There is almost an edit war over the use of Chinese government sources to cite positions of other countries. Please discuss this content to achieve a consensus here before re-adding the disputed content.

Personally, I believe that official sources of the countries in question should be used, as the Chinese government has lied about other countries before (see Cambodia and India above). Also see the section pertaining to Xinhua, where consensus is that is not a reliable source. Mamyles (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur Chris Hallquist (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur Collagium (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur  Gunkarta  talk  16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

All of the sources I used to add the nations to the Support China list aren't from Chinese sources. I even used the Guardian as one of them. Also, the same exact article that currently shows that Australia supports the Philippines, supported many of the nations, that were foolishly removed from the Support China list. This article is being edited to distort fact for the American point of view. Let's be real here: If I used an American or Western source, you people are fine with that. But if we used any non-Western source, then it is not all right with you guys. Then, you guys accuse all non-Western sources as being unreliable even though most of them are valid. Therefore, I accuse you pro-American editors for censorship.--ExGuardianNinja (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the usage of the Guardian source, it says "In late May the foreign ministry in Beijing said Vanuatu, Lesotho and Palestine had joined its side". What this means is that the Chinese foreign ministry claims that these countries support China so China is speaking on behalf of those countries, which can be misleading (as in the case with Fiji and Poland where Fiji and Poland both said that China misrepresented their position). While the Guardian is a reliable source, the fact is coming from the Chinese foreign ministry so it is unreliable. It was just inserted in there to give a false impression that it is a reliable statement so that's WP:Citation overkill. You are wrong about saying that the exact same article is being used for Australia. It has a different title, url, and content. Also, your accusations of editors who think non–Western sources as being unreliable as being pro–American is baseless if reasoning has been used. Plus, many of the non–Western sources are Chinese sources, which would have to write in line with the Chinese government owing to pervasive media censorship over there. Your accusations indicates that you cannot explain why Chinese sources are better. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ssbbplayer, and I'd add that I already made this point under "general problems with sources on this page." Furthermore, "I accuse you pro-American editors for censorship" could be construed as a personal attack on other editors. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you guys intend to ignore the Chinese perspective, then it is fair to say that this article is only one-sided. Also, your actions is censorship since you choose to select only Western sources. A lot of non-Western sources aren't from China at all. If you guys truly were neutral, you should had kept "United Arab Emirates", and other nations, which were supported by the same article that indicated that Australia supported the Philippines. IT HAS THE EXACT URL, TITLE AND CONTENT. IT IS THE SAME KOREAN SOURCE (http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/753617.html). The source clearly states that Laos, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Poland support China's stance. If you choose to deny that, then it is very evident that your censorship is prevalent. If you change Australia's source, then your censorship actions are very obvious. Also, the source that showed that Syria supports China is from a local Syrian source. Yet, it was removed. If the consensus is going to be only run by pro-American editors, then the consensus has no meaning because it will only favor the American point of view. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Korean source is reliable but the content is based on statements coming from China’s state-run newspaper, the China Daily (first section of the article). Even though it is a reliable non–western source, it is being misused to show that certain countries support China because the content is coming from the China Daily . This is what China claims, not the respective countries themselves. Regarding Poland, I do not see how sending a person to China to its military parade indicates that it supports China. One can send delegates to China for the military parade yet not support China on the issue with the South China sea. Because the countries were being mass added, it would be better to revert back to the old version and discuss it (per WP:BRD) to ensure that each addition is reliable. Syria can go back because it is coming from a Syrian source but other countries have to be done on a case by case basis. Also, stop accusing editors of being pro–American or censorship. That's not going to lead to a productive discussion. Also, how is it censorship if older versions of this article can be seen? Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconding the point that one can send delegates to a parade with out supporting the host country's position on any particular issue. Chris Hallquist (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you choose to accept and disregard certain parts of the source. And you choose to doubt only Chinese sources. I still have many disagreements, but I am glad that you will let Syria go back to the list. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't "accepting and disregard certain parts of the source". It's just accurately recognizing what the source does and does not say. Chris Hallquist (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you truly did recognized everything the source said, you guys would allow Malaysia, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Laos, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Poland to be added to China's support list. Funny that you guys only kept Australia. The source did say that and it will be funny to see what outrageous reason you would use to justify the exclusion of these nations. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

