Talk:Spratly Islands/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Kalayaan state

Philippine citizen Tomas Cloma proclaimed the founding of a new state, Kalayaan (Freedom Land).

Is this meant as a Philippine state (an administrative division) or as an indenpedent state like Sealand and Rose Island?

Cloma claimed it as an independent state. It is presumed he did this with the tacit agreement of the Philippine government at the time, who wanted Filipino control over the islands without it looking like it was an official Philippine claim. --Roisterer 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal Terminology

I'm no expert on these islands or the Phillipino claims, but wouldn't the more proper term for the Phillipino claim be terra nullius rather than res nullius?

I added the res nullius claim (all those years ago) and while I don't have my references to hand, I distinctly remember the learned journal I read refered to res ratther than terra. --Roisterer 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing too controversial

I hope. A few minor edits for grammar - seems in the heat of debate, the writing suffered a little. Plenty more to do. Is there some consensus on updating the first few lines on natural resources to match the later information with exploration estimates of oil and gas fields etc? It reads a little odd now. Is having this article marked as part of the China wikiproject NPOV? Paxse 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A few more edits for spelling and such. Now part of the Tiawan wikiproject I see. Are there Philippine and Vietnamese wikiprojects? <innocent question> Paxse 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Colonization?

The Spratley Islands was never ever colonized. Fishermen and trader stop overs are not colonies. Anyone can write such a claim, provide cite otherwise this section should be removed. Verbose900 17:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heavily China biased edits

I just reverted edits made by 134.7.248.129 because it was heavily slanted toward China's Point of View. If anyone disagree or have anything to say, please say it here and hopefully we can obtain a group concensus in how to best present the situation. Thanks. Sir Vicious 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Both users 134.7.248.129 and Carlisle_perth are the same person, he/she continues to add the China's biased story without discussing or compromising. What should we do? Sir Vicious 02:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed!... this guy 134.7.248.129 always editing the article sections of the Spratly Islands and it is heavily biased towards Chinese claim... Sir Vicious - you might as well put a NPOV warning in the article before he (134.7.248.129)... adds another bias statements about the Spratly issue ... - peads 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, looking at his contribution page, he did not start to edit Spratly Islands related stuff until two days ago. We'll see though. Sir Vicious 07:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP 134.7.248.129 belongs to Curtin University. I suspect whoever was doing that editing was on a public machine. (Hence the rather 'eclectic' mix of edits.) Paying attention to that IP won't help work out their agenda. They seem to have gone away anyway.

(My IP's static, by the way!)

129.16.97.227 20:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous Ground

As recently as 20 years ago nautical charts of the South China Sea labeled the Spratly Island area "Dangerous Ground" and advised shipping to avoid the area due to the fact it was poorly surveyed and contained numerous above and below water hazards.72.35.106.124 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention to formatting

It seemed the format was systematically changed. It resulted in (1) disappearance of paragraph separations and (2) fixed length lines that disrupted proper interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umggc (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Name

Wrong:
Traditional Chinese: 南沙群岛
Simplified Chinese: 南沙群島.

it was reversed

It should be:
Traditional Chinese: 南沙群島
Simplified Chinese: 南沙群岛
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.174.178 (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unwanted newline character

Somebody edited the "Tabular listing of islands showing country possessions" and inflicted to many newline characters. FYI, a newline character is a character representation when you make a new line below your current working line. In notepad and MS word, this can be done by keying enter. The one who edited it might have copied the whole texts to a word-processing software which inflicts many newline characters instead of word-wrapping then pasted it again in the edit page. Please make sure not to use any unstable word-processors next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarapapax (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Map Showing Country Possessions

Please maintain 1200PX for the map showing country possessions. It is not intended to simply show a picture of the map. It is intended to show readers the division of Spratly islands among claimant nations. It is not a mere display. It informs. That's why I make a whole new page section for it. The labels and flags are hard to read or recognize if the map is reduced in size.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarapapax (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everybody uses your resolution. To a lot of people, 1200px messes up the page. __earth ^(Talk) 14:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not use a thumbnail and have readers click on it to see the full map? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. That would be ideal. __earth ^(Talk) 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and moved it to the claims section, the text on the thumbnail already exists when you click the image anyway. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article (at least in Colonization) is biased. It underhears that China is the only legal and historic possessor of the islands. I strongly protest this ! Seforadev 19:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Im inclined to agree somewhat... Im not an expert on the topic, but there is a passive bias that lingers over most claims in this article. For one thing, there is an overwhelmingly Chinese argument compared to other those made by other countries.

I would feel better if the article was cleaned or reorganized, or at the very least, expand on the positions of other nearby countries. Jak722 09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Second edit:

this article is bias from the view of Chinese/Taiwanese. at least it should put the Chinese/Malaysian/Bruneian/Vietnamese claims as long as the Philippine claim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.207.209 (talk • contribs) .

