Talk:Exclusive economic zone

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The Hainan island case

I would say this case has nothing to do with EEZ. Jackzhp 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue of edits regarding the "territorial sea"

I had edited the text to indicate that what is referenced as the "territorial sea" is also known as "internal waters". This is clearly and accurately depicted in the illustration. The outward defined limits, originating at the coast or established baseline, are: sovereign "territorial waters" - out to 12 nmi from baseline, the "contiguous zone" - an additional 12 nmi for a total of 24 nmi from baseline, the "exclusive economic zone" - 200 nmi from baseline and including territorial waters and the contiguous zone.

My edits were reset as though my changes were in contravention to the UNCLOS. They were not.Федоров (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits did contradict the text of the UNCLOS, specifically Article 55 (which our article quotes and cites as a source). This reads (in part) as follows: "The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea ..."[1] [emphasis added]. Our illustration (right) can be read as being inconsistent with this definition, if you take it as saying that the EEZ includes the whole 200 nautical mile distance from the baseline indicated by the long arrow. It could also be read as saying that the EEZ is only the portion beyond the contiguous zone (which is also incorrect), if you focus on the colours instead. So the illustration is ambiguous, and should probably be redone.

The "territorial sea" is not the same as "internal waters", either; these are defined in Articles 3-4 and Article 8 respectively.[2] Our illustration seems fairly consistent with the definition of those two terms, although the outer boundary of the territorial sea doesn't bend out far enough around the island, and I don't see why the baseline to the right of the island should run miles offshore. (The illustration's talk page lists some further problems.) -- Avenue (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. You are correct. The term "territorial sea" is synonymous with "territorial waters". In the case of the illustration, the illustration itself is correct. The lead in text of the article correctly states the situation and notes common understanding. The most important point is that outward distances, with the exception of the "contiguous zone", are measured from the coastal baselines. Thus, technically speaking, the EEZ is only 188 nmi wide measured from the outer edge of the territorial sea. However, its outer edge is 200 nmi from the baselines. This detail is generally of little interest to most and thus the EEZ is commonly considered to be 200 nmi wide.Федоров (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Norway's EEZ

