Talk:West Philippine Sea

Neologism

The problem is BAZONKA. He behaves like an Internet-tyrant and edits everything he wants! He is the "Putin of Wikipedia" 49.145.70.58 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to tell you one last time. Discuss your reasons here, and upon building WP:CONSENSUS, the page contents will be changed accordingly. Do not engage in edit warring, as it constitutes disruptive editing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See edit comments 49.145.70.58 (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

@49.145, of course I edit anything I want. That's how Wikipedia works. WP:NPA please. Bazonka (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Should be a redirect?

Should this page simply be a redirect to South China Sea, or stay as the current disambiguation page? I think we can largely disregard "West Philippine Sea" as being a synonym for the western part of the Philippine Sea (would anyone actually refer to that as the West Philippine Sea?). Taking this out leaves only one definition, that of the alternative name for South China Sea. If we were to change this to a redirect, then we would avoid the silly debate over whether the term West Philippine Sea is a neologism or not. Bazonka (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding a fair number of such usages at GBooks. Variability on whether 'west' is capitalized or not. Also there's the West Philippine Sea Basin. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. Bazonka (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The term "West Philippine Sea" refers to South China Sea as per Philippine use. Since it's an official stand from a state, it cannot be regarded as mere "neologistic synonym." Similar naming disputes in the Sea of Japan and Persian Gulf have been addressed in their respective disambiguation pages, namely East Sea and Arabian Gulf. A redirect, however, is out of the question, because West Philippine Sea is not exactly the common name for the South China Sea. The first item in the current version stays, as geographically speaking, it may also refer to the western section of the Philippine Sea. Xeltran (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If the Philippine Sea definition is to stay, and I think we are agreed that it is, then the only way that this dab page would become a redirect is if the South China Sea definition is entirely removed. But I don't think that's your point. You are concerned with the use of the term "neologistic synonym". The Philippines has only been using the term for about a year [1], so it's certainly a neologism - but do we need to say that it's a neologism? I have no strong opinion either way. Is it a synonym? Yes - the Philippines' definition of the sea is exactly the same as anyone else's definition, it's just the name that's different. That's what a synonym is: an alternative name for the same thing. Bazonka (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a "neologistic synonym" because it's new, new phrases are neologisms. It hasn't even been more than a year since the phrase was born, and Putinism is a neologism as well. Even "santorum" is older. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any WP DAB page that presents the words "neologistic synonym" to call something just because it was just used recently. The fact is:

1. Only the Philippines refer to it as West Philippine Sea. By referring to it as a "neologistic synonym" without giving assertion as to which state calls it as such, you present a view that such term is accepted by all other states, which is not the case. I already gave an example as to the case of the Arabian Gulf DAB page. You haven't.
2. Your argument for "neologism" cannot be applied. The term isn't a gimmick, a passing fad, or a campaign. It's a term used by a state that appears on official state correspondence therefore to refer to West Philippine Sea as a name used by the Philippines holds water (no pun intended).

My point is, why present it in a way that it's a term used worldwide when you can tell readers simply that it's a name for the South China Sea used by the Philippines. Certainly that, I believe is a much better presentation rather than saying it's name for a body of water but not telling readers who call it as such. Xeltran (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, I'd agree to have your first definition scrapped. Philippine Sea is still called as such. The body of water east of the Philippines (Pacific Ocean side) will still be called the Philippine Sea as per published in scientific documents. You can also refer to that article as to why my proposed edit should be used, as West Philippine Sea is a local name used only in that country and not actually used/endorsed in any other part of the world. Xeltran (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page - it is not an article and is not an appropriate place for going into detail about the who and the why - it's just a pointer to the main article, where this extra detail will be given (see WP:DAB). The fact is that both definitions of West Philippine Sea are used, and therefore this page must give both uses, with a simple definition. As for the use of the word "neologistic", as I said, I have no strong opinion and I won't argue against the removal of that single word. But removing an entire definition, leaving just a one-definition dab page, is absolutely ridiculous, and only goes to show that you don't really understand how disambiguation works. Bazonka (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The first definition was removed simply because no such term for a portion of that body of water exists. The Philippine Sea does not have specific navigational sections, just as there isn't any West Sea of Japan. We can put it up back again if you insist on not having a one-def dab page just to give the benefit of the doubt of someone who might be looking up on the western part of the Philippine Sea. Moving on the second point (since you're amenable to remove "neologistic" anyway), it's the simplest as it can get without giving too many details. In fact, going back to how this Talk page section started, I'm all up for having this as a redirect, but the area is not in the middle of a naming dispute and it's not the common name, so a dab page is necessary. P.S. Keep cool, buddy. No need to resort to telling others whether they know something or not. Xeltran (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See the post from Kwami at the top of this thread. Both terms are used. Bazonka (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I did, that's why I now retained the first def in page. Xeltran (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The current revision seems fine to me; let's not complicate the situation any further. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You were the one complicating the matter by insisting in the inclusion of the word "neologistic". Though, I also think the current version is a good solution and thus the case is closed. 49.145.72.212 (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, just let it go, get over it, and drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Xeltran (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "the case is closed". 49.145.72.212 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