This is exactly what I meant. Jak722 09:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be talked to solve. One rumor is quite bad is "The same ancient maps claiming Spratlys also claims Palawan and Northern Philippines; parts of: Malaysia, Korea, Vietnam, Brunei among others." This is not true! China was not such an aggresive country, and PRC is not also, you can seen from the delimitation between PRC and Burma, Nepal and even Vietnam in land and the sea of northern part of South China Sea. In the seven true islands, there once were Chinese tombs and wells. This is history, which should be reminded of. I guess Phillipine and Malaysia and Brunei have their points in claiming port of Spratly, but Viet Nam, never. Since its own map and officials once indicated Spratly belongs to China. Anyway, it is true also all sides claimed the islands, so just sit down to solve this. If not, there might be a war, then who will be the winner? Don't be absurd, pay also respect to China's patiance, have you ever seen a strong power behave like this, not appealing to arms but roundtable? Based the resolution on the UN law! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Local Names

I have noticed that only the Philippines had the origins of the local names of those islands next to them. Where is the origins of the local names of those islands, as named by the other countries? Alexius08 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased only in dreams

It should not be put in the history section because as of today, China and Vietnam is still not accepting the challenge of the Philippine Republic for a formal debate in court. To be part of history, one thing or topic should be a thing of the past, but China and Vietnam as of today is still not accepting the challenge so it is still not a thing of the past but a continuous slap of truth to all faces of billions of Chinese and Vietnamese.

Accept the long frozen challenge and wikipedia may consider your faulty request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qxezwcs (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why China at Vietnam can't go to formal debate in court, or because they afraid to accept the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.91.185 (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC) No,vietnamese always want to resolve this problem in court but china don't want to do it...If you read the book "Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands by Monique Chemillier-Gendreau" ,you will see that in the past,French wanted to debate in court but china refused ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.7.2.200 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Biased again (only in dreams)

No,vietnamese always want to resolve this problem in court but china don't want to do it...If you read the book "Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands"[1] ,you will see that in the past,French wanted to debate in court but china refused ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.7.2.200 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC) It should not be put in the history section because as of today, China and Vietnam is still not accepting the challenge of the Philippine Republic for a formal debate in court. To be part of history, one thing or topic should be a thing of the past, but China and Vietnam as of today is still not accepting the challenge so it is still not a thing of the past but a continuous slap of truth to all faces of billions of Chinese and Vietnamese.

Accept the long frozen challenge and wikipedia may consider your faulty request.

-qxezwcs

First of all, why is China's and Vietnam's claims so short, as opposed to the Philippine claim?

From what I can garner from the article. The Philippine claim is simply that it claims the Spratly Islands are a part of its archipelago, and also how it tried several times to get it in court but both China and Vietnam were being bitches and not taking its challenge. All of these should be taken out. The only thing that should be there is "The Philippine claim based on (insert claim here.)" End of story. the other stuff should be in the history section and not part of the claims section. This makes it seem that the Philippines have the strongest claim, while it does not.

The Chinese claim didn't even seem like a claim, as evidenced by the last line: "However, these same maps also claim the northern Philippine archipelago, Palawan, Vietnam, Korea, Malaysia among others. In addition, China claimed these areas more as protectorates rather than as a true part of China since they still had their own kingdoms and governments."

First of all, So what if it claims all of these areas? this proves that they were once part of China, but now have their own independence. Areas not part of these independent states should still belong to China. Britain once had a quarter of the world, they don't anymore, does that mean they lose all territory minus the British Isles (not containing Ireland?)

Second of all, Did the Spratly Islands ever have a local government/kingdom? Did it even have people living there at the time the maps were drawn? If not, the last sentence should be deleted, as it is not factual.

Third of all, Look at the Chinese version of the page. I'm too lazy to translate for now, but they have a lot more claims there than what's written here. And since Claims are POV, you can't use a POV argument here against the Chinese wikipedia.

I don't have much to say in regard to Vietnam, as I am not an expert on the subject and it looks like it is all right.

AKFrost 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article

Good article summarizing the legal/historical claims of countries over the Spratly Islands (and Paracel Islands), especially from the point of view of Vietnam and the Philippines: [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seav (talk • contribs) .

in other words, this article is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.223.29 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Spratly islands belong to the Philippines.

The Spratly group of islands are the natural extension of the Philippine archipelago.The other Asian countries claiming it are ignorant & greedy.Because of the potential of large oil and gas deposits in its sea shelves the other Asian countries are pushing aside the Republic of the Philippines on its sovereignty over the Spratly islands.The Spratly islands truly belong to the Republic of the Philippines.

Not exactly. Actually, the Philippines only claims the eastern part of what other claimants call the "Spratly group". It claims that the islands and shoals around Spratly island itself are separate from the islands and shoals around Pagasa island. Unfortunately for the Philippines, other claimants consider the Pagasa group as an integral part of the "Spratly group".