Norway has not established an EEZ around the Bouvet Island. In 2003, they established territorial waters and a contiguous zone there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stigei (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Perhaps a certain French editor under the guise of an IP could explain in what way the United Kingdom's EEZs are different to those of any other country's EEZs, such as the United States' EEZs, Norway's EEZs, Denmark's EEZs, Portugal's EEZs, Australia's EEZs and so on, to warrant all the United Kingdom's EEZs not surrounding the United Kingdom to have to be in a different colour and the point about them not actually being the a part of the United Kingdom needs to be so heavily pushed when those of the US, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Australia and such are not despite being no different to the UK? Bambuway (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine this has to do with Argentina's claim to the Falklands. That dispute should be included in the Disputes section. Fences&Windows 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The guy above, Bambuway, who is actually the sockpuppet of a banned user (User:Signsolid and all his farm of sockpuppets) is a British nationalist who has vandalized various articles since he's been active at Wikipedia. His latest vandalism has been here at the Exclusive Economic Zone article. Apparently it didn't suit him that the article correctly informed readers that the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK, despite the fact that it is clearly stated on the 10 Downing Street website (see here), so he changed not just this article, but also the accompanying map to mask the fact that the EEZ of the British Overseas Territories is not part of the UK's EEZ. Not only that, but he also added on the UK's EEZ map the EEZ of the claimed British Antarctica, despite the fact that all claims over Antarctica have been suspended by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. It's frankly sad that some people don't understand that Wikipedia is an encylopedia which is there to inform people, and not some sort of jingoistic propaganda machine for wannabe nationalists. 90.44.22.18 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, file a report at WP:SPI. 2. For the purposes of the article, it is splitting hairs to distinguish the EEZs of the UK from those of its overseas territories. The spat with Argentina over oil drilling in the waters of the Falklands is squarely between the Argentine and British governments.[3] 3. I agree that Antarctic claims are not appropriate for the figure. 4. If you want to be hyperpedantic, at least do it consistently: Puerto Rico, for instance, in not part of the United States of America. Fences&Windows 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If Puerto Rico is not part of the US, then it should be listed with a separate color on the map of the US EEZ, just as with the map of the UK EEZ. An encyclopedia is about precision and not oversimplification to satisfy one's national pride. 90.44.22.18 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP is well known, anti-British, French vandal IP who keeps changing his IP but keeps attacking the same articles in the same way. The UK's EEZs are just the same as the EEZs of other countries. He argues the UK's overseas territories are not part of the UK. This is the case for every country with overseas territories. Oh, with one exception, France, whose overseas territories are officially a part of France. That's why he changed the UK's map (despite not changing any of all the others) to exaggerate the UK's overseas territories are not a part of the UK, whereas France's overseas territories are. There is no reason for the EEZs of a country's overseas territories to be a different colour than the EEZ which surrounds the country itself because all the EEZs belong to that country. And there's certainly no reason why the UK's EEZs surrounding its overseas territories should be a different colour to the UK while not the case for other countries. Just as the United States' EEZs, Australia's EEZs, Portugal's EEZs, Norway's EEZs, Denmark's EEZs and so on are all in the same colour, so should all countries' EEZs be in the same colour. All my edit did was to put the UK's map in line with the maps of all the other countries. I'd also like to point out the UK's Antarctic claimed EEZ is no different than the EEZ claims of China, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines also shown in this article. Bambuway (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to Fences&Windows: the above guy, Bambuway, had his account blocked indefinitely by an admin for the sockpuppetry that I revealed yesteday (in case you wonder why I don't log in, that's because this Bambuway/Signsolid guy is a stalker who has harrassed me in the past, and since he will probably come back to Wikipedia under a new account/new sockpuppet, I prefer not to log in). Anyway, now that this guy is banned from Wikipedia (for the time being at least), the article will hopefully be able to return to civil editing and positive contributions. The EEZ of the overseas territories that are not constitutionally part of their sovereign countries (such as the British Overseas Territories or Greenland) should appear with a color distinct from the EEZ of their sovereign countries, since under international law the EEZs are distinct. I will correct some of the maps when the article is unlocked. I don't know the exact situation for each and every country, so other users should correct the maps too as appropriate. 92.154.68.239 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All EEZs of a country are exactly the same because all EEZs of that country belong to that country and are controlled by that country. A country holds equal sovereignty over all EEZs it owns. So do you plan on colouring each and every EEZ of every territory of that country a different colour to distinguish it from the other territories? In what way is a country seperate from its territories while its territories are not seperate from each other? All EEZs of a country should be coloured in one colour, just as they always were. There is no reason to seperate the EEZ surrounding a country from all the EEZs surrounding its territories. You're forgetting one major point. The EEZs don't belong to each of the territories, they belong to the country, as it, not the territories, holds sovereignty over all its EEZs. For example, Puerto Rico does not hold sovereignty over the EEZ surrounding it, the United States does. The Unites States owns and controls the EEZ surrounding Puerto Rico, not Puerto Rico. The same goes for the UK and its overseas territories and for all countries and their overseas territories. A country does not hold some form of a lesser sovereignty over the EEZs which surround its overseas territories than the EEZ which surrounds itself, which the different colour scheme would imply and mislead readers into thinking just that. The changes would put the EEZs surrounding overseas territories in the same colour scheme as EEZs which are merely claimed and not held sovereignty over. This article is not about territories being either a part of a country or being an overseas territory, this article is about the EEZs which a country owns, controls and holds sovereignty over, and a country owns, controls and holds sovereignty over all its EEZs, those which surround itself and those surrounding its overseas territories. Hence why the maps were like that in the first place. Check the United Nations Law of the Seas online and you'll see that every country's EEZs equally include those surrounding any overseas territories. 88.106.115.72 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the situation is not that black and white. Let me give you a few examples from the part of the world I am most familiar with.

1. Australia claims sovereignty over two sectors of Antarctica. These claims are recognised by (I think) four other countries, but many other countries (including the US) dispute their validity. Australia also claims an EEZ extending out from the coast of these sectors. Boundary issues with other countries' neighbouring claims have not been resolved, as far as I know.
2. Australia also claims sovereignty over Norfolk Island in the Tasman Sea, and an associated EEZ. The boundaries of this EEZ have been agreed with neighbouring countries such as New Zealand.
3. New Zealand claims sovereignty over a sector of Antarctica. It has not formally claimed an associated EEZ, although it could do so in the future.
4. The Cook Islands claim an EEZ, which we show in the same colour as the EEZ around New Zealand, on the basis that the Cooks are part of the Realm of New Zealand. However the Cook Islands are essentially self-governing.

Do you think all of these areas should be shown in the same colours as the EEZs immediately adjoining mainland Australia and New Zealand respectively? I don't. I think we would serve our readers better if we indicate some of the more important distinction between them. -- Avenue (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the Antarctica thing is going off topic. I was talking about keeping all EEZs on each map the same colour. It would have to be either all the maps display the claims made by countries or not show any claims. Depends on what other editors decide. But keeping all the EEZs of a country the same colour is a must. I don't think it matters to what degree a territory is or isn't self-governing. Territories are not independent and wield no sovereignty. Therefore, soverignty over the EEZ lies soley with the state which wields soverignty over the territory. Any messing around with colours implies misleading POV. i.e. implying the territory is a sovereign state wielding sovereignty over its EEZ, which is not the case. The state wielding sovereignty over the territory wields sovereignty over everthing concerning the territory. i.e. The USA wields sovereignty over Guam's territorial waters, not Guam. I'd like to point out Norfolk Island is 100% an Australian overseas territory. No one disputes it. Australia does not claim sovereignty over it like you said, it exercises it. Same goes for the Cook Islands with New Zealand. You're confusing claimed territories like China over Taiwan rather than established overseas territories like Denmark with Greenland. Australia doesn't just claim Norfolk Island like it claims a part of Antarctica. China claims Taiwan but doesn't hold sovereignty over it, thought it wants to, hence it's a claim. Denmark holds soveringty over Greenland. Greenland is not an independent country. Yes, many have forms of self governing but none are sovereign or independent or merely claimed. I can't believe editors are now trying to state territories with some form of self government are essentially either just disputed claims or independent states. Tell the US government Puerto Rico is either just a claim or an independent state. All overseas territories of France are not a part of France, only 4 of the most populous ones which are overseas regions of the French Republic as France calls them which are; Martinique, Guadaloupe, Reunion and French Guiana, all the others like New Caledonia are only overseas territories.88.106.102.158 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