For the list that didn't support the attribution, I just wanted to add that even if you removed all Chinese sources, at least 40 nations were supported by international non-Chinese sources and few other Western sources. I saw nations that had non-Chinese sources and they were removed as well. I think this move has a hidden agenda to promote the American perspective of the court ruling instead of accepting reality.--50.35.84.247 (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User50.35.84.247 said "I saw nations that had non-Chinese sources and they were removed as well. I think this move has a hidden agenda to promote the American perspective of the court ruling instead of accepting reality". It is a personal attack. I did took the time to carefully analyze each source from the previous version where 70 countries were added before I reverted it. Cambodia and Poland has been discussed recently. As well, many of the countries being removed had 1-3 citations with a mix of Chinese and non–Chinese sources. If I did remove the non–Chinese sources (you should had done that rather than the other way around), only the countries that could be included would be substantial but less than 40 countries (Afghanistan, Brunei, Kenya, Laos, Malaysia, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) could be included because they are discussed in the article in depth. Cambodia and Poland are not included based on the talk page with the former having an official statement from its ministry of foreign affairs and the latter due to it denying support to China. Cameroon would be included but Slovenia, Niger and Mozambique are excluded because from the reuters source, the statement "Countries including Burundi, Slovenia, Niger and Mozambique had pledged their support for China, the Foreign Ministry said this week." is based on what the foreign ministry of China says, which has been accused of misrepresenting their position on this issue. As well, for South Africa, I found the official statement from the government (link). The statement indicates SA's vague position and appears that it does not take sides. The source BRICS post and DNA India (non-western nor Chinese) are not proper due to a couple of reasons: First, the statement from the DNA India source "Angola, Liberia, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, among others, have expressed their support for China's stance since early July, according to Lu" is coming from statements made by China's foreign minister, Lu Kang. This is problematic due to its systematic misrepresentation of the countries' stance when info is coming from the Chinese government (the source is obviously not Chinese) towards this. The BRICS post source is not good. First it says "South Africa backed China on Wednesday against the US’ so-called freedom of navigation..." and then in the next statement, it uses the quote coming from the South African government (source) which is “South Africa has noted with concern the recent trend in the global arena to politicise the situation pertaining to the South China Sea,” The statement indicates that it does not take sides since politicization can occur on both sides. As well, the BRICS post article claims that it supports China using this statement "South Africa supports the position that the sovereign states that are directly concerned should resolve their relevant disputes through direct consultations and negotiations, on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law, as well as to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea." A simple google search has shown that the top results come mostly from pro–Chinese sources that are being used as a basis that South Africa supports China. It is not true since it is very vague and does not seem to appear that South Africa is taking any sides. Taiwan and Vanatu should obviously be kept. Yemen should be removed since from the reuters source, that information that Yemen is supporting China is coming from the Chinese foreign ministry, not Yemen's foreign ministry. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The main International reactions section should probably be renamed as International reactions re the venue or International reactions re arbitration vs. negotiation or somesuch, as a section about international reactions to the award will probably need to be be added -- given that the article makes such a big deal about the reactions currently covered, it can hardly neglect to cover reactions to the award. That renaming would remove the current HTML anchor ambiguity between that renamed section and the currently identically named International reactions subsection in the Academic analysis section of the article.

