Talk:Guang Da Xing No. 28 incident

Need Background

Perhaps some more background information is needed? like how the two countries' EEZ overlaps and any past attempt to resolve the issue?--Kevkchan (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article doesn't link to it, but there must already be an article somewhere that gives this info. That will also be the article where this one will be redirected to, as soon as the initial excitement over this (really rather minor) incident has died away. Probably another week or so should do it... --Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there's an article regarding this particular territorial dispute between Taiwan and the Philippines. The closest thing I found was the dispute in South China Sea that involves 5 other countries, and I doubt if this article can be incorporated into that article. The only other article I could find is the Philippines–Taiwan relations which contains very little information. --Kevkchan (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • To the best of my knowledge, there was a memorandum signed by the two goverments. However, upon the declaration of the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, the Philippone government unilaterally abrogated this memorandum.--kwyang86 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2013 (PTZ)

resource data

• google find keyword : "2013" "Philippine Coast Guard" "Taiwanese fishing vessel"

-P1ayer (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nationalist motivated edits and Request for Page Protection

There has been numerous edits by IP users are editing this page in protest making changes biased to Taiwan. I think this page should be protected.--Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree! The incident is current and the aftermath is on-going. It would defeat the purpose of this article if it is protected NOW. Just be vigilant and be alert to vandals and promptly remove them. Showmebeef (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2013

Under Claims and Investigations / Taiwan, is the following:

According to the voyage data recorder, the shooting occurred at 19°59'47.27"N and 122°55'41.37"W, which is outside the Philippines' territorial waters, but within the shared EEZ.

Based on the location of the incident this should probably be changed to E (East) not W (West) as shown, ie. 122°55'41.37"E

Regards, Grant --Glupien (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Glupien (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

since it is already established that the location of the incident is outside PH's terrestrial waters, I suggest that the statement "The investigation report also stated that the shooting occurred within Philippine territory in the waterway off the Batanes Islands" (added on Aug 7, 2013) be removed. Incidentally, is there any legal basis for NBI Director Nonnatus Rojas to make such a statement? Showmebeef (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement is a statement of fact, not opinion. The sources confirm that such a statement was made based on the content of the investigation report; whether the statement is true or not a matter for other forums to decide. All that matters for Wikipedia editors is that the sources are reliable and verifiable, as these two references are. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 12:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

But as stated above, "the shooting occurred at 19°59'47.27"N and 122°55'41.37"E(sp), which is outside the Philippines' territorial waters, but within the shared EEZ" which I believe is a HARD fact. Obviously the two statements can not be reconciled. One of them is incorrect. All other statement within this article, as well as the map, state that the incident happened outside of PH's terrestrial waters. That's why I am asking if Rojas' statement has any legal basis. Do you have sources to prove that it happened WHTHIN PH's terrestrial waters? Just because a source is reliable and verifiable, does not mean it SHOULD be quoted (obviously not the whole source is quoted)--especially when its statement is in direct conflict with rest of the statements of the article, which are also supported by MULTIPLE "reliable and verifiable" sources. Showmebeef (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are missing my point; I am not disputing nor asserting the veracity of the statements within the article. All that matters is that these statements are supported by reliable and verifiable sources. If these sources disagree on a given common point, the reader is smart enough to recognize that the sources obviously come from both ends of the spectrum, in this particular case, Taiwan and the Philippines; Taiwan states that the event occurred outside the Philippines' territorial waters and the Philippines states that it occurred within its territorial waters. The reader will then be correctly informed that there still exists a point of disagreement between the two countries, despite improvements in the diplomatic relationship between the two countries over the course of the past few days.

The point is, articles on Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view; removing that pertinent statement you indicated would sway bias toward Taiwan. In addition, your efforts of establishing "legal basis" for statements, whether that of Rojas or for what you believe is "HARD" fact constitutes analysis or synthesis, which is against Wikipedia policy.— •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 05:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Romanization

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (Taiwan) uses "Guang Da Xing". Shrigley (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)