAME. Much of discussion in various articles relevant to the dispute is in archive so not readily apparent to casual site visitors, but may be found in for example Talk:South China Sea Arbitration. The term West Philippine Sea is rarely used in English outside the Philippines and in any case only within the Philippines officially applies to a limited area of the South China Sea. As a separate article exists on Wikipedia for West Philippine Sea I have always myself reverted any unjustified substitution but think the use of the term in articles where the area concerned is administered currently by the Philippines and the context makes clear the limited area of South China Sea the term applies to is reasonable. Any direct substitution by an editor of the geographical term South China Sea in an article by another name or emphasis of another name over South China Sea does not seem justified by my interpretation of NPOV. ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I have worked West Philippine Sea back into article after last removal as reason to mention in the pure Philippine context at end as the POV source does not mention South China Sea ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea is also used outside of the Philippines such as with this CNN article and The Diplomat article. It is not interchangeable with the South China Sea and is also used by people and institutions outside the Philippines. -Object404 (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The use of an alternative name in some sources does not mean it gets included in other mentions on en.wiki. There are a few meanings attributed to West Philippine Sea, but none that will be obvious to readers. CMD (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WPS is not an alternative name of SCS. Do not mix up the two. -Object404 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

As states, there are a few meanings for the term. It was originally a rejection of the term South China Sea. CMD (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"It was originally a rejection of the term South China Sea." -> Can you provide a citation source for this? I can't find any at the moment. Thanks! -Object404 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I wish you luck hunting through the pre-2011 use of the name in pre-internet days in the Philippines. My own current understanding is that use outside the Philippines in English did not commence until the early 1970s and that was the geologic literature referring to an area of sea over the West Philippines Basin or an extinct spreading centre.Letter to Nature,Structure of East China Sea-West Philippine Sea Margin off southern Kyushu, Japan, Two seismic refraction profiles in the West Philippine Sea ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! These are very interesting citations from 1973 (not sure about the date of the last one). Usage here seems to be geologic literature, with no mention of rejection of the term South China Sea. -Object404 (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Found a 1961 citation for the term West Philippine Sea, can't view the text however.

https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1523388079892192384 -Object404 (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Object404, searching for sources around 2011 should show the best examples. See for example this interview with Walden Bello, about drafting a resolution that called upon the executive branch to rename the South China Sea as the “West Philippine Sea.”, or this 2013 statement by Albert del Rosario saying "The Philippines asserts that China’s so-called nine-dash line claim that encompasses virtually the entire South China Sea/West Philippine Sea is contrary to UNCLOS and thus unlawful". The National Security Policy document of the time talks about "other areas of the West Philippine Sea particularly the Paracels," reflected at the time in national press such as this article which talks about "several states bordering the WPS". The very broad definition often used in the initial period of the new nomenclature was refined for the actual government legislation in 2012, but as the dates show it took awhile for the limited definition to settle as the usual meaning. CMD (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

"The term West Philippine Sea is rarely used in English outside the Philippines" -> False. Do a Google search for the phrase. While the bulk of mentions of the term are Philippine sources, there are still a good number of sources outside the Philippines that use the term. Go past the first page of Google results and check out the first 25 pages of results. It's not "rarely". -Object404 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

After going through 100 pages of Google Scholar search results, it turn out that the term "West Philippine Sea" has been in common use internationally in geology and oceanography papers since (possibly 1958), 1961, the 70s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s in apolitical scientific use. While usage of the term has spiked up due to more recent China-Philippines tensions in the region, in light of its common international usage, I don't think it would be controversial nor POV-pushing to use the term "West Philippine Sea" in the article, as a granular refinement? -Object404 (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

After having examined a number of the earlier research papers which mention "West Philippine Sea", based on the diagrams on the papers, they apparently referred to the Western portion of the Philippine Sea, which is East of the Philippine archipelago, and do not refer to the same area that it is more commonly known today. -Object404 (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Which means that the term as you use it is a recent political construct whose use can introduce POV and confusion (if you are interested in geology as many are) so should only be used in the bulk of articles. ChaseKiwi (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

POV

Even though there have been fair attempts on going to address POV issues I think it reasonable to add a POV label and that article needs updating in context that analysis suggests this shoal may be in the ongoing news and be of international significance.