The Potential ruling subsection should probably be removed now that the ruling is no longer potential. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We can just put two sub-headings(level 3) under the International reactions main section: "Before the ruling" and "After the ruling"; and push down the existing sub-sections accordingly. STSC (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Two subsection headings like International reactions before the ruling and International reactions after the ruling would work. I mentioned in passing that the page currently has two separate subsections headed identically as International reactions. MOS:HEAD currently doesn't identify that as a problem but, glossing over the details (see e.g., [2]), it does present a navigational problem with an undocumented solution for navigating to a particular one of these identically named sections by using e.g., "[Article name]#International reactions" in the URL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That International reactions heading under Academic analysis section was originally named by me as Other issues. Someone should not have changed it; it should be changed back to Other issues or something else to avoid the navigational problem. STSC (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information is always tricky and needs discussion. Antonio Carpio's analysis can be probably shortened into one line like this:

Philippine Associate Justice Antonio Carpio concedes that thearbitration would not resolve the dispute completely.

and this line can go to section Role of the arbitral tribunal. By the way, the other piece of analysis was removed somehow in this section, that needs to be retrieved back and improved. Toto11zi (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, such move would dumb-down the analysis into a generic "the arbitration case would not resolve the case completely/ the case would not resolve the dispute in general completely" which I believe has been repeated by other analysts. His analysis may be vital to illustrate the Philippine POV of a arbitration case victory. And his proposal of 100 year suspension of claims has not been repeated elsewhere. As somewhat with a more direct connection with the government, his comments has more weight than a professor in a state university. So even if some consensus resulted to the removal of the academic analysis section. Carpio's view might still be used elsewhere in the article to illustrate the Philippine POV on the case.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this line becomes general and it doesn't contain much information, again, if it's repeated, then it can be moved to the body instead of the analysis section. His proposal of 100 year suspension is unique, but I don't think it carries so much value, that's my feeling. I think we will need to think more. Toto11zi (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-reading the "academic analysis" section, one thing that jumps out at it is that little of it makes me feel like it's improving my understanding of this case. The one exception is the bullet that begins "Philippine Associate Justice Antonio Carpio..."—that's substantive enough that I feel like I'm actually learning something. OTOH, maybe some of the sources would have useful information, if explained better? If anyone is feeling brave, reading through each of them carefully one by one could be helpful. Chris Hallquist (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Carpio's statement is here. Improving this section is challenging, constraints are we don't want to lose information, also we want to improve quality. Yes we will need to analyse each one, and this will take time. Toto11zi (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the issues the section has with WP:UNDUE and WP:QUOTEFARM, I think we need to be selective about what we keep. If a cite isn't adding something significant to the section, it should go. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that a number of sources in this section come from Chinese government-controlled news media. Even if the issues with bias in these sources did not exist, it's hard to get useful information on a particular scholar's views out of a brief quotation in a piece of journalism. In contrast, while I don't think the citations from the Chinese Society of International Law, Antonios Tzanakopoulos, and John Norton Moore add much to the article in their current form, they at least could be reworked to add something. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Alphama removed Poland from the Support list here. And here's the link Alphama put in the comment. This web site requires subscription, so I don't have access. Based on the following reliable source (Wang Yi Holds Talks with Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski of Poland) , Poland supports China, the actual statement is:

(Foreign Minister of Poland) Witold Waszczykowski said that Poland supports China’s policy of peacefully resolving disputes over some Nansha islands and reefs through dialogues and consultations.

If you have reliable source suggesting Poland has changed it's policy. Please provide a reliable statement from the Polish government. Searching the Internet didn't return such statement. Toto11zi (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Here. [3] -- Namayan (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I get with that web site: "To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In". Can you post statement from the Polish government, or Polish official? Toto11zi (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the quote. —seav (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Polish officials were taken aback in April when Beijing suddenly issued a statement that hadn’t been approved by both sides following a meeting between their foreign ministers.

It said Poland supported China’s policy of resolving the dispute “through dialogues and consultations,” making no mention of arbitration.

The statement “did not accurately reflect Poland’s position on the issue of the South China Sea, which has been communicated to the Chinese side,” Poland’s Foreign Ministry said. “That position remains unchanged and is in line with the entire EU’s policies.”

Thanks, we can describe this in the page briefly. Adding another section "Conflicting reports of support vs. opposition to arbitration" doesn't make much sense. If the statement from the Poland's Foreign Ministry is reliable, then we should remove Poland from the support list. Could you check if you find that statement from any other place other than this piece of news? Toto11zi (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Now I can retrieve the information from here. The description consists of 3 lines.

