Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:02, 16 May 2012

Welcome to my talk page. Don't forget to add ~~~~ at the end of your message. Start a new topic here.

Archives
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

Username change

I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Scorpion_prinz.-- Namayan (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ph seal cavite general trias.png

Thanks for uploading File:Ph seal cavite general trias.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ph Territorial Map.png

I see that you (as User:Scorpion prinz) were the uploader of File:Ph Territorial Map.png. The territorial limits indicated there do not seem to match the territory ceded to the U.S. by Spain (see Article II at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sp1898.asp and the image at right showing the boundary points of the ceded territory), and they certainly don't match the points listed in RA3046 (see http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno3046.html). I wonder what your source of information is for the territorial limits indicated in the image. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive the rough estimation I made on the map, but those laws had already been superseded by the new Baselines law (Republic Act No 9522). Even the U.S. does not recognized that all waters within those points are to be considered Philippine territory, but merely a indication that the islands within those points are the ones ceded by Spain to the U.S. The Sulu Sea boundaries are covered by two treaties between the U.S. (for the Philippines) and the U.K. (for North Borneo), until the 1930s.-- Namayan (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have concerns about WP:OR and WP:V here. I looked at RA9522 (http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno9522.php), and don't see any support for the territorial limits shown in the image. The image appears to me to be based on the territorial limits from Section 2 of the 1898 Treaty of Paris (as shown in the map to the right), with adjustments to the boundary line on the southwest and with the "Kalayyan Islands" area added. Do I have this generally correct? If so, would it be possible for you list supporting sources for the territorial limits or territorial claims shown on the Image description talk page on Commons?

Digging around, I have today come across two papers which may be relevant here:

1. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/20270/Colmenares_Philippine-Territorial-Claims.pdf?sequence=1
2. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/20270/Colmenares_Philippine-Territorial-Claims.pdf?sequence=2

I infer from a look at those papers, particularly the figures at the end, that Mark J. Valencia; East-West Environment and Policy Institute (Honolulu, Hawaii) (1983), Atlas for Marine Policy in Southeast Asian Seas, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-05005-1 {{citation}}: |author2= has generic name (help) might be a good supporting source. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that source.

Thanks for helping address this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to the image talk page on Commons saying that the image seems to agree with info in the scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu item, and that the relevant figures in that item cite the book mentioned above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The one I created (somehow) corresponds to this map (Image 3/14), that is in the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), the which produces the official Philippine maps, but this is now obsolete because of the passage of the new Baselines Law which still incorporates Presidential Decree 1596 that defines the limits of the country's claim to the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal. I do hope there would be someone who could create a newer map with updated limits, plus EEZ, and the additional claim to Benham Rise -- Namayan (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I have echoed it on the image talk page at Commons. I might be able to do that if I had the time, but I don't have any decent image editing software installed on my current computer. I'll put that on my list of things I might think about working on at some point in the future. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead links in article 'Antipolo'

Hi. The article 'Antipolo' has some dead links that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix them?

Dead: http://www.antipolo.gov.ph/economy.php

• You added this in October 2009.
• The bot tested this link on 5 April, 7 April, 9 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: http://www.ops.gov.ph/records/ra_no9232.htm

• You added this in October 2009.
• The bot tested this link on 5 April, 7 April, 9 April and today, but it never worked.
• This copy from the archives might be good.

Dead: http://www.cfcausa.org/pdfs/update/UpdateNov.pdf

• You added this in November 2009.
• The bot tested this link on 5 April, 7 April, 9 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

These links are marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Phil. territorial waters map

Hi Namayan,

I have a question about your beautiful map of Philippine territorial waters (File:Ph Territorial Map.png). What sources did you use for the boundaries between the Philippine exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and Taiwan and Indonesia? I see that on your map the Philippine EEZ is cut off between the Philippines and these countries (not extending over their land territory, as in some maps I've seen). I am currently doing some research about territorial waters and exclusive economic zones in Southeast Asia, and I'm very interested to know where you found the information for these EEZ limits. My research so far has suggested that the Philippines has declared a 200nm EEZ without specifying where it would be cut off when overlapping with any other countries' claims.