The reasoning is:

1. The lead oversimplifies an issue. My understanding from Capri and reading the arbitration ruling is that statement ...the 2016 Philippines vs. China South China Sea Arbitration, Sabina Shoal lies within the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone of the Philippines... is untrue. The arbitration ruling specifically did not consider the EEZ issues, as opposed to finding that certain islands are the Philippines. EEZ issues are determined by the UN conventions, that is correct.
2. New multiple mentions of Shoal laying in Philippines EEZ when unclear in article if other parties claim it in their EEZ which I suspect may be the case.
3. Removal of non-Philippines reputable news sources in dispute section and use of lower reputable sources. While many Philippines new sources are reputable, it may be best where ever possible to use Reuters or other sources. I noted for example this Guardian article out today which gives background not in article. x.com has been used and this source has an inconsistent reputation. Is it better used as an external link and not a reference ?
4. Use of language that is a matter of perception such as "unprovoked"
5. Other names section has had order of names reordered at time of confrontation without clear justification.
6. The use of term West Philippines Sea has likely now been given undue prominence in information box when a Talk discussion topic not yet closed with consensus

Cheers and perhaps the well meaning editors presently active can help address these issues. ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

1. It's not meant to summarize the issue. It is a mere statement of fact that Sabina Shoal is recognized under international law to be within the 200-nautical mile EEZ of the Philippines.

2. Then find out if other countries are claiming Sabina Shoal as part of their EEZ and place it in the article. There's no reason to remove an internationally-recognized fact on an article just because you're not aware of the views of other countries.

3. I haven't done much digging in the page history past checking character deletion count of the last few edits, but can you outline the instances of non-Philippine RS removal from the Dispute section? If anything it's another editor wholesale deleting edits backed up by WP:RS that happened today. As for the x.com posts by Philippine Coast Guard spokesperson Tariella, WP:RS news media has been embedding the his tweets of the footage of the Chinese Coast Guard vessel ramming BRP Teresa Magbanua and causing damage in their articles and mentioning it, like with News.com Australia here. This is an allowed case of using social media posts as citations for Wikipedia, and is good so that readers and researchers can see the footage directly and objectively see which version of the incident is factual: the mainland Chinese account or the Philippine account. As for usage of non-Philippine sources, sure it's good to do so, but unnecessary to only use these as Philippine sources are also WP:RS, and have more details and coverage since it's within their region.

4. The term "unprovoked" is used by multiple WP:RS news media covering the August 31 incident. Its usage in the article merely reflects this.

5. Who gets to decide this? Proximity of countries to Sabina shoal is a logical order of country names.

6. Usage of the term West Philippine Sea is to give a more granular location of where the shoal is. Do not mix up and confuse South China Sea and West Philippine Sea.

Which of these is non-neutral?

All the best, -Object404 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

We are debating an addition here, not a removal. It is unclear what an "internationally-recognized fact" is, but the addition is not written as a mere statement of fact, and should not be in the WP:LEAD as it does not summarize the body. We should not be using X.com, it is not a WP:Reliable source. We do not use "proximity" to order names. We do not use West Philippine Sea due to its unclear meaning and a lack of common use. CMD (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

- What's wrong with an addition when it's reliably sourced?

- "should not be in the WP:LEAD as it does not summarize the body." -> Then I will expound in the body.

- "We should not be using X.com" -> Twitter is allowed as a reliable source for Wikipedia under certain circumstances: : "A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter's "Verified Account" mechanism currently identifies both notable figures and Twitter Blue subscribers, with some accounts also labeled as "Official"; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages. An alternative for people known for their Twitter presence is to use reliable third-party sources for their Twitter handle." -> [1]

- Why can't we use proximity to order names? Are there any Wikipedia rules that say we should not or that say that there should be a particular order for listing names in articles?

- The lead on the article on West Philippine Sea is clear about what it is.

- Do a search on "West Philippine Sea" on Google. There are over 3 million results. How is that not common use?