1. Polish officials were taken aback in April when Beijing suddenly issued a statement that hadn’t been approved by both sides following a meeting between their foreign ministers.

2. It said Poland supported China’s policy of resolving the dispute “through dialogues and consultations,” making no mention of arbitration.

3. The statement “did not accurately reflect Poland’s position on the issue of the South China Sea, which has been communicated to the Chinese side,” Poland’s Foreign Ministry said. “That position remains unchanged and is in line with the entire EU’s policies.”

For line 3, I tried to google the specific quote, and it only points this WJC news, I also searched the web site of Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland, I couldn't find any quote like that, here's only piece of information I found for Waszczykowski's visit to china on that web site, here. This would suggest line 3 is probably bogus like the other 3 cases (Fiji, Cambodia, Slovenia) WSJ reported. Anyhow, let's scrutinize these 3 lines. Line 1, we don't know which Polish officials and we don't know when they were taken aback, this line is not relevant anyways. Line 2, here the statement was from Waszczykowski, not China, line 2 emphasizes "making no mention of arbitration", but it ignores the phase "Poland supports China’s policy".

Line 3 does not specify which part of the statement did not accurately reflect Poland's positionand and what has been communicated to the Chinese side. Based on the few other EU cases, supporting China's position does not violate EU's position, and the first and main way to resolve disputes is through peaceful means based on UNCLOS.

Here I don't see any indication that Poland has rejected Waszczykowski's statement which is

(Foreign Minister of Poland) Witold Waszczykowski said that Poland supports China’s policy of peacefully resolving disputes over some Nansha islands and reefs through dialogues and consultations.

If you don't agree, please discuss here with reliable information. Toto11zi (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Your logical argument is like this: You think the WSJ source is not reliable because you cannot find any information from the Polish government website. Using your same logic, we can then also reject news sources like Xinhua if we cannot find any information from the government website of Egypt, Tanzania, South Africa, and many other countries. For example, Palestine's support for the Chinese stance is sourced from a news item from Xinhua. But if there is no official information from the Palestinian's government website, then let's delete Palestine from the article, OK? —seav (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, my logic is this question, has Poland rejected Waszczykowski's statement? If answer is yes, then remove Poland from the list, if answer is no, then keep it there. Do you agree? Toto11zi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nie. The list specifically states "Opposition against the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants". I don't see either of these two words attributed to Poland in the ref cited. Hammersbach (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, Seav's question was about the statement from the Poland government, it's not about Waszczykowski's statement.Toto11zi (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but I understood quite clearly. Again, the list is titled "Opposition against the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants". Therefore to be included on such a list a country would have to state specifically state that they “oppose” arbitration and/or that they support “bilateral” negotiations. It is decidedly inaccurate to include countries on this list because they state that they support peacefully resolving disputes through dialogues and consultations. It can quite easily be argued that arbitration is in fact a form of peaceful dialogue and consultation. With respect to Poland, a country whose name I deleted from this list, neither Poland nor Waszczykowski included these necessary qualifying words in any statement Hammersbach (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC).

If you want to discuss the title and quote issue, then it's different topic than what's I'm discussing with Seav in this discussion thread. Could you rearrange lines in this section so editors can follow easily? I will include my comment once you're done. Toto11zi (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not discussing the title and quote issue, I am discussing the erroneous attempt to list Poland as opposing arbitration/supporting bilateral discussions, but then I am sure that you are quite aware of that. As for formatting lines in this discussion, that is something that should properly be done by you as you are the one who was commenting. Hammersbach (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Countries have different ways of expressing support, in this case, it's very explicit, "Poland supports China's policy", do you agree? If you are saying supporting China's policy is different than "Opposition against the arbitration", or "Support for bilateral talks between the disputants", then it's title or description issue, adding "Support for China's stance" should fix the issue, agree? Toto11zi (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

According to The Wall Street Journal, Poland officials claim that their position has been misquoted by Chinese sources, and that Poland in fact stands with the European Union's position in support of the arbitration.