All right, let's leave Antarctica as a separate discussion. The US is both able and willing to control its various territories fairly tightly, so there is a good case for not distinguishing between its various territories. That does not mean you can generalise from that to all other countries. Towards the other extreme we have countries like New Zealand that have followed the UN's decolonialisation policies as far as possible, and now have little real control over some of their theoretical "territories". We also have disputed regions like around the Spratly Islands. You have not convinced me that a black and white approach makes sense for these other situations, and more US examples would seem unlikely to help your cause. -- Avenue (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Spratly Islands are partitioned territory amongst the countries of Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, China and Brunei, each claiming them as a whole. They're not a clear example of an overseas territory. Territories either are or are not a territory over a country. Hence they're a territory, not a country. There's a difference. There's no half independent countries like it's seems you're trying to state. I'll use other countries examples like the UK over the Falkland Islands. UK holds sovereignty over them, Argentina claims them. Again there's a difference. Or Bermuda, it's fairly self governing, but it's still 100% a British territory and the UK wields sovereignty over them. It's not independent or half independent. Is Scotland an independent country because it has a parliament or is it a region of the sovereign state the United Kingdom? 88.106.102.158 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course territories have forms of self governance, they have to or they'd cease to function. There are different levels of self governance within territories but none are independent, because they're a territory of another country, a country which wields sovereighty over them. Sovereignty over a territory means that country quite literally "owns" that territory, and everything which goes along with it. It gives the country the right to do as it so pleases with the territory, despite whatever level of self governance the terrtitory has been afforded. It's not been given independence from the country which holds sovereignty over it. For example, the UK removed the self governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands and reasserted complete governance over the territory from Whitehall. 88.106.102.158 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that the EEZ surrounding Bermuda, a self governing territory of the UK, is sovereign to the UK just as much as the EEZ surrounding the Turks and Caicos Islands, a territory governed straight from Whitehall. Just as the EEZ surrounding French Guiana, a part of France, is sovereign to France as much as the EEZ surrounding New Caledonia, a French overseas territory. The country owns the EEZ, not the terrtiory, as the country owns the EEZ and the territory. 88.106.102.158 (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Essentially what was said is that self governing territories like Bermuda, are less sovereign to the UK than none self governing territories like the British Indian Ocean Territory. Both territories however are equally under sovereignty. I've never heard anything like that before, essentially claiming self governing territories wield sovereignty over themselves (independent). Do you what sovereignty is? Do you get the difference in the relationship of China with Hong Kong and Taiwan, that one is under sovereignty of China and the other is a claimed territory and the reasons why? (Hong Kong, despite being largely self governing, belongs to China and is under its control. Taiwan is not, it's a defacto independent state, though China claims it belongs to China and is a part of China.) Sovereignty is a country wielding supreme authority over a territory, something which all countries posses over every one of their territories, not matter how self governing they are. A claim is a country claiming it has the right to wield supreme authority over a territory which it does not already wield supreme authority over. I still can't believe you said Norfolk Island is just "claimed" by Australia. You don't think Australia exercises sovereignty over it? In which case it's an independent state or owned by no one? Never seen Norfolk Island at the UN before and no island belongs to no one. The Cook Islands are very self governing, but they're still a territory of New Zealand because New Zealand exercises sovereignty over them, it exercises supremes authority over them, if it didn't they'd be an independent state, free from all New Zealand authority. Supreme ownership and authority (sovereignty) of EEZs lay with the sovereign state, not the territories. I can't even believe I had to write all against such a theory that territories are independent, sovereign states who wield sovereignty (supreme authority and ownership) over things like the EEZ surrounding them, basically that territories own the EEZ surrounding them rather than the sovereign state which owns both the territory and the EEZ. 88.106.93.10 (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EEZ's in Antarctica - Map

