Talk:Philippine Foreign Secretary Del Rosario to visit China amid South China Sea territorial dispute

found 1 misspelled word
Please temporarily unprotect this news article and correct the misspelled word Phillipine. Thanks in advance. Zollerriia (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ And thanks for catching the error. :) — Mike moral  ♪♫  07:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To the reviewer
This article erroneously stated that the U.S. supported the Philippines' territorial rights to the Spartly Islands. However, Secretary Clinton stated that the U.S. remains neutral. Furthermore, the article was wrong to connect the drills with the dispute, see : "Regional Commander Juancho Sabban says the drills are held annually under a defense agreement between the two countries and have nothing to do with the conflict in the Spratly Islands." There may be more errors in the article that I may not have caught, so I ask the reviewer to be very careful in checking the facts.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1252534 [Failed]

 * The source for that statement is McGeown's BBC article. Ragettho (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no it isn't. The US has made a claim of use of force, but I see absolutely no sign force was actually used. I notice you actually changed the facts to from Wikienws saying force was used to the US saying force was used, which is now accurate. In fact, you will find China has claimed force will not be used. I would suggest the interests of neutrality dictate this claim is also placed in the article. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I had this debate earlier when I submitted a Wiki short with all evidence stated a monitor felt the sources quoted had become older than 3 days by that time, so we let the template I suggested expire in time. Notwithstanding the AAP article "Manila: US obliged to defend Filipinos in Spratlys" By JIM GOMEZ, Associated Press Jim Gomez, Associated Press– Wed Jun 22, 9:05 pm ET. States clearly ~ "Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosari" claimed USA Officials had made clear Washington would respond if Filipino forces are attacked in the South China Sea. Furthermore that "As a strategic ally, the United States honors our Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines," as quoted in this AAP report quoting Alan Holst, acting public affairs officer at the embassy. Although he would not debate the possible scenarions in which such response would be forthcoming from USA.

AAP then describes the subject USA/Philippines 'defense treaty'in force since 1952, which defins "an attack" as an armed assault on "the metropolitan territory of the parties" or their "armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific." The South China Sea is in the Pacific by definition. May I suggest you look at my Template with some 17 valuable recent sources of the whole facts emerging right now, and suggesting it is all enough trouble in these matters to ignite a WW III even, Thus I thoroughly agree User Blood Red Sandman's point great care with the article is necessary.--Robbygay (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors may choose to use the sources I stated as secveral prove China has used force against the Philippines recently. EG:- On the same case this press reports that the Philippines claims China has intruded 6 times in Manila-claimed teritories near the Spratlys since February. Among the most serious was a reported firing by a Chinese navy vessel on Feb. 25 to scare away Filipino fishermen from the Jackson Atoll.[4]as reported on the Internet Yahoo News. [5][6][7][8]

I have evidenced Chinese duplicity where they say one day "we will not use force to settle disputes.....or extend territories" in other press last week they stated they "will use military options' to defend Chinese National borders or words to that effect. as they have Unilaterally declared the entire area is Sovereignty of China, Ignoring Potsdam and Cairo WW II declarations, the surender of them by the Japanese to China Nationalo and British trustees for the Convention agreement of China, USA,Britain and Russia concurrence, to declare now Chinese Sovereignty, means loast weeks threat to use force to defend China alao applies to the _Paracells, Spratlys and all South Chine Sea inside their declared "U" shaped Curve see Wikipedia line delineations for proof as I stated.--Robbygay (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Thinking long and hard overnight I have come to the conclusion, probably the best way for you to correct this is to add a final paragraph to stress the differences in threat and diplomatic speak understanding of all the players. China has set it's flag on the disputed underwater shoal as pictured in some press, hence it is declared their sovereignty, so when bbc 21st June 2011 quotes the Chinese English Language daily 'The Global Times' warning "China will take whatever measures necessary" 'including military action, to protect its interests in the South China Sea' that meass what it says "will use force" your last paragraph "will not use force to settle disputes" meaning ownership disputes. That is not meaning "will not use force to retain" claimed & flag bearing islands or underwater banks we own.

For your interest the exact words of BBC 21/6/11 state:- "A Chinese flag and a satellite dish are prominently displayed in a structure built by China in one of the islands in the Spratly Islands. China's state-controlled media are warning Vietnam that Beijing will "take whatever measures necessary," including military action, to protect its interests in the South China Sea. The Global Times newspaper, in an editorial Tuesday, issued Beijing's sternest public warning yet to Vietnam as regional tensions rise over conflicting maritime claims to territories thought to be rich in oil and natural gas deposits"

USA and its 1952 to date effective defence treaty with Philipines means "they will use force if philipines assets in that sea are attacked, and Clinton has stated South China Seas are a matter if their interests, that means they will use force in such circumstances, yet she also stated USA will remain neutral in this dispute, meaning they can be a useful neutral arbitrator for diplomatic and cases at any official arbitration venues/courts or multilateral/bilateral event. She does not say USA is neutral if China unilaterally attacks or uses force against others in this Sea that is a core interest of USA and international navigation.--Robbygay (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1254092 [Passed]
There is only a single source (GMA) for the central news event, Rosario's plan to visit China July 7–9.

I'm looking for a second source, but so far I've only found a local Philippines source that is obviously not independent of GMA's coverage. --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah! Found one.  (AFP)  --Pi zero (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me, consideering the danger and flash point this whole story can cause if erred reports, or unnecessary agrevation be caused right now, they are in a diplomatic situation, if diplomacy works as hoped, all the better for us and the World. I will leave the above Template I had earlier submitted as a Short News, hoping someone better than I could sort a best way to do that and when to state what and where. I took user Blood Red Sandman point above very seriously and I think it is wise, as he said a dangerous subject to be wrong with, sadly he has changed that to argue China has not threatened to use force. He appears to mis the point entirely:- China has threatened to use force to "defend it's teritories", but not to "settle disputes" or "expand borders". The fact is they unilaterally expanded their border to the "U" curve on Wikipedia map. They have not submitted to UN or UNCLOS as disputing anyone, that are satisfied it is their border sovereignty which they have said the will use force to defend.

Likewise USA says they are neutral in the "disputes" on the table at this time, and they offer arbitration in that neutral phase. They will not attack China to settle diusputes either. But they do not agree this as China Sovereignty, and that Philippines 1951 defence agreement that they do admit requires them to "help Philippines if China attacks Philippines in the Pacific" as this is. So nothing is settled, The scheduled meeting is good news, we hope settlements can be bilaterally achieved as China ardently rules out multilateral agreements or interference, bilateral their only agreed solution. We all need hope something sorts out soon or war risk is on the rise, costing all nations big spending in this economic tough times when reduction ought to be targetted. Still good to pass the story even this milodly lopsided reporting,gnoring the China 21st June threat in their "The Global Times Daily" as referred to by BBC, AFP, and dozens of re4liable media.--Robbygay (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)