Again, Chinese sources are not reliable and should not be cited for any information other than official Chinese government positions. Mamyles (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mymyles, have you read what I've analyzed? I bet you haven't, we're done discussing WSJ! and you're saying "according to WSJ"? Do you have new facts to add? Please don't waste your time and my time, your slogan doesn't work, WSj has been proved to be bogus in this case. Discuss only with reliable information, reliable information means what statement from which official in this case. Clear? Toto11zi (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you misanalysed the source. It is very clear that Poland denies supporting China from this quote. "The statement “did not accurately reflect Poland’s position on the issue of the South China Sea, which has been communicated to the Chinese side,” Poland’s Foreign Ministry said". This precedes the quote "It said Poland supported China’s policy of resolving the dispute “through dialogues and consultations,” making no mention of arbitration". WSJ is a reliable source so they do not obviously make up facts. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on your comment, you haven't read the analysis. You must at least read the analysis and understand first before adding your comment with sound reasoning or new facts if you don't agree. Agree? Toto11zi (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a lie. I do not agree with you. I analyzed the statement to see anything to comment before. Do not accuse me of not reading the analysis when I spent time looking at each statement using specific quotes from the source. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently, the article is in danger of becoming a whole dissertation on the background and issues on the South China Sea. We already have an article for that: Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Please let's make this article more focused on the arbitration case itself. Any substantial and non-summarized background material should be added to other more relevant articles. —seav (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Soliciting opinion from seav regarding the split proposal, since the goal of the proposal is to give more due focus to the arbitration case and less focus to the diplomacy/PR "war" between China and the Philippines and transfer the "international reactions" section into a new article for a comprehensive discussion regarding the matter. This has been done with many terrorist attacks article where the international reactions section was split into a new article. The difference is reactions to the case has more impact (e.g. diplomatic pressure) than condolences usually expressed following a terrorist attack.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the reactions section is too big that it overwhelms the article just yet. I think the details of the case itself as well as the narrative of events for the case is missing. —seav (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@seav how do you feel about the current form of the article on this front? Chris Hallquist (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on various sources including the recent ones, Cambodia obviously backs China.

Cambodian premier won't back South China Sea ruling June 21, 2016 3:33 am JST, here

The ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) said yesterday it fully supports Prime Minister Hun Sen’s backing of China in the dispute over control of the South China Sea. FRIDAY, 24 JUNE 2016 here

Cambodia not to support decision over South China Sea issue: PM June 28, 2016 Last Updated at 09:24 IST here

seav, since you moved Cambodia from the non-support list, can you provide reliable source with Cambodian statement to support your action? Toto11zi (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In April, the Cambodian government spokesman Phay Siphan played down the ASEAN split, and it's not rejection to China's position. [[4]]. In June, the Cambodian position is very clear that Cambodia supports China. Toto11zi (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the reliable source that indicates that Cambodia does not support any side. It is the official statement detailing Cambodia's position on the ruling coming from its ministry of foreign affairs. From the source, it does mention that Cambodia does not take any sides in this dispute so it should be removed. It is more recent and is the official position of Cambodia. It should be removed from the list of countries supporting China. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? The U.S. also says it does not take side. I think the Cambodia case is really common sense, use google to search, there's Cambodia news everyday. If you insists Cambodia doesn't support China, we can discuss. Foreign ministry of China has detailed information for this case. Agree? Toto11zi (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the statement from that link? Common sense is not a good way to answer this and using the foreign ministry of China should only be used to cite official Chinese positions. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I Agree with Ssbbplayer.

Using 'common sense' (whose?) to contradict a Official Government Release is obviously a case of you don't like it. Collagium (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the sources cited above and there is no doubt that 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. Objections, if any, are welcome. Collagium (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As the official statement is clearly stating Cambodia's position and there are no objections I am requesting editors to make necessary correction to the article. Collagium (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's scrutinize this statement from Cambodia. There're 3 paragraghs and 3 points, let's check each one.