Try to be neutral for now. A lot of people would agree some of the claims made by these countries are valid. Jak722 09:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of claims by other countries, the Spratley Islands is part of the Philippine archipelago even before the Chinese became traders and even before they had a dynasty. Philippine history dates back 50,000 years and beyond. The Philippines and neighboring countries need not state their claim on the islands to declare it as theirs because geographically it's part of it. Just because in history Chinese traders used it as refuge does not make it their territory. This article is obviously bias to China. In fairness to the other claimants, statements that are obviously bias will be removed. Verbose900 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)]]

biased statement of the century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.223.29 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Contribution from 61.6.39.138

(I've moved this here from the main article. This edit [3] was somewhat disruptive as it wiped out the the categories and external links) heqs 10:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

HOW TO SETTLE-DOWN THE SPARTLY ISLANDS ISSUES?.

1. Refer to the history, long time ago there were existed only two great kingdoms in the areas,

I). The Great China Kingdom, and II). The Sulu Sultanate kingdom

   (*The Spartly Islands close to Palawan Island which Palawan Island
     was one of the Sulu Sultanate territory) .

Then till present we still can see there were;

I). The South China Sea, and II).The Sulu sea.

(*There were NO Brunei sea, Vietnam sea, Taiwan sea, Philippines sea or Malaya sea in that areas).

In past, we believed that the Spartly Islands was the place for the China peoples transit place in doing their trading & the transit place for the Sulu peoples in doing their fishing activities.

To settle-down the problems, without make many "Meeting & Negotiations" among all the claimants to the Islands, by just try to find any "Graveyard or Cemetary" in the desputes island.

Then by do "DNA's Test" we can VERIFY who's or what's group of peoples were ever stayed or transit in that despute islands. Either it China peoples or Sulu peoples or another group of peoples.

(Anyway, it's just a suggestion for the World Peace).

_____________________________________

Well, that's a good idea but that was long time ago. DNA could not just verify that because: 1. The nations in dispute are in one race. Hence, there are too much similarities. 2. That was a long time ago. Today's people somehow have a piece of trait from other nationality. 3. Any graveyard would not contain any DNA of the early inhabitants of the island, if there is any, for it would have decayed by now.

Slick1120 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Population

An estimation on the (probably temporary) population (historically and currently)? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands?

Permanent Native Population: 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.137.71.230 (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would be fun to attempt to build a house there with a mailbox, claim residency and then see which countries sends you a tax form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Article

This article is extremely bias. It needs to be rewriten in the context of fairness to all claimants. All this is misinformation to benefit a few. Verbose900 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)]]

What is the bias? Who is being favored? -Will Beback · † · 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have done several re-writes of some of the more questionable material. I think that after some research into the sources I should be able to return and finally turn this into a factual account of whats REALLY going on and not some subtle political debate disguised as an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Heavily Biased Against the Chinese

I personally feel that this article is heavily biased against the chinese. There also aren't enough source or proof. For something as controversial as the Spratly Island, we really need a more NPOV! 24.89.245.62 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• China's claims should be clearly stated now in a more factual context. If there is something specific that you think is not NPOV please point it out or better yet neutralize it. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I've readded the POV tag. I find it hard to see how an article that cites only Chinese sources -- mostly not in English and if they are, all publications by the Chinese government in support of the Chinese claim -- can be called NPOV. I have personally seen Vietnamese publications in English (not Vietnamese) that debunk many of the Chinese claims (for instance, many ancient Chinese documents that are said to support Chinese claims don't even mention the Spratleys). Of course, in the end it amounts to a propaganda battle to prove who really "owns" the Spratleys. Nevertheless, relying on one side's version only is completely POV.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly, the PRC is NOT a neutral source as it is one of the parties involved in the dispute! I will do my best to track down some valid sources. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2009

Happy New Year Spratly Island debate fans! I think its time for a fresh review of the article as a whole. Clearly, its undergone a lot of changes. It looks like most of the original bias might be fading out. Please keep in mind:

1. We are NOT here to decide who owns the land, only to fairly record who claims what lands and why.

2. Materials published or censored by governments with interests in the islands are possibly invalid.

3. New sources may be available now. Don't be afraid to hit the library too.

4. Some countries' claims have not been thouroughly explored. Their interests should be mentioned as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate (talk • contribs) 00:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Wouldn't it behoove us to talk about some of the Marine Life and Coral Reefs in the area as well? There is more to the Spratlys than just a border dispute!

-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give reason for deleting section

Could whoever deleted the section below please give the justification for doing so?

It is not neutral to put China's point of view into the article and delete other countries' points of view.

Vietnam's response to this claim is that Chinese records on Qianli Changsha and Wanli Shitang are in fact records about non-Chinese territories . For example, Qianli Changsha and Wanli Shitang were refered to in the ancient Chinese text as being in the Sea of Jiaozhi (Giao Chi) , Jiaozhi being the old name for northern Vietnam, or as writings on foreign countries .

• Wikipedia articles should be concerned with facts and cited reliable sources to establish truth. Opinions and points of view declared by governments should be documented in the appropriate claims section and cited with reliable sources. That being said, it looks like you did a fair job of citing it. Did you post this under China's section or Vietnam's? If you posted under Vietnam then you should definately put this back up. It could have some real merit on the dispute. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Spratlys & Paracels belong to Vietnam?