The recent edits to West Philippine Sea by User:Vehoo and User:‎180.140.32.190 were not acceptable for the following reasons:

• The page is a disambiguation page, which means that it is not a proper article, but simply a pointer to the articles that correspond to all possible meanings of the title. By removing the link to South China Sea, all that was left was a disambiguation page with only one link - this is pointless.
• Vehoo massively exceeded the Three revert rule. He/she is in danger of being blocked from editing if these deletions continue.
• The IP user is continuing the deletions. I wonder if this IP is a sockpuppet of Vehoo.
• One of the arguments given by Vehoo is that the term "West Philippine Sea" is not a globally-used term This is not a relevant argument because this is only a disambiguation page. The main article for the sea is called South China Sea because this is the WP:COMMONNAME, used by most international organisations. However, that does not mean that we should deny the existence of the use of "West Philippine Sea".
• The edits were possibly biased - see WP:POV. Vehoo and the IP seem to be strongly opposed to the use of the term "West Philippine Sea". Editors of Wikipedia should put their personal opinions to one side and try to maintain a balanced view. West Philippine Sea is the name used in the Philippines, and so it definitely needs to be mentioned in Wikipedia - whether you like it or not.

Regards, Bazonka (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Vehoo has made edits to other China/Philippines Spratly articles, like Scarborough Shoal, if anyone else is interested in looking them over. CMD (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There are enough sources to validate the claim that a term such as "West Philippine Sea" exists. The term passes Google test (you can do one right away if you want: click me! so it definitely passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY. Besides, such naming disputes are quite common (e.g. Sea of Japan naming dispute) so this isn't just a political, made-up term. If anyone wants to substantially edit the article, use the Talk page and do not engage in edit warring, or else I, or other editors, will be compelled to seek admin intervention. Xeltran (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Vehoo has amusingly blindly reverted against their POV. I wonder if they'll notice. CMD (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Change of heart, perhaps? :) Xeltran (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this at WP:AN3 Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked; a sock was then created, so I semi-protected the article indefinitely. — kwami (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems; rewrite needed

This disambiguation page currently disambiguates West Philippine Sea to two alternative meanings

"The western portion of the Philippine Sea to the east of the Philippines", which is incorrect and which contradicts the Philippine Sea article.

and

"South China Sea, a body of water referred to as West Philippine Sea by the Philippines", which contradicts detail in the South China Sea article (which says, "In September 2012, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III signed Administrative Order No. 29, mandating that all government agencies use the name "West Philippine Sea" to refer to the parts of the South China Sea within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone, [...]", citing a clarification which Malacañang made to AO29 in September of 2012 -- see this -- emphasis mine)

It seems to me that this disambiguation page ought to be rewritten into a topical article along the lines of the following:

The West Philippine Sea is a marginal sea that is part of the Pacific Ocean. It was identified by the government of the Republic of the Philippines in Administrative Order No. 29, issued on September 5, 2012 as including the Luzon Sea and the waters around, within and adjacent to the Kalayaan Island Group and Scarborough Shoal (also known as Bajo De Masinloc). On September 14, 2012, a spokesman for the Philippine government clarified that that government was not naming the entire South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea, but only the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.