Hi all. What is your opinion about including (or not including) the EEZs around the territorial claims in Antarctica of United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Norway, Chile and Argentina in EEZ Maps of the respectives countries? Luis wiki (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If the countries in question have claimed an Antarctic EEZ (e.g. Australia - see below), then I think we should show it in a similar way to disputed claims made by other countries elsewhere (e.g. China, Japan) - i.e. in a lighter shade. If they have not yet claimed an Antarctic EEZ (e.g. New Zealand[4]), then we should not show one on their map. -- Avenue (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This Australian Senate document shows their EEZ claim in a map on page 6. -- Avenue (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The claims of countries which have claimed EEZs in Antartica are no different than EEZ claims of China, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. It is pointed out that these are only claims and not actually controlled EEZs. Bambuway (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The vague and suspiciously large 3.8+ million sq km2 cited for Argentina make me think that this includes Antarctic waters, which is not the case for the UK or Chile for overlapping claims. If this is the case it should be clearly stated and same policy should be applied to all three countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.103.13 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It includes both Falkland, South Georgia and Antarctic sector waters. I added a figure of 1,159,063 km² from Spanish Wp which has a source.--BIL (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Flaw in Japan's EEZ Diagram

The diagram of Japan's EEZ contains a flaw that should be corrected:

There is a portion approximately midway between Taiwan and Kyushu, northwest of Okinawa (roughly bounded by the longitudes 125°E on the west and 128°E on the east and the latitudes 25°N on the south and 30°N on the north), that is colored dark pink to indicate that it is part of "Japan's EEZ" (see legend). Since this area is also claimed by China as part of its EEZ (see China's EEZ diagram below), this portion should actually be colored light pink to indicate that it falls in the category "EEZ claimed by Japan, disputed by others." This would bring it into harmony with this article's China EEZ diagram, which is accurate:

(For a reference on China's EEZ claims, see http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/East_China_Sea/Full.html) Resplin.odell (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Both EEZ diagrams are flawed. As you have already noticed, the Japanese EEZ diagram is obviously flawed. The Chinese EEZ diagram is also flawed. Both mainland China and Taiwan claim the nine-dash line over the South China Sea, so both of them claimed an EEZ area larger than what this diagram have shown. Furthermore, both mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) claim to be the legitimate government of China, so their territorial claims are essentially the same (in fact, it's the ROC who compiled the first version of the nine-dash line). In this diagram, the author has categorized Chinese EEZ claims into 3 different categories: undisputed Chinese claim, Chinese claim disputed by Taiwan, and Chinese claim disputed by other countries. This is clearly wrong, everything China claims is disputed by Taiwan.

The real fact is that nobody cares about the so-called international law, every coastal or island country just claim as much EEZ as they could, greed is human nature after all. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea clearly states that coastal/island countries cannot claim EEZ over their offshore rocks (islets, shoals) and low-tide elevations (reefs, sandbars), only self-sustainable islands with freshwater source which can support agricultural production and permanent human habitation can generate an EEZ for their administering country. Well, if that's the rules, then a lot of the British, French, American, Australian, and Japanese overseas EEZ claims, as well as nearly all the EEZ claims in the South China Sea made by various countries are invalid and their exploration of resources further than 12 nautical miles from these small islets/rocks are illegal. 2001:8003:9008:1301:47B:A6C1:4DE3:C6C (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Exclusive Economic Zone → Exclusive economic zone –

Clearly generic from the very first line of the article text. Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse this proposal for a change in the article title to "Exclusive economic zone". The official text of the UNCLOS does not capitalize the use of "exclusive economic zone". When used to start a sentence "Exclusive" is capitalized. When used as an acronym "EEZ" is capitalized.Moryak (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CAPS. I was a bit apprehensive when I saw the title, but as Tony says, it is clear from the first sentence that this is a common term. Jenks24 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support since it's generic. It doesn't refer to any specific EEZ so it shouldn't be capitalised. Rennell435 (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Jenks24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohn joe (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 October 2011
• Support per Moryak. Applicable section of UNCLOS. — Joe Kress (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm doing a study on historical countries

I'm doing a study on historical countries and how they would rank if EEZ is included. under which country is Golan Heights? its was once part of the Israel occupation in the 1967 war. i have figures for Israel at 18,696.61 miles and Palestine at 2,423.177 miles I'm not sure if Golan Heights is included in Israel's figure. Should I research Golan Heights? to try figure out how large Israel's small empire was with EEZ territory? Because if Golan Heights was not in Israel's figure id have to look it up to see how large that territory was. 76.253.139.28 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar

The statment "Turkey claims a portion of Cyprus's EEZ based on Turkey's peculiar[9][10][11][12][13] definition that no islands, including Cyprus, can have full EEZ[14][15] and should..." There seems to be a clear subjective POV issue on that part and also a possible violation of WP:WORDS.

Apart from that given resources only state that only the existence of TRNC is illegal under international law, not the Turkey's EEZ claims. Any "illegal" claim comes from either EU or Greece itself, so I can't understand how it can be classified under "illegal under international law".--Gogolplex (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it right to list Taiwan as if it was recognized as a state by UN / UNCLOS ?