Thank you. Object404 (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many considerations to an article in addition to sourcing, see WP:ONUS. This is not an appropriate time to use a twitter source, it is a pretty good example of a lack of due weight. For proximity, for a start any country claiming this shoal would have a proximity of 0. But in general, it's a strange ordering system, and the normal way to do it is alphabetically. That the term West Philippine Sea is used is not in contention, it remains a relatively novel terms and is being presented in the article as different to the South China Sea. The article West Philippine Sea says it is a designation. CMD (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree additions can help address POV issues by ensuring readers understand context. The 2016 ruling did not mention Sabina Shoal specifically unlike a number of other features of the South China Sea so is presumably interpreted in the shoal's case by analogy and as part of the Spratly Islands. Be aware the ruling did not address artificially reclaimed land that subsequently becomes permanently inhabited subject to say global warming. In this regard the article does not mention the reports of potential Chinese artificial reclamation in the shoal area. Was that not a trigger for the April 2024 actions by the Philippines ? ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, the 2016 arbitration ruling stated that artificial islands that were LTEs (low-tide elevations) prior to reclamation do not generate EEZs. Their legal effects are considered to be at the natural state of the LTEs prior to man-made activities.

Added the section on crushed coral dumping on Sabina Shoal, suspected to be Chinese artificial reclamation activities.

For the name ordering system, is there any Wikipedia rule that states that names need to be ordered alphabetically? Also, now that it's been established by reliable sources in the body of the article that the Philippines exercises sovereign rights over Sabina Shoal as it is within the Philippine EEZ, it only makes sense that Philippine names come before other country names, right?

Regards, Object404 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We explicitly do not name based on officialness. Alphabetical names are a basic expression of NPOV and how most of our lists are organized, there is usual little need to find another method. CMD (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"We explicitly do not name based on officialness." -> Can you direct us to the Wikipedia rule that states this? AFAIK Wikipedia articles THEMSELVES are also named based on officialness. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIALNAMES CMD (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This article and your comment is about naming itself though, not the order of names. For guidelines on ordering names, see comment and article below. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's about the relevance of official names, especially important given the misapprehension about how Wikipedia articles are named. As for local names, that's not something that is determined by EEZ. The entirety of Saint Pierre and Miquelon lies within the Canadian EEZ. This is a low-lying area with no locals. CMD (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hm? According to the article, Saint Pierre and Miquelon is a colony with a population of 6,092 (2020), not a low-tide elevation. -Object404 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that relates, but that does at least mean it has a local population. CMD (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Saint Pierre and Miquelon is a self-governing colony, so I don't see how that relates here or is a good basis for comparison? -Object404 (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's merely an example of the limits of the meaning of EEZs, which are explicitly not territorial waters. Even territorial waters don't convey ownership of land within them. See Chizumulu Island. CMD (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Chizumulu is an island, not a low-tide elevation.

Are you a subject-matter expert in International Law?

Do you have a Master of Laws (LLM) and are an expert in International Law? Pham Ngoc Minh Trang of the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law who is also a 2005 fellow at the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea (ITLOS) states at the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) of the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

"If an LTE (low-tide elevation) is located within maritime zones of a littoral state, such as territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf, it automatically belongs to that state."

Are you a journalist who covers international affairs with over 3 decades of experience? Jamie Seidel writes:

"Manila was confirmed as the owner of Sabina Shoal (called Escoda by Manila and Xianbin Jiao by Beijing) in 2016 when an international tribunal ruled it was part of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as defined by the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)."

I don't know your background, and the above may sound like "appeal to authority", but unless we Wikipedians are subject-matter experts, we should defer to what reliable sources by subject-matter experts say. Best regards, -Object404 (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Object404 (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the subject matter arguments, although I must admit I have not seen a news.com.au profile presented as authoritative. To circle back, the part of your proposal we are discussing here is to shift from the simple alphabetical system to something else. Citing various news reports does not address how and why shifting from a basic system to something favoring a particular POV helps the reader. CMD (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia naming order convention below. Best regards, -Object404 (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the one which clearly notes the utility of alphabetical ordering. CMD (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not POV. It's following Wikipdia guidelines. The guidelines say "Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages", but "Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name" which is stated earlier, takes precedence.

