Talk:China–Philippines relations

conflict going on now, started april 10. someone with more skill in wikipedia add this please :P Arowhun (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's been buried at the very bottom, under "other." Yes, this article merits the neutrality tag, imo. Seems a somewhat sanitized version of events. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of China–Philippines relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ocac.gov.tw":

• From Overseas Chinese: http://www.ocac.gov.tw/download.asp?tag=P&file=DownFile/File_17979.pdf&no=17979
• From Chinese Filipino: ":: Overseas Compatriot Affairs Commission, R.O.C. ::". Ocac.gov.tw. Retrieved 2012-04-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Binondojf0070 25.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Taoist Temple, Cebu, Philippines.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Binondojf0070 25.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have set this article's English variant to Philippine English. China does not have it's own variety of English, but the Philippines does have one. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 06:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I have noted a large, mainly copied over from other articles section, does not read as if relevant to the topic as does not mention China at all and may shade article contrary to WP:NPOV. Should the following rather large section be removed ?

" In 1734, the Spanish colonial government in the Philippines published the first edition of the Velarde map, detailing the territories under full sovereign control of Spanish Philippines, which included Scarborough Shoal (called Panacot in the indigenous language in the map) and the Spratly Islands (referred in the map as Los Bajos de Paragua). The 1734 Velarde map is the earliest map to showcase the sovereignty of a nation over Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands. In 1792, the Spanish colonial government of the territory of the Philippines launched the first ever survey of Scarborough Shoal on May 4, 1792. The survey, Plano de la Navigacion, was taken by Alessandro Malaspina aboard the Sta. Lucia, with Filipino comrades. The official territories of the Philippines was again published in the 1808 Carita General del Archipelago Filipino and again in the 1875 Carita General del Archipelago Filipino. After the Spanish-American War, Spain lost and ceded the territory of the Philippines to the United States through the 1898 Treaty of Paris. The 1898 Treaty of Paris created a treaty line, where Scarborough Shoal, the Spratly Islands, and parts of Tawi-tawi continued to be under Spanish sovereignty. This led to talks between Spain and the United States, which ended upon the signing of the 1900 Treaty of Washington, which rectified retroactively the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Under the 1900 Treaty of Washington, "all islands belonging to the Philippine Archipelago, lying outside the lines described in Article III" were also ceded to the United States as part of the territory of the Philippines, where Scarborough Shoal, the Spratly Islands, and the rest of Tawi-tawi was included. From 1899 to 1902, the United States war department in the territory of the Philippines republished and reissued four times the 1875 Carita General del Archipelago Filipino with the addition of military telegraph lines, military cable lines, eastern cable company lines, and military department boundaries. The official map of the entire Philippine territory under Spanish rule was effectively adopted as the entire Philippine territory under American rule. During the 1928 Islas Palmas international case, the United States, as representative of the territory of the Philippines, reiterated in a court memorandum that the 1875 Carta General del Archipielago Filipino "is both an American official and a Spanish official map" of Philippine territory, bounding the United States on its recognition of the Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands as Philippine territory. In 1930, the United States and the United Kingdom signed a treaty, where the United Kingdom recognized the territory of Philippines which included Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys, effectively bounding the United Kingdom's successor countries as well, such as Malaysia and Brunei. " ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this was a single purpose editor who had a serious of copyvio issues and a number of other problems. I haven’t checked this one but I am not convinced we need all that deep background. We could delete in my view. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There is some decent historical background info there (e.g., the Velarde map), but overall the paragraphs needs some heavy trimming so as to avoid WP:COAT. - Amigao (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi - I've added the AI generated template here, specifically regarding the earlier edits by Ritwik Deuba; other edits by this user have shown indications of possible LLM use in the past, as do these. Thus they need review for accuracy, sourcing issues, possible NPOV/editorializing issues, and the like. (They seem to be adding the same text to multiple articles.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I propose that the section "2026 public statements and diplomatic exchanges" be split into a new article, 2026 China–Philippines diplomatic incident (or 2026 China–Philippines diplomatic conflict). The article name is to be patterned after 2025–2026 China–Japan diplomatic crisis. Considering that it generated a great deal of discourse throughout the country (even on Philippine cyberspace), the entire Chinoy/FilChi community, and Chinese political measures vs. several Filipinos (notably the entire town government of Kalayaan, Palawan), the ongoing diplomatic should stand as a separate article. Having a single article eliminates fragmented information on the ongoing diplomatic conflict. We see this fragmentation from the hatnote of the section ("See also: Jing Quan#Public criticism of Philippine officials and Wolf warrior diplomacy#Chinese embassy in the Philippines"). A single article for all information concerning the diplomatic conflict between Manila and Beijing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

2026 China–Philippines diplomatic conflict seems to me an overstretch considering the fact that most of it were just public exchanges between the Chinese embassy and Philippine officials, with some actions and little comments from the Chinese government in Beijing in comparison to the 2025–2026 China–Japan diplomatic crisis. However, I do agree for a seperate main article instead of fragments in other articles. AsianStuff03 (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. This is the WP:NOTNEWS phenomenon. Diplomatic rows result in a flurry of news coverage, but they may not retain encyclopedic significance in the long term. Creating new pages, like the Japan-China page you reference, results in excessive fragmentation. Better to see the long term impacts and coverage by academic sources and the like. Better to wait a few years and see. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 the diplomatic unrest still exists as of this writing. The Chinese embassy recently posted another sharp rebuttal vs. Commodore Jay Tarriela, using a 1990 letter sent by a former PH diplomat. This prompted more sharp rebuttals from the PH officials vs. the embassy, with the Maritime Affairs office of the DFA calling it having no value and the chief of the PH Defense Department labeling the 1990 letter as "nonbinding." To add from Sec. Teodoro's response (in English), "Some experts say that the problem with China is that their Indo-Pacific engagement strategy is directly tied to the legitimacy of the ruling regime and serves the personal interests of their leaders. That’s why its actions are not legal. That’s why they’re doing all kinds of false narratives because it’s an extension of internal political effort." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)