Above is the question. In my view, listing Taiwan as if its EEZ was recognized the same way as say Japan’s is troublesome. Taiwan is referred to at the UN as a Chinese province and isn’t recognized by the tribunal that decides on the limits of countries’ EEZs. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I've also noticed this mistake. Out of the 6 partially recognized coastal/island countries, Taiwan and Palestine are the only two appeared on the list. The EEZ areas of Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, and Somaliland have been included as part of the EEZ areas of Georgia, Cyprus, and Somalia respectively. Out of these three partially recognized countries, the source only provides data for Northern Cyprus, the other two political entities have absolutely no data at all. Western Sahara is a controversial one, although the source treated the Moroccan-controlled Southern Provinces as part of Morocco, it does provide a separate data for this region (as "South Morocco"). However, the UN recognizes neither Moroccan nor the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic sovereignty over Western Sahara, so there are some political neutrality issues with this source.

On the other hand, we have the Cook Islands (unranked) appeared on the list, but not Niue. These two political entities are sort of semi-independent countries. On the one hand, they are states in free association with New Zealand. On the other hand, their independence in foreign relations are recognized by the UN, thus both countries enjoy full treaty-making capacities within the United Nations System. The source does provide separate data for both the Cook Islands and Niue though.

For this article, I think we should stick to the standard set by the UN System, we could include the EEZ areas of Western Sahara and some partially recognized coastal/island countries for statistical purposes, but they should be unranked, only the sovereign coastal/island countries plus Palestine (recognized as an observer state by the UN), the Cook Islands, and Niue should be ranked (therefore the EEZ area of New Zealand should only contain the EEZ areas of New Zealand proper and Tokelau). Kenwick (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Exclusive economic zone of Australia into Exclusive economic zone#Australia

The information provided in the separate article isn't enough, in my opinion, to qualify having a separate article. Instead, I think that simply having a fuller Australia section would be beneficial. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 02:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted)

This proposal was previously closed as merge based on a 14-day discussion, during which only one other editor gave their opinion. Exclusive economic zone of Australia was then merged into Exclusive economic zone#Australia where it was without objections or problem for a number of weeks. That editor, who supported the merge, was found about a week or so ago to be a sock puppet of another user, and as such, their !vote and closure of this discussion was reverted. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What? One support and the article is deleted without further discussion? This is crazy. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle and I-82-I: Hello, can we please reinstate the Australian EEZ article? There are over 20 country EEZ articles on Wikipedia, France and the U.S. both have their own EEZ articles. Even if they don't, the lack of one or two countries' own EEZ articles is not a valid reason for us to delete other countries' EEZ articles. Can we please revert this silly merge request? Thanks. 2001:8003:9008:1301:47B:A6C1:4DE3:C6C (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Courteously collapsing a prolonged discussion for ease of reading.

