Talk:Scarborough Shoal

Shoal?

How comes that countries can claim sovereignty over a Shoal? A Shoal is defined as a feature that is near the surface, but fully underwater, as far I know.

The topic, and heavily political, is that the "Shoal do have some over the water features so, it is possible to claim sovereignty, and build over it, and expand his surface, as necessary. As the airports in Japan and Hong Kong.

so a number of countries -including the US- has claim sovereignty over it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 14:58, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

UNCLOS

To illustrate fellows quorans.

The US is NOT part of UNCLOS so, it can no make claims based on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 15:01, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

August 11

The section places a heavily WP:UNDUE and horrendously bloated coverage to a 2-day old incident written in a WP:NEWSPAPER and WP:NOTNEWS manner in contravention of Wikipedia's encyclopedic style hence its removal appropriate for the History. Unless all the intricate details of this incident can be proven to be a harbinger of a wider event or pass the 10-year test this should not be restored without a consensus from the community. Borgenland (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This would explain trimming it down... It doesn't explain the extent of the edits and I think you need to read WP:NEWSPAPER/WP:NOTNEWS (those links go to the exact same place even if you've presented them as different for some reason) because they don't say what you think they say. You could also argue for breaking it out into its own page, but the amount of sigcov is very large and your super abbreviated version appears to conflict with NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

See No. 2 in WP:NOTNEWS, the intricate and sometimes indiscriminate details of it is too much and will be only of interest to specialized audiences. I will try to trim it again and I hope this is decently readable enough for an encyclopedia. Borgenland (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

You are arguing that we treat breaking news "differently from other information" which is the exact opposite of what #2 says. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

it also says before the statement that it should not be emphasized. In that case, which line should I fall in? Borgenland (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'd say somewhere in between the before and after of your edit... But with the option of breaking it off into its own page looking like an increasingly good way to go, especially with the crew being awarded medals. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Though I think the other members of our home Wikiproject would be better experts than me to create such an article. Borgenland (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

In connection with the thread above, I question the over-reduction of information that has become standard on Wikipedia. As a Wikipedia reader, I'm tired of so much interesting and relevant information constantly being removed. The August 11th event is significant in terms of international conflict, naval operations in the Western Pacific, and a naval incident involving loss of life.

I originally came to the Talk page to question the identification of the CCG vessel as a Type 056. Having carefully compared the incident video to existing PLAN and CCG types, it looks more like a Type 054 frigate. Note the large bow gun and the twin small radar domes aft. Thank you. PhotoBoothe (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Re your identification o0f the ship based on your own expertise, see WP:OR. See also WP:V. If reliable sources differ, see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Mildly related to the above but the video clip in the the article of the incident has a brief splash of red mist near the destroyer's bow... and there were a couple of CCG sailors on the bow of the cutter. It's very likely the video clip shows people dying. ~~Enderminion1~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderminion1 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Update and some reorganization needed

I'm bothered by the structure of the "History" section, with a named subsection on the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff, and a named sub-sub on "2025 collision", followed by another sub-sub named "Subsequent events" containing info about one event that does not contain info on this development. I have real-life matters going on right now that prevent me from spending the time on this that I think it probably needs, so I mention it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

On the Treaty of Washington (1900) - Claim by Philippines Subsection

The wording in the “Claim by the Philippines” subsection is problematic. The phrase “ignoring the fact that the cession documents from the United States to the Philippines did not have any reference to Scarborough Shoal” violates Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines because it draws a conclusion about intent.

The 1900 Treaty of Washington explicitly states that the U.S. ceded “any and all islands belonging to the Philippine archipelago, lying outside the lines of the Treaty of Paris.” Describing the Philippine position as “ignoring” this point implies that the claim lacks basis, which is not neutral and should be rephrased.

My suggestion is to rephrase it into something like - "While the 1900 Treaty of Washington states that the United States ceded “any and all islands belonging to the Philippine archipelago lying outside the lines of the Treaty of Paris,” the treaty does not name specific islands such as Scarborough Shoal, and interpretations of whether the shoal is included differ among sources." and then to continue to specify how the treaty is interpreted by the Philippines.

Its also worrying just how much Chinese interpretation is interspaced with the Philippine position as if its making an argument. These should be reserved for the Claim by China subsection. MelonpanMina (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@MelonpanMina it was an edit made on July 9, 2016 by Toto11zi, citing a discussion. I assume that discussion was Talk:Scarborough Shoal/Archive 1#1900 Treaty of Washington, or possibly Talk:Scarborough Shoal/Archive 1#The 1900 Treaty of Washington included Scarborough Shoal?. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)