I got this message in the website http://paracels.info/ .... The Paracel Islands (known in Vietnam as the Hoang Sa or Quan Dao Hoang Sa,known in China as the Xisha Islands, or Xisha Dao [ 西沙I岛], or Xisha Qundao [ 西沙群島 ] ) about 250 miles off the coast of Hainan. They are also about the same distance off the coast of Vietnam. In 1932, French Indochina annexed the islands and set up a weather station on Pattle Island; maintenance was continued by its successor,Vietnam.The islands were formerly part of Vietnam, and were controlled by Vietnam until 1974 when China forcibly took them from Vietnam

The Spratly Islands (known in Vietnam as Truong Sa or Quan Dao Truong Sa,known in China as the Nansha Islands or Nansha Qundao [南沙群岛])consist of more than 100 small islands or reefs. They are surrounded by rich fishing grounds and potentially by gas and oil deposits..In the past,all this islands were controled by Vietnam but nowadays after some historical changes (World War II,Vietnam War ,Naval battle in Spratly 1988,etc...) ,Spratly islands about 45 islands are occupied by relatively small numbers of military forces from Vietnam,China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan .Up to now,this islands are claimed in their entirety by Vietnam...

In this website ,we can read alot of books and articles related to Spratly and paracels... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.7.2.200 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the links. If it was really all about proximity, then the Philippines would take the pot. However, in the real world people claim land by building stuff there and basically just taking over with either no contest or failed resistance. Keep in mind that the talk page is a forum for determining the facts of the matter and not just for posting the best reason you could think of why you should claim the Spratlys. Personally, I'm thinking about claiming one myself and putting a mailbox there. It would be hilarious to set up a webcam and watch some navy came through and kick it over. Next time post something scholarly we can cite please. That would be very constructive.-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Philippines sold Spratyls to China?

There are leaks that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sold the Philippine-held islands to China. --Howard the Duck 11:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Read Policies, activities and history of the Philippines in Spratly Islands#JMSU Controversy --Estarapapax (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have lust cross referenced the Article page to this discussion page for several reasons a lot of information on this page remains inconclusive and certainly the above claim needs some solid evedince to retain any credibility. To wit., the follwoing 2009 very recent dispute again coming to the fore. I would say Vietnam has the better claim, but likewise I can't prove that either and ROC makes a strong arguement for themselves and ultimately PRC if they retake Taiwan as a one State 2 systems satelite.

The ARTICLE BELOW DESERVES VERIFICATION BUT HAS BEEN IN SEVERAL NEWS COVERS OF LATE.

Taiwan rejects Philippines' claim to disputed Spratly Islands WAS Submitted by Mohit Joshi on Wed, 02/04/2009 of DPA

www.topnews.in ?

Taipei- Taiwan on Wednesday rejected the Philippines' claim to the disputed Spratly Islands, and its plan to include the mineral- rich South China Sea archipelago within its own territorial waters.

"Historically, geographically and factually, the Spratly Islands and its surrounding waters have long been the traditional territory of the Republic of China, without doubt," said Taiwan's Foreign Ministry in a statement.

The ministry said Taiwan, whose official title is Republic of China, will never recognise the territorial or sovereignty claims by the Philippines' or any other countries over the Spratly Islands.

The statement came after the Philippines' House of Representatives approved on Monday a bill outlining the country's national perimeters, which seeks to enclose its Kalayaan Island Group within the disputed Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea.

The move risks potential military conflicts with other claimants, including Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Taiwan has stationed troops in Taiping Islet, the largest of the archipelagos.

The Taiwan ministry also asked the Philippines to resolve the dispute peacefully through dialogue with all claimants in the complex legal battle, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea.--Robbygay (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Claims are based on the preference of the country in regards to why they THINK they have the right to the Spratlys. In simple terms, claims are based on OPINION which cannot be proven persay. However, these statements of sovereignty are documented in the claims section, not any proof one way or the other. We're not here to decide the issue, merely to report all the facts we can. Wikipedia is not some sort of declarative body of international law. It takes a Neutral Stance. You can retain your personal opinions, but you have to supply factual material in the article. Otherwise we'll never get it up to speed. Thanks for the link though. It really reinforces the seriousness of this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Airstrips

I conducted a hand count of all the airstrips using Google Earth and documentation. Five airstrips have been certified to exist and two others most likely exist.

Itu Aba’s airstrip is clearly visible on Google Earth at 10°22’40.72” N and 114°21’59.17”E. The PRC’s manmade island on the Fiery Reef has been photographed and documented by several sources, but exact coordinates could not be confirmed. The Airstrip on Nanshan Island is clearly visible on Google Earth at 10°43'58.52"N and 115°48'11.30"E and is documented. What may be an airstrip on Northeast Cay Island is visible on Google Earth at 11°27'12.79"N and 114°21'21.61"E but no professional source was found to document its existence. Some sources listed the North Reef and Northeast Cay as being two separate locations, but really they are the same area. The Southwest Cay on the other hand has abundant documentation of their Airstrip. Thitu Island’s Airstrip overlaps the island itself and has abundant documentation. Swallow Reef Island also has an airstrip which is clearly visible and well documented.