Paragraph 1, there are 4 important concepts, 1. "issuing", 2, "debates", 3, "analysis", 4. "concerns"

Paragraph 2, the important part is the last sentence, "not to get involved in the above-said process", this implies Cambodia does not want to get involved in the "issuing thing", in the debates, in the analysis, and in the concerns. This statement has nothing to do with its support to China's position.

Paragraph 3, reiteration

Point 1: ASEAN has nothing to do with the arbitration case. Very clear statement.

Point 2: Cambodia will not expressing any position on the verdict. Very clear.

Point 3: not relevant. peaceful means.

Here I would conclude 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. Agree? Toto11zi (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Kindly read the statement properly. Please don't distort facts. The statement is reproduced in full in the Protected Edit request for all editors and Admins to see. The statement of Cambodian Government that

'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.' and

' 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' are unambiguous. Collagium (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is my point 2 not clear enough? Read: "Cambodia will not join in expressing any common position on the verdict"relates to point 1, it's about ASEAN, it's very clear, Cambodia will not join with the ASEAN to express a common position on the verdict. 2 important words are "join" and "common". Toto11zi (talk)

Read the statement and it is clear as day that Cambodia is neutral on this issue. The subject matter and the content clearly states the position to be neutral. Kindly don't twist the words. If you followed the recent developments you will notice that even the ASEAN statement is neutral and it is doubtful how much this issue was really discussed. [6]. Collagium (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You will need to read carefully, Cambodia wants ASEAN to be neutral. Toto11zi (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Another point you must remember this common position means ASEAN position, not Cambodian position Toto11zi (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Take note of the joint statement of Cambodia and Myanmar. I concur Toto11zi's assertations that Cambodia wants ASEAN to be neutral and express preference for bilateral talks between China and Philippines while officially stating they wont join any common position which is a calculated move to remain officially neutral.

The confusion might have arose from the interpretation of "/" in "Opposition to the arbitration / Support for bilateral talks between the disputants / Support for China's stance". Which depending on the interpretation might equate to "either" or "and".

Officially according to the statement issued by Cambodia, Cambodia only falls under "Support for bilateral talks between the disputants". It has no comment on the arbitration case itself (preference for bilateral talks does not necessarily equate to opposition to the arbitration process; e.g. The US supports a Philippine-China bilateral talks while supporting the arbitration even after the ruling), only opposes using ASEAN as a vehicle for arbitration support, and "Support for China's stance" is not applicable (except from various interpretations of Chinese media sources) since Cambodia says its not trying to pick a common stand on the issue.

As a side comment, the presence of "Support for China's stance" and "Support for Philippines's stance" is problematic since most of the cases are interpretation by Chinese (usually in phrases such as Chinese FM says that "Country X totally understands China's stance on the South China Sea" and Philippine media (usually in headlines). It should be removed, also for conciseness and we shouldn't underestimate readers. It is implied that in most cases "support for arbitration alone" usually equates to support for Philippines seeking arbitration and Opposition usually means support for China.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I added "Support for China's stance" to address the Poland issue, and someone added also "Support for Philippines's stance", that seems to be also reasonable, otherwise Australia will be out of that list. Since Australia, like the U.S., has never expressed its support to the specific arbitration, but very indirectly.Toto11zi (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion you are making here is exactly what is proposed in [7]. Clearly stating Support for arbitration or Opposing arbitration will clarify things. All of the editors are supporting the edit request. However again @Toto11zi is opposing the edit and he even went ahead and did this [8]. Collagium (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The intro to the anthology in which it was published summarizes his argument as saying the case "invites the criticism that the Arbitration Tribunal is face with a dispute which is non-justiciable". Saying something "invites" a certain criticism is not the same thing as a flat statement that the criticism is correct. Chris Hallquist (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Carty made the assumption that PCA may judge. One is UNCLOS articles 74 and 83 related to delimination of EEZ and continental shelf which PCA did not judge. (psge 27) Another is UNCLOS article 121 related to Rock/island and Carty assumed that PCA may judge whether not only rocks but also islands must be able to sustain human habitation and economic life which PCA did not judge. (page 47) So Carty's justiciability argument is not valid for the actual PCA dicision. Therefore the description should be removed.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain more? Google Books isn't letting me see enough of the relevant section of the book to have a clear idea of what's going on with that article. Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If you think there's discrepancy in the description, then improve it. Due to the copyright issue, Wikipedia doesn't allow copying Toto11zi (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies allow quotation consistent with fair use Chris Hallquist (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add information taken directly about the contents of this case. I will be using the official case documents of the Permanent court of arbitration as my root source and will use the same as reference.