All the best, -Object404 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Stating this is the local official name is a clear POV, and the shift in names seems to be rooted in trying to enforce that POV. CMD (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

How is it POV when the reliable sources say a particular country excercises sovereign rights over it? Please expound. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources make it very, very, clear that there is a sovereignty dispute. That the dispute is physical is also a very clear sign that there is no clear exercise of sovereign rights. CMD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You can still inadvertently introduce POV in any dispute. In this case the sovereign rights are disputed so any emphasis of the use of official local names could impair neutrality of the article as a whole even if allowed by the rules of the community. All we can do is strive for neutrality and be aware that what any individual might think is neutral is likely to be not seen as such by those with other perceptions of an issue. In the particular case to hand the article has one order in the information box, being Buhanginan ng Escoda (Filipino), Escoda Shoal (Philippine English), Bãi Sa Bin (Vietnamese), 仙賓礁 / 仙宾礁 Xiānbīn Jiāo (Chinese) and another order of alternative names in the lead being Escoda Shoal (Filipino: Buhanginan ng Escoda); Bãi Sa Bin (Vietnamese: Bãi Sa Bin); Xianbin Jiao (Chinese: 仙賓礁/仙宾礁; pinyin: Xiānbīn Jiāo). Might I suggest only one of these if agreed by consensus is used consistently in both places. I would also point out that according to US BGN Advisory Committee on Undersea Features (ACUF) the following less commonly used names have not been mentioned being Banc Sabina (French), Beting Sabina (Malay), and the multiple other Chinese names such as Hsien-pin An-sha, Xianbin Ansha, Yulin, 仙濱暗沙, 鱼鳞). In other cases where there is such a confusion of names there needs to be a separate sentence/paragraph that explains all the names outside the lead or information box. ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way I have now done a direct query on the US GNS database to confirm all these variant names are recorded as valid as of this date having noted original reference last updated 2016 ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you guys! -Object404 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name.". Escoda Shoal is the local official name of the state that exercises sovereign rights over Sabina Shoal under international law. Case closed. -Object404 (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Given other contributions and feedback on attempts at addressing NPOV issues in article but by editors who did not enter debate it appears consensus because of dispute is to go purely alphabetical at this time with names which puts the Vietnamese name first and ensure original sources are checked against later interpretations. No expert at this but progress has been made on article as well I see as the main current parties to dispute are at least talking. Thanks all, including those who did not want to make their position clear in talk. ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we remove the Neutrality hatnote now? -Object404 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Not with the lead taking a stance on the EEZ cited only to the government of one of the parties. CMD (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Added a citation by an international fact checking organization that is a signatory to the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter for mention of the EEZ in lead. -Object404 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Really need something much much better than a deprecated source, and as previously mentioned, much better to add new text and info into the body. CMD (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Object404 should seek consensus. For the time being as a compromise I have added a balanced content in the lead. STSC (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Chinese claim

The nine-dash line, which illustrates most of the maritime areas, is not an actual claim, which was "made" by China in a separate note to the UN but is still considered ambiguous [2]. This is a common mistake by the press [3] [4]. Vacosea (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you have created POV by removing that China section without trying to improve it. The paragraph should be modified to explain why China has been active around Sabina Shoal. I agree there are better secondary and tertiary interpretations of China's approach to 9 dash line than the incorrect wording as indeed China does not regard all waters within the dotted line as its internal waters and territorial sea but it has a particular interest in the waters around Sabina Shoal that needs an explanation. I have restored paragraph as you have been too bold. ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The article states several times that China claims Sabina Shoal inside the Philippine EEZ which I didn't change. Vacosea (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vacosea China has since released an "updated map" of its territory in Sept. 2023. Maybe your 2015, 2016, and 2020 citations are out of date? Regards, -Object404 (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The point is that maps and illustrations are not China's actual claim. Vacosea (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

China's position always states that China has the indisputable sovereignty over the "South China Sea Islands and their adjacent waters" within the nine-dash line per historic rights; its claim has been generalised as claiming the whole South China Sea. STSC (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The generalization from AP is incorrect.

Except that it does not, technically. Reporting that China “claims 80 percent of the South China Sea” is commonly provided as context in news on the region, a “fact” the Chinese government no doubt welcomes and does nothing to explicitly discourage. (For a sense of the statistic’s media saturation, a recent internet search returned almost 2 million results). Coverage of the Lassen’s FON passage also frequently noted that China claims 12 nautical miles (nm) of territorial seas around the Spratlys. When those two ideas appear together in the same reporting (and they often do), it should be clear there is a problem with the popular narrative. For China to claim 80 percent of the South China Sea, it would also have to claim most of the water far beyond 12 nautical miles from any of those islands, artificial or not.

The sooner we go along with the best sources the quicker this can be corrected. Vacosea (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)