I really wish people would be more concerned with facts first and border disputes second. Here's to making some peace. If you have information and verifiable sources in any language about Fiery Reef's Airstrip or the Northeast Cay's Airstrip please make it known! -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Pratas Island or Dongsha Island, also has an airstrip. This brings the total to 6 confirmed possible 8 total.-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutralization

As a neutral party with no claim to any of the countries involved in this dispute, I've taken it upon myself to neutralize the article. I will keep a record of my fact checking mission here. Feel free to help in any way.

1. Took out patriotic langauge and gave each nation involved a section of claims.

2. Semi-physically counted the number of airstrips mentioned with Google Maps to verify the real number.

3. Provided additional facts not mentioned by the Chinese Government link which was the only source given for most of the historical claims. The records they used are a mixture of fact and mythology similar to Epics and the pottery was not dug out of the ground, rather it was from a shipwreck off the coast of Brunei. I also had to delete some citations because the article didn't really mention the pottery. I had to go find that one on my own and one of them on Chinese wikipedia. I've translated a quote from the reference for the benefit of the English speaking readers. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Did some research on the Champa and found no evidence or sources leading to their having been in the Spratlys aside from a theory about migration, which I could find no real evidence to support other than logical assumption. If you have any evidence that fishermen from Borneo traveled through the Spratlys before the birth of Christ, please let me know.

5. I discovered that the map the Chinese Government refers to actually does exist and on Wikipedia too. However, even at the highest resolution its hard to read the hanzi. I will have to give them the benefit of the doubt as it appears a plausible argument.

6. Not that it matters to neutrality so much but Richard Spratly appears to be the correct name for the European to come across the island. The first Captain to find it called it "Storm Island" but the name never stuck. Its very disappointing that Richard Spratly doesn't have his own page on the site. Note to self: Do that when you're done Knowl!

-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

7. While attempting to sort out the time line of European influence and the French sparking conflict in the region, I attempted to get more info from Itu-Aba only to find that article in worse shape than the main one! I have fixed a few things but have a lot of work ahead of me.

-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

8. Who knew Tomas Cloma was such a vital player caught up in this whole land grab? I have found a lot of sources to verify most of what was already there from 1950-1970. The Tomas Cloma article itself still needs a lot of work. Note to self.

-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

9. In a brazen display of ultimate neutralization, I used a Chinese author's book to cite the Vietnamese military enforced claim to five islands. Also did a bit of cleanup on a related article about the battle of the Paracel Islands. So many peripheral pages are mired in unreferenced political banter that its no wonder the main page was so screwed up. I must sleep but I will return full force later to continue my work. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

10. I gave Richard Spratly his own article as well as William Spratly, who turns out is his brother and Henry Spratly who named Mischief Reef but was not related. I also made some minor edits to bring the summary up to speed with current developments. Now that this mystery is solved, I encourage you to be wary of unreferenced sources citing Henry or William as the namesake of the Spratlys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate (talk • contribs) 06:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

11. I have arranged the countries' geographical zones in alphabetical order to make things fair and added Brunei. I also counted known fishing ports and discovered at least four outposts on Google Earth that at first glance appear to be oil rigs as they are elevated out of the water on lattice supports, but they do not have the proper facilities to drill for oil and transport oil. One was described as a house. I believe they are simply territorial outposts, but they are at least worth mentioning in the article. Most of them appear to belong to the PRC.

12. I have added an ecology section to remind people that there is more than politics afoot here. This really makes the article look a lot more professional and rends asunder the feeling that one is just reading a giant PC version of the talk page. The next step will be the hardest part: Weeding out what belongs in politics (motive) VS claims (legitimacy and reason) and checking everything below the ecology line that was stated as factual. I have emailed several people hosting sites that have no references which state information that is in outright falsehood or historically inaccurate. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

13. After reading some of the material released by the PRC quoted as a reference, I am taking everything they claim under the microscope! (No offense, but governments have their own agendas.) Concerning the sentence as to knowledge of the Spratly Islands in the yuan Dynasty, I found very convincing evidence in the Yuan shi, a record containing the journeys of Guo Shoujing (all of which is not documented properly on Wiki by some huge oversight). At first, I didn't think I'd be able to find this and took the professor in the book I referenced on his word. But the internet is full of surprises! This document from the yuan dynasty indeed does tell of passing through the Wanli Shitang. Later on in the book, Guo Shijing writes about reaching a boundary. Here is the original Chinese for public discernment:

Page 821: 十二月，弼以五千人合诸军，发泉州。风急涛涌，舟掀簸，士卒皆数日不能食。过七洲洋、万里石塘，历交趾、占城界，明年正月，至东董西董山、牛崎屿，入混沌大洋橄榄屿，假里马答、勾阑等山，驻兵伐木，造小舟以入。

Page 1007: "苟富庶之有征，冀礼义之可复，亟正疆界，以定民心，我师不得逾限矣。大号一出，朕不食言。复有敢踵乱犯上者，非干尔主，乃乱我典刑，国有常宪，人得诛之。於戏！世子其王矣，往钦哉，恭承丕训，永为东籓，以扬我休命"

My knowledge of Chinese has its limitations. First, one would have to verify from the maps themselves (which I've been unable to find in any readable resolution searching in English and Chinese) that the Spratly area or the greater archipelago were labeled with some reasonable accuracy for the time as the Wanlishitang. I don't think that is so hard and the descriptions of dangerous reefs and such seems accurate enough.