:Is there any actual reason to restore Exclusive economic zone of Australia as a separate article, other than the fact that the US and French articles exist? As far as I'm aware, all appropriate content was merged into this article before the former was redirected. Also, it's worth noting that this discussion was open for 14 days instead of the conventional seven - this was a fair and justified merge that gave ample opportunity for input from other editors before it was archived and actioned. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Please don't edit and remove a portion of other editor's post. You've been very naughty. Australia is an important country, it's one of the six largest countries on Earth, it's also one of the twelve countries which have significant overseas external/dependent territories. Australia deserves to have its own EEZ article, more so than most of those 20-plus countries which already have their own EEZ article. Exclusive economic zone of Australia needs to be restored immediately. 2001:8003:9008:1301:CD0E:CD14:AB99:BBA6 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC) By the way, I just noticed that the only support you had gathered was from a sockpuppet (User:I-82-I) who has been banned indefinitely, that means your initial merge request now has 0 supports. 2001:8003:9008:1301:CD0E:CD14:AB99:BBA6 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC) I refactored the formatting of comments to follow our indenting and replying format guidance. I apologise if you think that I've egregiously damaged the sentiment you're trying to share, but it was beyond hard to follow. Australia's size and international territorial claims does not automatically mean that we should have a separate article about it either, especially considering that the article did not contain enough unique or otherwise different information compared to what is covered in this article for countries. On I-82-I, that obviously was unknown to me at the time and from my understanding (*cough cough* hindsight bias), their sock puppetry on this article was not malicious or otherwise detrimental. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Please don't defend the sock puppeteers, they have no market in Wikipedia. Lack of information in an article is not an valid reason for a speedy deletion. It's whether the subject deserves to have a separate article that matters. Most articles, including this one, were created as stubs, more information will be added later. We have editors from a whole wide world to contribute their knowledge, as long as the subject is interesting (in this case, it certainly is), we shall not be worried about its contents. 2001:8003:9008:1301:D839:31FA:C2AD:38 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Having another account it in itself not malicious, but these secondary accounts are primarily used for malicious intents, which is why they're prohibited. It is impossible for me to know if someone's a sock puppet or not (for all I know, you could be a blocked editor using an IP to circumvent), but the behaviour of the sock puppet account in this discussion does not, to me, appear to be malicious or otherwise not constructive. It's also worth noting that the merge was not a speedy deletion - the discussion was open for twice the conventional duration, and it was a merge discussion not CSD. And yes, new articles are developed into fuller articles, but Exclusive economic zone of Australia had not been significantly edited since January, and before that, since 2018. Secondary to that, the article is a child to this article, and holds no unique information not already covered in Exclusive economic zone § Australia. If you think that there's a significant amount of missing information, so much so that it would be impractical to include it in this article, then absolutely go ahead and add it, but keeping a separate article on the sole premise that "it may be edited to quality or otherwise become independently notable one day" is simply flawed logic - that could be said about literally every article under discussion on WP. And no, there's no evidence that the exclusive economic zone of Australia is any more interesting than any other countries (it's only ever been mentioned in 8 news sources, and has never actually been the subject of an article. only as a passing mention). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC) You are fundamentally wrong about sock puppetry. Why would someone insist on using an IP to circumvent when he can simply register a new account and continue editing? Wikipedia does not restrict one email address per account. It's the actions you've done that will get you banned, not your account. As long as you act in a proper way and follow the rules, you will never get banned. If User:I-82-I had learned from his past mistakes and acted like a responsible editor this time, he wouldn't get banned again. 2001:8003:9008:1301:8BB:190D:E64D:597E (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Return to the topic though, even just now, Exclusive economic zone of Australia offers more in-depth information than Exclusive economic zone § Australia. If we compare Exclusive economic zone of Australia with other country EEZ articles (e.g. Exclusive economic zone of Mexico or Exclusive economic zone of Thailand), it is not the least informative one either. In fact, it is one of the more informative country EEZ articles out there, so I don't see any reason we must delete this article. 2001:8003:9008:1301:8BB:190D:E64D:597E (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Finally, please respect other editors' IQ. We are not dumb people. According to Google News search, exclusive economic zone of Australia has been mentioned in 81,900 news sources worldwide, not 8 sources. You have manually manipulated the search function. 2001:8003:9008:1301:8BB:190D:E64D:597E (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC) I'm not going to get into a debate with you about sock puppetry. I stand firm on my position, but that's not what we're here to talk about. And exactly what more substantial in-depth information does Exclusive economic zone of Australia have then Exclusive economic zone § Australia? Is there any reason why it can't or shouldn't be on the master article? And again, the existence of other articles is not a valid argument (and we're merging, not deleting). And what you've searched for is anything that broadly relates to economics (you can see this in how the results include a Yahoo article about a nickel factory in New Caledonia) - you need to include the double quotes ("...") to search for the exact term, and you go to the last result page to fetch the most accurate number (the other pages bring results for anything that has those five words, in any order, anywhere in the article, rather than as one cohesive line). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC) You stand firm on your position to defend a sock puppet or you stand firm on your position because you have run out of excuses? The Exclusive economic zone of Australia article has a section describing its maritime boundary in detail, there is also room for a history section to be added in the future. These types of detailed information would be inappropriate for the main EEZ article as we need to cover dozens of countries in the main article so each country can only have a summary section. As for the news sources, although not all of those 81,900 news sources contain the exact match of "exclusive economic zone of Australia", but I can still find more than 8 sources mentioning the Australian EEZ from the first two pages of the search result. Without giving any strong supporting evidence, your poor rebuttal plus your "oppose for the sake of opposing" attitude towards other people who had disagreed with your merge proposal have only further weakened your position in a discussion. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F093:8438:63B6:A7B9 (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC) If you want to protest that an article has independent notability to stand by itself based a possible future existence of a section that doesn't exist and no one has shown any real interest in creating, you're going to need to find some other reason. If you would like to go ahead and create a section, with appropriate sources, that describes what limited history there is of Australia's EEZ go ahead, but you can't say that because the section could possibly exist one day that the entire article is therefore right to be separate. Also, please provide those eight sources that you claim have Australia's EEZ as the subject of the article. I'm also not going to debate with you about the ethics and indirect and direct consequences of sock puppetry, because again, that's not the subject of this talk page. I would also suggest you give WP:NPA and WP:AGF a read. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Oppose for the sake of opposing is the best thing in Wikipedia. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Good bye. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F093:8438:63B6:A7B9 (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Sure. If you think that I'm "opposing" your points for the sake of being a pain, I think it's worth keeping in mind that this move had consensus and as far as I'm concerned, no one has actually provided any reason to have a separate article. Similarly, I can't see any genuine or realistic possibility of there being enough content to qualify an independent article, on the fact that, again, the article hasn't had any meaningful improvements since January, there is nothing to establish significant enough notability of Australia's EEZ, the entire premise of any objections to the merge is based on predicting that someone's going to write a history section discussing what limited (if any) history there is other than it just existing, and there is no unique content on the article. As such, I am going to re-redirect the article to Exclusive economic zone § Australia, because again, it's the same content. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Such a childish behavior. Turning a blind eye to other people's comments and acting like a repeating machine doesn't mean you have successfully defeated those refutations stated above. 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC36:B4D7:206:9C58 (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Report me then, don't try to bludgeon my character. I've had to repeat myself so many times because of the lack of engagement and consensus from yourself and others. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC) I don't bother to report someone just because he is annoying, that's wasting my time. If you want to see your merge request proceed, state your reasons against those refutations stated above. Keep repeating yourself while completely ignoring other people's refutations won't get you anywhere. 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC36:B4D7:206:9C58 (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC) What exact reasons have you actually stated? You're trying to prophesy about the possibility of there maybe eventually sometime being a history section, despite no demonstrated editorial interest, no apparent extraordinary notability or significance of the EEZ, and all reasonable history is already detailed. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have reverted the edits made by the sockpuppet to this page and the article itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Would you mind restoring the actual discussion content and the article content, and just redacting the sock puppet's !vote? My logic was still in that discussion and while now we know that the only support was from a sock puppet, that wasn't known at the time. Is there anything in the SP's edits to the article that are objectionable either? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 22:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't removed any discussion content other than redacting the sock's vote and reversing the close.[5] I didn't make any changes to this article, I just reverted the sock's edits at Exclusive economic zone of Australia.[6] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't blame him though. Admins generally will revert all contributions made by a proven sock puppetry (whether they are good-faith edits or pure spams). It serves as a warning or punishment that sock puppeteers have no living space in Wikipedia. 2001:8003:9008:1301:D839:31FA:C2AD:38 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Despite no consensus to merge, ItsPugle has merged anyway, despite a clear oppose from 2001:8003:9008:1301:f093:8438:63b6:a7b9. I have reverted the merge until there is demonstrated consensus to merge. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There's been no logical engagement from the IPs, who have instead claimed that I'm a sock puppet too. I don't see why this entire merge needed to be reverted in the first instance - although the editor was a sock puppet, is there any evidence that they maliciously or otherwise detrimentally used the alternate account? As I've already mentioned:

1. All of the content on Exclusive economic zone of Australia is all covered in Exclusive economic zone#Australia literally word for word
2. The section is not long enough, not even close, to be reasonably considered for splitting if the former didn't even exist
3. There are no indications of any editorial interest in the former, suggesting that there is nothing else reasonable to be added that can't be added to the latter
4. The entire objection raise by the IPs are that someone, sometime, may possibly expand it with a history section, despite the fact that all significant history (declaration, amendment etc) is already discussed
5. There doesn't appear to be any special notability or importance in Australia's EEZ - it's not disputed, there's been no significant international events, it just exists

There's literally no reason that I can reasonably think of to keep Exclusive economic zone of Australia, there was an existing consensus (before I-82-I was found to be a sock) to merge, and there has been no objections until about a week ago (during which time too, existing editors of the article have held two other discussions, so it's likely that they were aware of this merge too). None of the IPs have demonstrated any interest in improving the article themselves either. I'm sorry for re-merging the articles, but I honestly did not (and struggle still) to take the objections raised at this stage seriously since they're dotted with so many fallacies and absurd assertions. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The main EEZ article doesn't contain the information stated in the Maritime boundary section, this information is relevant and important. How many times do you need someone to remind you this before you stop repeating your "reasonable arguments"? 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC36:B4D7:206:9C58 (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! This is the first thing that you've actually said that's proper. Those three sentences are simple topographic assertions about where Australia is in relation to other nearby nations. If you think it's so crucial and people won't be familiar enough with world geography that it absolutely must be included, it can easily be condensed and included in EEZ#Australia. If you think people are going to be smart enough to know some regional geography though, the existing image that's already included illustrates these three sentences. I don't think that's enough content to qualify having enough properly unique content for a completely new article. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't speak on behalf of other people, some people don't know where those island countries are, Indonesia is probably the only well-known island country out of this group. A lot of people don't know where Christmas Island is, and they wouldn't know there is a maritime boundary between this small Australian external territory and Java, an Indonesian island. You keep saying there is no worth in keeping Exclusive economic zone of Australia as an independent article, but I doubt you really care about whether this article is deleted or not, you care because someone is opposing your proposal, so you will do whatever it takes to get this article deleted because you don't like someone opposing you. Now, tell me, why should we only delete Exclusive economic zone of Australia when a lot of other countries' EEZ articles such as the Exclusive economic zone of Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, and Thailand are less informative? Why don't you propose all 23 individual country's EEZ articles be merged with the main EEZ article? I know why, because you don't care. All you care is defeating someone who is opposing you, that's the only thing that matters to you. 2001:8003:9008:1301:DC36:B4D7:206:9C58 (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Entirely reductio ad absurdum and incivility. Not even going to engage with you anymore. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If he has proven his argument via reduction ad absurdum then that is not on him, it’s on you. And I cannot see how he is being incivil, he is merely strongly making his case. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - there's sufficient material out there to justify an individual Australian page. The EEZ arises in a number of legal issues and there would be enough reported case law to source the page from that alone. Deus et lex (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any links to any parliamentary or court papers about the EEZ? I'm unaware of any legal issues or coverage, and there doesn't appear to be any media coverage of such. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Why does there have to be media articles? You do realise there is a raft of case law out there, don't you? Deus et lex (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

