Talk:Pedra Branca dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Singapore (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Singaporean places.
 
WikiProject Malaysia (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations / law (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Law (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Good article Pedra Branca dispute has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
December 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

Why no straightforward solution?[edit]

Considering the smallish size of these rock islands, wouldn't it be simpler to just blow them up with a few hundred tons of TNT and get rid of the problem forever, rather then dragging a decades long legal dispute? If the islands are erased nobody has to gain or lose anything and creating conventional explosions up to 4 kilotons is a fairly easy job nowadays. 91.83.15.197 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't meant for discussing matters like this, but one brief answer is that it is of benefit to have sovereignty over any island as it extends a country's territorial waters. — Cheers, JackLee talk 01:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. While on a more serious note, I agree with Jacklee, I still think in real life those little pebbles should be blown up. LOL! InfernoXV (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm too serious for my own good... :-) — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate way not to violate copyright.[edit]

Rather than take the photo of the lighthouse without written permission from the Singapore government, why not just provide a link at the end of the article?

Violations of copyright can be undetected in low traffic articles, but this article is on the main page. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

merge with Middle Rocks?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for merge.

There is an article about the Middle Rocks involved in this dispute. There does not appear to be any notable claim of significance about the Middle Rocks except for the role they played in the Pedra Branca dispute, so I propose merging that article into this one. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, there was a previous decision that "Pedra Branca dispute" should not be part of "Pedra Branca, Singapore", and it was therefore spun off into a separate article: see "Talk:Pedra Branca, Singapore/2008 archive#Separate article for the ICJ case?". Both articles were subsequently expanded. It is possible that "Middle Rocks" might similarly be expanded, in which case perhaps it should not be merged into "Pedra Branca dispute". — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
What's the basis for supposing that Middle Rocks might be expanded at some point? Do we know of additional information about the rocks that has not yet been tapped? —Tim Pierce (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Offhand I don't, but then I didn't think there would be a lot of information about Pedra Branca either until I started looking for it. (Not that I'm offering in this case ... :-)) — Cheers, JackLee talk 05:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, if someone does come up with more independent information on the Middle Rocks then it shouldn't be merged. I'm suggesting that if no one can, then they should be. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess I have no objection to that. I'd suggest, though, that you wait a month or so before proceeding. In connection with this, have you placed a notice on the talk page of the "Middle Rocks" article inviting editors to join this discussion? You might ruffle a few (Malaysian) feathers if you suddenly merge the contents of that article into "Pedra Branca dispute" without sufficient warning. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a {{mergeto}} notice to the Middle Rocks article page; do you think it should go on the talk page as well? I see that I neglected to add {{merge from}} on Pedra Branca dispute. I'll fix that now. —Tim Pierce (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No need to put a separate {{mergeto}} on the talk page, I think, but maybe just put a message alerting readers to this discussion. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Middle Rocks is a geographic location article, with coordinates and other geographic data; the islands are notable because they were some of the islands involved in this dispute. This one is a historical article, that involves other islands besides Middle rocks. The merge would only make a confusing article out of two articles that are fine on their own. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think we don't have a consensus at this time for a merge. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Lead too long[edit]

According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should be no more than four paragraphs. 175.156.242.240 (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says the lead should "ideally contain no more than four paragraphs" which means that this is not a hard and fast rule – in fact, WP:LEADLENGTH states that this is "not [an] absolute rule". The article is in excess of 100,000 characters, so a longer summary is not unreasonable. However, if you wish to try and summarize the article in three or four paragraphs, do go ahead. — Cheers, JackLee talk 09:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)