What is harder to determine is if this use of boundary means that the man himself has reached his wit's end or if he reached a national boundary. Its not too hard though. All he talks about is his decision and he doesn't really describe it as a national or imperial border or anything like that. I am not yet personally convinced that one could say 100%

I will keep reading this manuscript and update you all later. If anyone needs a digital copy, let me know. I have no idea where to find the English translation I'm afraid. I am sure its probably only available in hard copy. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

14. Without any legible resolutions of any of the Chinese maps mentioned in the article, I will have to assume good faith for now. However, while searching for information on the Vietnamese maps I came across some actual clippings from a Chinese geographic manual from 1897. The Spratlys were not shown and the southern most border was said to be Hainan. Probably one of the best cited arguments I've seen so far from the Pro-Bãi Cát Vàng side and notable enough for the article until I get something better. Still, I don't know enough about Vietnamese history yet to put their resources into perspective. I also don't speak Vietnamese which will limit my research to English I'm afraid. I may need to enlist someone who speaks Vietnamese but can also approach the subject more scientifically. I'm definately going to have to go read up on Vietnam.-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

15. As there seems to be ample interest in who drew the Spratlys on their maps first, I have renamed the Early History section to Early Cartography to better reflect the focus of the content therein. Still having a tough timing finding these ancient Vietnamese maps, but I have found a couple scholarly references suggesting they do exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate (talk • contribs) 05:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

16. I stepped back from fact checking for a bit to work on the format. The new format keeps information better organized. I started with the PRC and will apply this Basis/Criticism style to the rest of the countries at a later date. I did a lot more re-wording as well. A lot of this information appears to be taking all these claims at face value. Instead of just inserting arguments into the time-line, I've setup the page so that now an observation of what each side argues can be presented in a more articulate and professional format. This style might not work with Brunei and Malaysia so much because nobody talks about them much. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

17. I have applied the NPOV basis VS claim format to Brunei and Malaysia. I have to fix the next part by giving Taiwan their own separate section. Lumping them in with the PRC is not neutral at all. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some great work there, well done. I have had the neutralisation of this article on my "to-do" list for some time now but it always looked like too big a task. --Roisterer (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is quite a job and thats why its taken me several weeks to sort it all out. A good command of Chinese doesn't hurt either. What I really need is a few people who speak Vietnamese who aren't biased towards this whole debate to help me credit or discredit the sources that they keep quoting. The other problem I have is the people with "encyclopedia" web sites who harbor this information do not have transparent sources. I've emailed many of them and only two responded with anything helpful. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can help you with Vietnamese.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cairo Declaration

I've wikilinked mention of Cairo Declaration in the article. I took a quick look at the text of the Cairo Communique, and it seems to me that the assertion that "... listed the territories that the Allies intended to strip from Japan and return to China." may be a mischaracterization. Also, it says, "Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." -- the three specific territories listed were clearly not intended to be a comprehensive list, but were intended as examples. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the tables on occupied features correct?

I find it disturbing to see that tables on the occupied features esp by PRC keeps adding up, without having heard them in the news. Just last year, I used the wiki article on Spratly Islands as a reference for my son's history class report (he gave updates to his class on the status of occupation of the Spratly Islands by country) and I did not remember the name of First Thomas Shoal to be under China's occupied features. Nowadays, I was surprised to see that occupation list by China has increased (with the First Thomas Shoal being added). I know that the ASEAN and China have an agreed code of conduct and have been adhering to it since the late 1990s.

Is the table correct? I haven't heard in the news of any such occupation of the reef in question. If this is so, I would expect the Philippines to have been very ballistic as it was when Mischief Reef was occupied by China, as First Thomas Shoal is much nearer to Palawan than Michief Reef. Could it be that the China only has just set-up markers on this reef? Based on some of my references, the Philippines is active in destroying markers and buoys set up by other countries, on the eastern section of the Spratlys. Therefore, news of markers recently built up on a reef should not have become basis to conclude that the reef is occupied, for in matter of days / weeks / months, this may have blown up by other countries' navy. Hope someone could confirm if the info on occupied features by China is correct. Ferdz chicago (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdz chicago (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I am really busy now and I can't just make a random change. Actually I am making a sortable table of these islands/reefs in my userspace for more than a year now, but it's still far from being finished. I also need to reference them. About the first thomas, I AM 100% SURE THAT CHINA HAS NO POSSESSION OF IT. Sadly, I can't cite any source right now. It seems the translators from Chinese always confuse 1st thomas and mischief reef. During the height of mischief reef issue in the 90s, many sources actually call Mischief as 1st Thomas. And sadly again even Philippine newspapers are not responsible enough to correct this mistake. Just last year Philippine Daily Inquirer published a map listing 1st Thomas as occupied by China. I know it's not. But I don't want to get in a debate with other editors who will just cite these erroneous articles that can be found online. Hopefully I can get back to editing again soon and I will correct some of the stuffs here and of course with non-erroneous references. eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of international patriotism that flares up on Wikipedia. The BEST way to verify occupation in my experience was to search Google Earth for photos that tourists have posted of outposts. Its also a good way to discover runways and heliports that other sites do not mention at all. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New document in relation to the sovereignty of Vietnam