This includes the correct legal name of the case, the exact judgment (there appears to a be a little too much media hype in these edits and thus making the article lose its objectivity). I am well versed in maritime law, and hence will only be using facts. Please do let me make these edits. You are free to correct / edit / discuss any of them subsequently with me - Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Notthebestusername (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done When making a protected edit request you must explicitly state the specific changes you want to make. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I will clearly outline the proposed changes and place them on this talk page. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am going through the wiki of this (rather contentious) page and find that it urgently needs edits / improvements.

1) There are a large number of grammatical and sentence construction errors that need "cleaning up"

2) There is some bias in this article - towards both sides - and unfortunately, perhaps due to this, actual facts are few. For example: The opening paragraph needs to mention the case number (2013-19) of the PCA, the names of judges with their wikilinks, the actual contents of the PCA final documents which clarify that the judgement relates to certain maritime features, the right to them and the veracity of historic claims in this case, but NOT the sovereign rights of any country. Similarly, the legality of the PCA's right to arbitrate this case is addressed in their 12 July 2016 press release para 2-6, using UNCLOS Art. 296 and Art. 288 / Annex VII.^[1]

3) What is and is not contained in the case papers and judgement (the judgement clearly mentions that it is not ruling on sovereignty over any islands)

4) The exact UNCLOS articles that the case alludes to (with relevant wikilinks)

5) Most people seem to have used popular media as the resource for citation and not the actual 500+ page judgement (which I am currently going through)

6) That the PCA does not make rulings - it issues awards.

May I request the administrators of this page to allow me to address the above by allowing me to edit this page? You can always double-check the edits made by me, and revert any edits that you deem unsuitable. I have good maritime legal knowledge and used to be a lecturer on this subject. Thank you Notthebestusername (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• In cases like this, you would first figure out what you would change, and put the proposed text here so people can see what you are proposing, and when there is consensus for the change, the changes can be made. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'd support a lot of these edits, though non-lawyers aren't going to care about the case number—I think that kind of thing belongs in a footnote, not the main body of the text. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• In response to ad 6). The PCA does not make rulings, nor does it issue awards. It only provides administrative support and acts as registry for the tribunals under its auspices. In this case the award was given by the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UNCLOS. See for example this press release: [9]. Perudotes (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Notthebestusername: Re opening paragraph - I think the intro to the article should not be as detailed as you propose. The article is for both a person looking for general info and a person who is looking for specific details. I would even water down the intro as it is - take out some dates - such as when china refused to participate and when it did write a position paper. Also take out all or most citations. All of the information and its sources in the intro should be stated in article itself. This could be put at the beginning of the Arbitration section. What's your take?

@Chris Hallquist: Having the official name (if its not too long) and the case number is the usual intro to court cases, so I think we should put that in. I also think we should have allot of details in the main article (not in footnotes) but have those details in the Arbitration section.

--Also, how about we break down the required sections among editors - I would like to look into and do more detail on the Phillipines/Chineese main arguments. But am also willing to switch to others. Rybkovich (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rybkovich: you're right, I stand corrected. I had thought you meant "This is case number 2013-19" but you actually meant using as the first sentence "Philippines v. China (2013-19) was an arbitration case..." --Chris Hallquist (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Chris --Chris Hallquist/Penwhale Penwhale/all - Thaks a lot for the comments. I'll frame the suggested edits and post them here for yourselves / all to decide on the edits.

Regards Notthebestusername (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)