Talk:Pedra Branca, Singapore/2008 archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 A page for the case 2 Comment from an Observer 3 1824 document 4 Page move 5 Pedra Branca, Singapore

A page for the case

I feel the case should have its own page named Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) as named by the ICJ. It could later be listed at List of International Court of Justice cases. __earth ^(Talk) 06:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this at this point in time. On the one hand what you suggest makes sense and appears to be in line with the treatment of other ICJ cases. On the other, taking out the information on the case will shrink the article to little more than a stub. After all, the island is currently only notable for two things: the Horsburgh Lighthouse on it (which has its own article), and the current international dispute. I suggest that we continue to update this article with information about the ICJ case as it unfolds and monitor the situation, and if there is a lot of material then a separate article can be spun off and a summary of the case put into this article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would draw caution over using that page name. It is clumsy, and a fair number of articles in List of International Court of Justice cases actually do not use ICJ case names either.--Huaiwei 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You are free to suggest a NPOV name if you disagree with its official title. __earth ^(Talk) 02:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I expressed concern over its clumsiness, and not on POV issues.--Huaiwei 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, all the same. __earth ^(Talk) 14:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is not the same. I do not have to, and do not see the need to suggest a NPOV name, since that wasent a concern to me in the first place.--Huaiwei 11:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read again, I was merely asking for an alternative name (which must be NPOV per Wikipedia) if the official name is unacceptable to you. I neither suggested nor said that you were expressing "NPOV issues". __earth ^(Talk) 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What about "Case concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia v. Singapore)"? I think, though, we should wait to see how the case name is officially reported after the ICJ renders its decision. It doesn't make sense to choose a name that is different from the official name. I also reiterate my concern about this article becoming a stub if the portion about the court case is prematurely spun off into a separate article. I suggest a decision not be taken on the issue until the article has been updated to include Malaysia's presentation of its case and the ICJ's ruling on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good enough and your concern is legitimate. I am happy to stick with your suggestion to wait until further development =). __earth ^(Talk) 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone knows the official case name? IMHO, the case section is getting longer and longer and deviate further than the main topic in the article page, which is the islands and the light house. i think we should expedite the creation of a new page concerning the case.

--erwinkarim (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Further, the case is about the other two rocks as much as the main island itself. __earth ^(Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate my comments above. The article will become a stub if not for the case section; we should wait till the case is over before making a decision. The complete official case name should be stated on the ICJ website, but a shorter official name will not become available until the case has been reported (another reason to wait for the decision in the matter). On another matter, it's my understanding that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh includes Middle Rocks and South Edge. Does anyone have evidence to confirm or disprove this? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my initial understanding too but further reading on the matter made me to rethink the matter. Two reasons for that:

1. The official name includes three names. If the main island does take into account the other two rocks, wouldn't it make sense just to mention just the name of the main island?
2. Claim dates for the main island and the other two rocks differ. If the two rocks are considered part of the main island, shouldn't the claim dates be the same?

__earth ^(Talk) 01:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading recent Singapore newspaper articles on the matter, it seems that the point is a disputed one. According to the closing speech made in rebuttal by Singapore:

... Malaysia has argued that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge should not be treated as a group but as three separate and distinct maritime features. This is an untenable argument.

The truth is that for reasons of proximity, geology, history and law, the three features are inseparable and must be treated together. Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks constitute a group.

South Ledge is a low-tide elevation within the territorial sea of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks and its fate must necessarily follow that of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.

See "All the pieces in Singapore's case 'fit perfectly together'", The Straits Times, 2007-11-21.  (The article, unfortunately, is only accessible on-line by paid subscription). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the case is done. It's time to revisit about having the case's own page. __earth ^(Talk) 15:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from an Observer

It appears that even as the case is being heard in the ICJ, Wikipedians of differing nationalities have already begun a mini phony war due to nationalist/patriotic sentiments. Can't we all just revert everything back to the start where it was before it was disputed and get along with it? --121.7.140.49 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what "mini phony war" are we talking about? I don't think there's any dispute as to the current content of the article (though it may need a cleanup). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the edits are quite civil at the moment, and hence, I agree with Jack. Besides, the contributions made since the case was first heard at the Hague last week have been tremendous in value and volume. It does not make sense to revert such edits. __earth ^(Talk) 01:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the article, the content of the talk page. Attack, defend, counterattack... Got allies as well. And it's over such a trivial thing like naming conventions, not even anything to do with the content. --121.7.140.49 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion may be heated but that is typical when there are differences in opinion. There's little need to revert though archiving may be warranted given the current length of the talk page. __earth ^(Talk) 12:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the name of the islands are themselves disputed, this is nothing trivial as made out to be. We do not have a policy of deleting talkpage comments, because they serve a permanent record of what has been discussed, and provides details on whatever decisions may have been made before.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that it's thought the debate on this talk page is heated. I would have thought that it has generally been carried out in a civil, reasoned manner. (If you want to see what a heated debate looks like, see "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?" – now that was pretty uncomfortable at times.) I also don't see any evidence that editors have been influenced by "nationalist/patriotic sentiments"; in fact, it's not even very clear what the nationalities of the editors involved in the discussion are (nor should that be relevant). I agree with Huaiwei that the proper naming of the article is not a trivial issue as it can affect how easily the article is located as well as readers' perceptions of the content. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just found it a little amusing. --121.7.140.49 (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1824 document

Does anyone have a reference to the text of the 1824 document signed by the Johor Sultanate and British? --Vsion 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

that document has no bearing on pedra branca.

the document never attributes the island of pedra branca to johor.

since that document did not touch on pedra branca, thus it is of no value in the court. since the british could by its power grant singapore control of any other territories within the british empire to singapore, just as the british granted the christmas island (formerly under singapore administration) to the australian govt, even though the island is 20 times closer to the island of java then to the australian mainland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.89 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 1 February 2008) (UTC)

Page move

There is consensus that this article should be renamed "Pedra Branca, Singapore", and Rifleman 82 has done so. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion. Do express your views on whether the information about the ICJ case should be spun off into a separate article in the section below, remembering to sign your posts with four tildes ("~~~~"). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedra Branca, Singapore