Any help on this issue would be great. Thanks!

Evzob (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Evzob, as far as I know Philippine and Indonesian EEZ overlap with each other especially in the area around Palmas Islands, but there had not been any bilateral discussions to determine their extent. Such as the case the northeastern most tip of Philippine EEZ also touches that of Japan's, etc. I've had some materials about these, but I cannot find them as of now. With regard to Taiwan's EEZ, I believe delimiting it with them through a negotiation would be impossible since that has to be coursed with the Chinese government in Beijing. -- Namayan (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. So what I'm wondering is, how did you choose where to draw the lines on the map, if there haven't been any agreements? Evzob (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I just chose the Philippines extent of claim. Though I have to say as in the previous conversation I have here, this is obsolete as the Philippines now follows the New Baseline Law. The quadrilateral demarcation is no longer in use. -- Namayan (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The quadrilateral lines might be of historical interest but, for that, it seems to me that the Treaty of Paris (1898) lines should be shown as well (as I understand it, that would involve drawing some more lines in the southwest corner area and probably changing colors to distinguish the 1898 lines from the 1930 lines in that area). Adding that historical detail to this map would probably be confusing, though.

As a somewhat related point are quadrilateral boundaries of a claim for "Kalayaan Group of Islands" documented anywhere, or has that claim historically been for the island group as a Regime of Islands?

Another point -- while looking at this, I stumbled across this. See Benham Plateau#Philippine claim.

My graphics editing skills aren't up to the creation of a map such as this from scratch, but I could probably do an adequate job of removing the red and orange lines and the related entries in the map legend. Would it be useful for me to take a whack at that? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wtmitchell - The quadrilateral boundaries for the Kalayaan Group are defined in Presidential Decree 1596, which claims the entire area to "belong and be subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines" (including even air space and subsoil). Confusingly, Republic Act 9522 declares that the Kalayaan group is subject to the Regime of Islands, without elaborating. My guess is that they are just using "Regime of Islands" to clarify that it's not part of the straight baselines system surrounding the main archipelago of the Philippines. Evzob (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To my understanding, this should now be construed, just like the explanation I have below, which islands the Philippines claim/consider its territory. -- Namayan (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the baselines law doesn't change the quadrilateral claim for the territorial waters. The baselines are only being used to (1) bound the "internal waters" within the archipelago and (2) define the 200nm limit for the EEZ. The Philippines has no 12nm territorial waters claim, unless it has been made in the last two years and I haven't seen it. See for example this paper . Evzob (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have to correct you with that, the Philippines found no support, even from the US who was the signatory to the Treaty of Paris to its quadrilateral limits. In one of the materials I've encountered about the UNCLOS deliberations, the U.S. rebuffed the Philippines' claim that its territorial seas were defined by the Treaty of Paris. The U.S. position was, the lines drawn by the Treaty of Paris is just to identify the islands that were ceded to them, it doesn't prescribe the country's territorial waters. Hence, Congress was forced to come up with a New Baselines Law, that conforms to the UNCLOS standards. -- Namayan (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the U.S. does not support or recognize the quadrilateral territorial limits. However, that doesn't change the fact the government of the Philippines still claims the those limits. The New Baselines Law, if you are referring to RA 9522, says nothing about territorial waters - it ONLY defines the baselines. The paper I linked to above makes it clear the the new baselines and the quadrilateral territorial waters claim coexist. Evzob (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore,

I believe RA 3046 as amended by RA 5446 was already repealed by RA 9522. It will help you if you would read documents about UNCLOS, and why countries have to docket their territorial limits and submit it before the UN deadline of May 13, 2009. The Philippines as a UN member is obliged to comply with UNCLOS and cannot unilaterally claim areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of any country.-- Namayan (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)