Jump to content

Talk:Kalayaan, Palawan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Is Kalayaan part of the Spratly group? — Instantnood 18:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Howard the Duck 05:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The intro and most of the rest of this write-up presents it as part of Philippines. The article contains multiple disputed statement such as "Vietnam which occupies 25 islands which China had considered a vassal state and subject to Chinese sovereignty", many of which are original research.

Facts such as people get arrested or shot in Spratly:

  • 2 Chinese merchants killed by Filipinos in Apr. 1996;
  • a Chinese fishing boat got shot and sink in May 1999;
  • 1 Chinese fisherman Fu Gongwu was shot and killed in May 2000, the only cause was his boat was out of control and drift to the Philippines;
  • In Apr. 27, 2006, 7 fishermen was attacked in Spratly, 4 of them died and 3 of them hurt; all GPS and other fishing tools were loot.
  • 2 Vietnamese fishermen were shot in May 2011)

--58.83.252.65 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Writing that "Vietnam which occupies 25 islands which China had considered a vassal state and subject to Chinese sovereignty" is fundamentally wrong from all aspects. Firstly, Vietnam only occupies some small islands compared to Taiwan & Philippines' ones, and most of their garrisons are situated on reefs and submerged atolls (not islands) in the western part of Spratlys. Secondly, Vietnamese version of Wikipedia said Vietnam occupied 21 geographical entities, not 25, and the source is prestigious since it's an publication issued by their Navy Command (as local Wikipedians write). Maybe be the author of this information has counted banks such as Prince Consort Bank, Prince of Wales Bank, Alexandra Bank, Vanguard Bank,... and get the number of 25. Lastly, I don't know what they though when writing the funny statement "China had considered [Vietnam] a vassal state and subject to Chinese sovereignty". If so, Chinese history would have had a large section about how the French Colonial Empire invaded & colonized part of the country's territory in 19th and 20th century. I wonder how people judge Wikipedia when they read this kind of nonsense? Autumnyear (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No bib?

[edit]

How come there is no bib for all the informations according to this artical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.138.20 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, how many Spratlys' entities does the Philippines effectively control?

[edit]

I wonder if Filipino members forget to mention about Balagtas (Irving Reef in English). Some media sources say Philippines controls Balagtas which is close to West York Island. Does Philippines has an official source showing the number of entities the country is controlling effectively? Thank you.

P.S: Interestingly, as I wander around other versions of this article, I notice that the Vietnamese version says Philippines is controlling Irving Reef. Here's a machine translation:

Actual Kalayaan controlled by the Philippines located in the western province of Palawan, including seven islands and sand dunes , two shallow reef and a beach. List as follows: (1) Pag-Asa , (2) Likas , (3) Parola , (4) Lawak , (5) Kota , (6) Patag , (7) Panata , (8) Balagtas , (9) Rizal , (10) Ayungin.

Autumnyear (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kalayaan, Palawan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kalayaan, Palawan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kalayaan, Palawan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV and unattributed additions

[edit]

There have been multiple unattributed additions from else where in wikipedia, deletions of uncited text and lead of article is POV -example recent substitution South China Sea by West Philippines Sea. ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChaseKiwi it is just a tip of the iceberg that is the heightened geopolitical unrest between Manila and Beijing. With the June 2024 Second Thomas Shoal incident — a critical point in this heightened territorial dispute — it is certain that all articles related to the South China Sea (SCS)/West Philippine Sea (WPS) region are going to be heavily-edited from both sides. Even the article of the shoal that is the central focus of the current flared-up dispute has been subject to edit-revert-edit-revert cycles. I have reverted a 2017 edit on Ilocos Norte that changed the instance of SCS to WPS, citing your edit here as well as lacking any strong basis like a consensus to shift to WPS over SCS in all Philippine-related articles like Cavite, Palawan, Central Luzon, Palauig, Lubang Island, and perhaps dozens more. But even then, like the flaming dispute, the debate on the usage of WPS/SCS over such articles will certainly be "bloody" (figuratively). Should articles that either cover the territorial dispute or are connected/associated to the territorial dispute — like Cavite, Masinloc, Ilocos Norte, Batanes, El Nido, Palawan, Da Nang, Pratas Islands, Hainan, Sansha City, Treaty of Washington (1900), Amboyna Cay, Swallow Reef, China–Philippines relations, Free Territory of Freedomland, Battle of the Paracel Islands, Timeline of the South China Sea dispute — be subjected to Wikipedia:Contentious topics arbitration? Also ping @Wtmitchell: who got involved in the reversion of the "Second Thomas Shoal" anonymous edits lately. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see article already improved after my notice. As you say there are reasons for current POV issues with supporters of two of the multiple parties involved in the relevant disputes biasing multiple articles, sometimes in a systemic manner and this has included perhaps selected shading out or overwhelming of material that represented views held in Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan. Certainly those with experience like Wtmitchell and administrators have had their work cut out with the recent bad faith editing and if contentious topics arbitration will help the greater Wikipedia community and reduce their workload no objections. ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChaseKiwi some addition. While the article of the 1900 treaty, which clarifies the Treaty of Paris (1898), doesn't explicitly mention about the disputed territories, Filipino scholars and former jurists here like Antonio Carpio have cited the 1900 treaty as a strong basis for the support of the Philippine sovereignty over the islands (2015 article, 2024 article). President Marcos echoed this treaty in a high-level dialogue in Singapore last month. So I believe that article may need to be included in the "Contentious Topics" arbitration, if ever. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChaseKiwi I have added the mention of the issue in the said article, still attempting to be neutral by not using the "West Philippine Sea" (unless a community-wide consensus has been established allowing the use of this term in all other articles connected to the disputed territories). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This admin/editor-imposed requirement for a site-wide consensus to use WPS seems nugatory. There is implied consensus by virtue of fact. Ie. It is a fact the West Philippine Sea exists by virtue of law. That law is recognising as valid through the highest international courts. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a democracy. Consensus is only required when there is a dispute to the editing. If there is, I think the onus to seek a change to the implied consensus needs to come from those making it.
Until then, I suggest "South China Sea (West Philippine Sea)" or "West Philippine Sea, South China Sea" are most correct. Both terms should be used as they are both legally valid and factual descriptions of the area.
Note WPS only applies to the maritime area within the Philippine maritime EEZ as accepted by the International Court of Justice.
Aeonx (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted an unreferenced change of South China Sea to Vietnam Sea today in another article. Since I don't keep up with such, does any one know if the Vietnamese have changed their historic term East Sea legally ?. ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChaseKiwi It's good that you are all talking about it. I am not alone in noticing it. I had to undo vandals today [1] who are changing sea names to West Phillipines Sea. And overzealously wiping out mere mentions of Taiwanese, Vietnamese and Chinese claims.[2] Noticed they all geolocate to Phillipines and I don't think they are here to build an encyclopaedia but just heated nationalists taking it too far. Unfortunately I think you may need to add Sabina Shoal to the list to watch out for too. 49.180.181.214 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


IMO, as of now there is little need to file a request to the "Wikipedian arbitrators" (correct me if I'm wrong in using the term for people behind the ArbCom[?]) to include the South China Sea territorial dispute as a WP:Contentious topic that may subject hundreds of articles connected to Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam to severe editing restrictions. Looking at the talk page for the Philippines article, the "South China Sea" vs. "West Philippine Sea" use debate/requests seem to be isolated:

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, that justifies an initial reversion if context is wide even if edit meets other rules. ChaseKiwi (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kalayaan,_Palawan&oldid=1237481053"