These new documents, which were all issued by the Nguyen dynasty under the French colonial rule, confirms the exercise of Vietnam's sovereignty power in the Spratly and Paracel Archipelagos. Information can be found here: http://www.tuoitre.com.vn/Tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=315143&ChannelID=3 and http://vietnamnet.vn/chinhtri/2009/04/839574/ Can someone translate/cite and insert it into the article? Oaioai (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How can these be "NEW" documents? They were supposedly issued under COLONIAL RULE! That statement alone negates Vietnam's sovereignty as you have by your own words handed rule to the French. By this logic, the vikings should be ruling Canada because they wrote about their adventures first even though natives were living there. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't shout. I'm guessing that Oaioia meant to convey that the documents had recently come to light, not that they had been recently authored. I'm also guessing that it is possible that if the French did have a valid claim to sovereignty during French colonial times in Vietnam, that claim might have passed to Vietnam at the conclusion of the First Indochina War. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent article with some relevance

Recent NY Times article which discusses talks over these islands: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/asia/24diplo.htm

Dhollm (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of link to http://en.seasfoundation.org/

Although this reference is heavily biased in favor of Vietnam's claim over the Spratlys, it does contain some relevant NPOV information particularly the map drawn according to UNCLOS and so maybe it should stay. On a broader scale, particularly in light of Hilary Clinton's recent remarks on the issue, maybe there should be a new Spratly Island's dispute article that moves the political issues away from the main article. Philg88 ^contact

I have created the Spratly Islands dispute page from the political sections on this article. I have not yet added Hilary Clinton's remarks, though. Quigley (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The article distinctly smells of various POVs, the "tabular listing..." section sometimes egreriously so. Now I'll admit to a fondness for the Philippines and personally believe that they should have the islands, but as an Wikipedia editor the very Filipino-centric phrasing of the various islands' entries makes me cringe. Unsourced assertions abound and all of the other claimants are described using terms that could be considered inflammitory. "The facts, just the facts," please... - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related issue, I have created the page for the 1988 Johnson Island clash (not complete yet). However, I have only managed to source information from predominately Chinese websites. If anyone can help to provide the Vietnamese POV, it would be much better.

Spratly Island Skirmish (1988)

Koxinga CDF 14:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this really still deserve a POV warning? Reading through this without a barrow to push, I don't see any particular bias. It seems like as balanced a description as one could expect, given the emotional attachment people seem to get to this issue.

129.16.97.227 20:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

China wants to dominate the world not only Paracel Islands and Spratlys Islands. China will claim Hawaii Islands as Chinese Land and Core Value because Chinese found Hawaii 2000 years ago and US occupied Hawaii without China Agreement. In 2060, Chinese GDP will be double compared with US, if it is not returned to China, China will take invasion to USA like Japan did in 1940s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.245.65.194 (talk • contribs)

How about speaking some sense with valid referenced arguments rather than fearmongering using arguments that no educated person would believe. And next time, do not refactor other people's talk page comments; place your comment at the bottom of the section, and sign your post. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased in China's favor?

this article is bias from the view of Chinese/Taiwanese. at least it should put the Chinese/Malaysian/Bruneian/Vietnamese claims as long as the Philippine claim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.207.209 (talk • contribs) .

I think China's argument for claiming the islands is somewhat absurd. The same ancient maps claiming Spratlys also claims Palawan and Northern Philippines; parts of: Malaysia, Korea, Vietnam, Brunei among others. If it can claim these islands on such a basis then heck, they have some claim on these other soveriegn countries' territories. China should get with the times. Besides, these places (including the Spratlys) were not really part of China but protectorates since they had their own kingdoms. And as protectorates, China did a lousy job of protecting them when the western colonizers came. So why the hell should such claims be honored? This and the Taiwan question makes me want to give Mainland China my foot in their ass.-- Some guy who cares (of Chinese descent), July 17,2006

Which ancient map of China are u talking about? very interested to see a map in which China is claiming Korea, Vietnam, part of philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. Korea was conquered by China many times but the Great Vietnam Dai Viet was never occupied by China, even the great Genghas Khan who conquered the wolrd, was defected by the Great Vietnam generals three times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.19 (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Westerners should leave the Chinese to their internal affairs. Afterall, it was the Westerner who did the whole "colonialism" in the first place. This whole ideal of going to wherever and acting like you are the world police is gotta go. I want to give American a kick to the nuts. -- Some guy who REALLY cares (of American descent). 24.89.245.62 23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• People, FOCUS! Your opinions to China's claim do not matter in regards to how to write the article. A Neutral article must provide facts. FACT: China thinks because it mapped it first its China. Opinion: This is stupid/logical.