If nobody else makes a revision along those lines within the next few days or offers good reasons why such a revision should not be made, I'll probably do that.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it should stay unchanged. "West Philippine Sea" is used to define the western part of the Philippine Sea (e.g. West Philippine Basin, which is east of the Philippines). I don't see where the contradiction in the Philippine Sea article is. And whilst the name does not refer to the entire South China Sea, it refers to a subset of this sea, not a different sea. The South China Sea article could adequately cover everything (and more) than a West Philippine Sea article could cover. This is a disambiguation page, pure and simple, and so doesn't need to go into any detail. Bazonka (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw a conflict with the Philippine Sea article based on the recent hullabaloo over the use of the term in relation of the South China Sea (which is to the West of the Phils, of course) and the lead sentence of the Philippine Sea article, which says "The Philippine Sea is a marginal sea east and north of the Philippines [...]". I did not see any confirmation in the Philippine Sea article that the term West Philippine Sea has any usage in connection Philippine Sea, and its disambiguation to that article confuses me. A google search for the term Philippine Basin turned up a lot of mentions of West Philippine Basin but, AFAICS, the term West Philippine Sea doesn't refer to or have any close relationship with the Philippine Sea or to the Philippine Basin. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not confirmed for the same reason that west Atlantic and western Pacific may not be confirmed in those articles: it's a trivial use of "west" plus "Philippine Sea". If you do a GBooks search, you see that the term generally means the west of the Philippine Sea. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Wtmitchell: I am of the opinion that this disambig page should be transformed into a redirect to South China Sea per WP:POFRED as an "Alternative name". Majority of reliable sources that now use the term do so referring to the South China Sea (using its alternate name). While the majority of sources who use it are in the Philippines, this is no different from the issue with the alternate names Arabian Gulf or the Sea of Korea. At least one non-Philippine source uses the term to talk about the body of water between Vietnam and the Philippines(here is one more). Even Google Maps when one types in West Philippine Sea point to the body of water between Vietnam and the Philippines. Now there is a "West Philippine Sea Basin", but that's a geological term and not a hydrological term.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that West Philippine Sea is a well-used synonym for the South China Sea, but is is probably also used (less frequently, and most likely with a lower case W) for the western portion of the Philippine Sea. So if this dab page is changed to a redirect, then a hatnote (About template) will be needed on the South China Sea article. Personally, I'd prefer to leave things as they are, but I wouldn't massively oppose a change. Bazonka (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A disambiguate is improper here IMHO as there is no Western Philippine Sea article (like there is no Eastern Pacific Ocean article) about the western portion of the Philippine Sea. Majority of reliable sources who use the term West Philippine Sea use it in place of South China Sea, just as Sea of Korea is used in the majority of reliable sources in Korea to refer to the Sea of Japan. Therefore, I am going to do this; I will create an article per WP:NGEO for the West Philippine Sea Basin, a piece of the tectonic plate, than this disambigaute article can be properly made into a redirect with a Template:R from alternative name.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A disambiguation term doesn't need to have an article named for the exact same terminology. The Philippine Sea article works perfectly well as the disambiguation target for one of the alternative meanings of West Philippine Sea. Bazonka (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet, very few sources use "West Philippine Sea" as the primary title of the western part of the Philippine Sea. More often there that portion of the Philippine Sea, when discussed is the Western Philippine Sea. And more reliable sources use West Philippine Sea as an alternate name for South China Sea. Therefore, a redirect is more appropriate.

Thus "Western Philippine Sea" should redirect to Philippine Sea, and this/West Philippine Sea should redirect as an alternate name to South China Sea. This is keeping as how Eastern Pacific Ocean redirects to Pacific Ocean, and how Sea of Korea redirects to Sea of Japan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 31 July 2013

The name 'West Philippine Sea' is not formally recognized by any country, nor is that name used anywhere except within the Phillipine Islands, and in diplomatic correspondence between the United States and the Philippine government. 204.65.0.21 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Bazonka (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The name 'West Philippine Sea' is a term that is generally used only within Philippines for a political reason to illegally claim Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

A simple check on Spratly Islands dispute#Basis for PRC's and ROC's claims and Spratly Islands dispute#Vietnam compared to Spratly Islands dispute#The Philippines will tell you that the entire South China Sea dispute should have been strictly between China and Vietnam as only both of them made claims related to Sovereign while Philippines didn't (Except the Scarborough Shoal itself but still not the surrounding waters when China claimed the shoal with waters as sovereign entity).

So, it is clear that Philippines acted in a way similar to Argentina in 1982 on the Falkland island issue - Creating a dispute to turn away the focus of Philippines' domestic issue despite how US does not want to acknowledge the truth. Therefore, this page should be deleted as well because of this is a clear neologism regardless whoever liked to claim otherwise.

Sam 15:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Your request does not seem to demonstrate that this article meets WP's deletion criteria. It is not "illegal" for a sovereign state to assert a claim of territorial sovereignty. When such a claim is asserted, it is not within the province of WP editors to pass judgement on that claim. The term West Philippines Sea is sometimes seen outside of the Philippines -- e.g., in this article. If you still feel that this WP article should be deleted, feel free to request that action in an appropriate venue. Alternatively, please suggest specific changes which you feel would improve the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph in Background section

I've WP:BOLDly moved the initial paragraph from this section here for discussion. The paragraph reads:

The Philippines is one of the parties of the South China Sea dispute and claims Scarborough Shoal and parts of the Spratly Islands as part of its own territory and consequentially the surrounding waters as part of its exclusive economic zone. The Spratlys are also claimed in whole or in part by Brunei, China, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam while the Scarborough shoal is also claimed by China and Taiwan. China claims the whole South China Sea with its nine-dash line map as a basis.

The remaining content of the section describes relevant background predating the events mentioned there, and seems provide adequate background. The addition of this background, as written, would raise questions re the effect on the addition of the described features as Philippine territory on the territorial baselines of the Philippines, and consequent effects on the extent of Philippine Territorial sea and EEZ. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Not part of South China Sea

This article lack valid resources to support the claim that the West Philippine Sea is part of the South China Sea. Legal sources are available to review and provide conclusion for the dispute that the West Philippine IS LEGALLY PART OF THE PHILIPPINES. 202.4.28.129 (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source asserting that the West Philippine Sea is not part of the South China Sea? Such a source would probably establish due weight of the point for elaboration in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but don't be a overproud pinoy! Thank you! Hieuchipt (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)