Jump to content

Talk:Pedra Branca dispute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Good articlePedra 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 23, 2010, May 23, 2011, May 23, 2013, May 23, 2016, May 23, 2017, May 23, 2020, and May 23, 2022.

Why no straightforward solution?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I'm too serious for my own good... :-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate way not to violate copyright.

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)[reply]

merge with Middle Rocks?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, I think we don't have a consensus at this time for a merge. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead too long

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pedra Branca dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pedra Branca dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Why?

I came to the article to find out something common in other articles about border disputes: Why did anyone CARE? Is there any NPOV article or reference that explains why the dispute arose and what either side was wanting to accomplish? For instance, are the waters around Pedra Branca rich fisheries? Is there a resource like petroleum or mineral wealth? Was this just a "my territory is bigger than yours" squabble? I cannot imagine that they spent decades fighting because they wanted to control who flips the switch in the lighthouse.... then again... User:Kevin.159.53 posted without login from 159.53.46.140 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Control the land, and you control the surrounding waters. See Strait of Malacca Zhanzhao (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Pedra Branca dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pedra_Branca_dispute&oldid=1209680068"