At least 76 results considering the EEZ in Commonwealth case law - and that doesn't include legislation or state courts. Deus et lex (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The general notability guidelines suggest significant, reliable and independent coverage of a topic is required to reasonably assert notability. I doubt all of those court cases actually are explicitly about disputes regarding Australia's exclusive economic zone, considering that this case for example, has 22 mentions of "exclusive economic zone" simply because it is a determinant of the jurisdiction of the rights of Torres Strait Islanders. The same is true for this case, where Australia's EEZ is only mentioned since the oil rig was off-shore but in Australia's EEZ. Similarly, that search result page only shows 3 cases where "exclusive economic zone" is actually relevant (relevancy score >50%), so there's only 3 (even though one of them is only ~60% relevant). On top of that, I would be very very hesitant to protest an entire article based on 3 court cases - not only are they wavering in the strength of their mentions, but we're an encyclopedia for everyday people, not law professionals. Can you demonstrate any significance of Australia's EEZ to the general public? Otherwise, we'd have articles about literally every tiny, minute and superficial topic ever mentioned in courts. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, this isn't a comprehensive list, I'm merely pointing out there are sources about the EEZ beyond what you think you can find (and trying to help show that there is not a consensus to merge the article beyond you and the now-banned sockpuppet). Deus et lex (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide any of those sources? Just asserting that sources to meet the notability threshold exist isn't enough. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 06:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose given there is plenty of opportunity to expand the article, I oppose the merge. I haven't seen any good arguments why it should be merged either! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The Exclusive economic zone of Australia is almost word-for-word the same as the Australia section of this article, so the fact that there's another article is just ridiculous tbh. Similarly, there's no apparent significance of Australia's EEZ as compared any other countries, so there's very very little to actually be discussed in the first place. As per the merging guidelines, the two articles are subject to three of the four reasons to merge: almost the entirety of the EEZ of Australia article is word-for-word covered in the main article, Australia's EEZ article is small and there is no indications of any more content to be added, and the entire Australian EEZ article relies on the context of other EEZs since there's no other content than just the geographic coverage and historical events. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out to you that there are numerous case law articles on Australia’s EEZ. Your main argument is that the article cannot be expanded, but it turns out that this is wrong. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sea of Okhotsk EEZ

"In colloquial usage, the term may include the continental shelf. The term does not include either the territorial sea or the continental shelf beyond the 200 nmi limit", as said in article. Sea of Okhotsk has an enclave, Peanut Hole. Even considering that it's seabed and subsoil is a part of Russia's continental shelf (Source), it is an extension over 200 nmi. And also "colloquial usage" is not a thing that needs to be represented by map in article about economics topic. Considering that continental shelf, even extended, may be ranked as part of territorial waters, probably it wasn't a very good idea to use territorial waters maps with continental shelves as representation of EEZs.

Summary, Peanut Hole is truly a hole, and must stay as hole until UNCLOS thinks it is part of Russian EEZ. For now it is enclave of neutral waters surrounded by Russia's EEZ above Russia's continental shelf, but not Russia's EEZ, and it really needs to be represented on maps. And it was represented before. Please, return as it was. Extended continental shelf changes nothing about EEZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeleznevMikhail (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of data and lack of sourced information

I wonder how accurate is the data provided by the Sea Around Us Project? I noticed that this source didn't provide separate data for disputed/overlapping EEZ claims, if we just record each country's claimed EEZ area in the table, then the grand total will far exceed the EEZ allowed under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

This article also lacks sourced information. I noticed that in the table, all six countries which made overlapping claims to the South China Sea had their claimed EEZ area reduced. I presume these figures are the undisputed EEZ areas of those countries, but there are no source confirming the accuracy of these figures.

In my opinion, the UNCLOS is the biggest joke in international politics. Greed is human nature, this Law, especially the bonus option of making an extra continental shelf claim, gives the coastal/island countries too much of an advantage and really stimulates them to claim as much EEZ as they could. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea clearly states that coastal/island countries cannot claim EEZ over their offshore rocks (islets, shoals) and low-tide elevations (reefs, sandbars). Only self-sustainable islands with freshwater source which can support agricultural production and permanent human habitation can generate an EEZ for their administering country. Well, if these are the rules, then a lot of British, French, American, Australian, and Japanese overseas EEZ claims, as well as nearly all the EEZ claims in the South China Sea (Taiping Island, administered by Taiwan, is the only island which has freshwater source) are invalid and their exploitation of resources further than 12 nautical miles from the baselines of these small islets/rocks are illegal. However, in the real world, nobody cares about the so-called international law, everyone just grab as much resources as they can without caring about the vulnerable group (in this case, the landlocked countries). This Law needs to be amended. 2001:8003:9008:1301:CD0E:CD14:AB99:BBA6 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)