See the difference? -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"China" was a geographical term until the early 1900s. It was not the name of a country. Trying to claim that territories belong to China based on ancient maps of former kingdoms in East Asia is like claiming that France belongs to Italy or that the PRC belongs to Mongolia, etc. Wikipedia should first stop translating the names of ancient kingdoms like the Han, Song, etc as "Chinese dynasties". China as a country did not exist until Sun Yat-sen's revolutionary forces overthrew the Taching Empire and established the Republic of China. ONly then did "China" in English become a translation for the name of a country (chungkuo).

221.220.176.176 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Mao Zedong quote

Apparently, Mao Zedong once said that "(Chiang Kai-shek) is a true patriot" (the original words might have been "蔣先生是重民族大義的人"), when supposedly, Chiang ordered lighthouses on ROC-controlled islands in the South China Sea (such as Taiping Island) lit in order to guide People's Liberation Army Navy ships to their destination to expel a landing force by the Vietnamese navy due to the South China Sea island disputes, during the naval skirmishes in the 1960s. Is anyone able to verify this story by finding a reliable reference? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Between" countries

I'd like to inquire regarding User:Kwamikagami's rationale for removing China from the list of countries the islands are "between". The mathematical definition of "between" relates to the geometric positioning of three points, A, B and C, where a straight line beginning at A and ending at C can be drawn that bisects B. In this example, we can say that "co-ordinate B is between co-ordinates A and C". In our case, the Spratly Islands are located between the Chinese provinces of Hainan and Guangdong on one end, both of which are indisputably considered part of three definitions of "China": mainland China, People's Republic of China and China, and on the other end we have the Sarawak and Sabah states of Malaysia; a straight line can be drawn between China, the Spratly Islands and Malaysia without bending or intersecting anything else, hence from a geometry point of view, the Spratly Islands are just as between China and Malaysia as they are between Vietnam and the Philippines. Furthermore, your example within this edit summary is a poor comparison, as the distance between China/Taiwan/Mexico is on a different scale of magnitude; it would be akin to comparing comparing a horse's genitalia to a man, and telling him "why aren't you game enough for your wife?", a poor use of hyperbole if you will. Your other example with "mainland China" (sic)/Hainan/Borneo also makes no sense, as it is a perfectly fine example of being "in between", as there is no other landmass that is in the way, and the distance is acceptable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it fits the mathematical definition, but then so does Taiwan–Mexico. If one is valid, so is the other. If Taiwan–Mexico is not valid, then you're saying the mathematical definition is not acceptable. You can't have it both ways. The reason that Taiwan–Mexico doesn't seem reasonable is that when we say "between", we don't have the mathematical definition in mind. When something is 99.8% so, we don't say it's "almost" so, and when it's 50.1% so, we don't say it's "mostly" so, because we don't have simple arithmetic in mind when we use such words. Similarly, when something lies closely to one side of a space, we don't say it's "between" the two sides, as you yourself accept with China–Taiwan–Mexico.

The Spratlys are largely within the theoretical EEZ's of the Philippines and Malaysia, with a few within the EEZ of Vietnam. They're a long way from China. To say they are between China and those other countries is seriously misleading. Whatever China's historical claims to the region—and such claims often have little to do with geometry—their geographic relation to China is very different from those other countries.

If you don't like Taiwan–Mexico because you've set up some arbitrary ratio that is acceptable for "between", then let's take the Spratly ratio as an acceptable definition. The Spratlys are 3× as far from Hainan as they are from Sabah–Palawan. By that measure, Lhasa is "between" Beijing and Harare. Would that be an acceptable thing to say in the article on Tibet? Similarly, Urumqi is "between" Beijing and Paris. And Hong Kong is "between" Beijing and Perth. Somehow I don't expect such a comment would last long on the Hong Kong article. (And as for the no other land masses intervening argument, Urumqi–Paris is over land just as Beijing–Urumqi is.)

The Spratlys are closely bordered by the Philippines and Malaysia, and more distantly by Vietnam. China is far enough away that the normal meaning of the word "between" does not apply, just as it does not apply to Lhasa–Harare, Urumqi–Paris, or Hong Kong–Perth. (Actually, if you want to take the ratio of Mischief Reef, 4.8, then Urumqi is between Beijing and Quebec, and Hong Kong between Beijing and the South Pole. And for something over water, Japan is "between" China and Canada by less than that ratio.)

We also don't say the Paracels are "between Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and China", we more say they are equidistant between Vietnam and China, a third of the way to the Philippines. That is more precise, and we should be similarly precise here. The Spratlys are off the coast of the Philippines and Malaysia, a third of the way to Vietnam. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Such a viewpoint however only reflects one opinion. Definitions such as these are subject to interpretation, and likewise my interpretation is also one way of looking at it. However, the examples you have cited are not linguistically incorrect at all - it would not be incorrect to say that Hong Kong is between Beijing and Perth, or that Urumqi is between Kashghar and Planet Mars. What is disputed is whether or not some instances of this usage is appropriate; I believe that is its appropriate to say that the Spratlys are between China and X, because the distance between the Spratlys and the islands is relatively close, and not as further away from other examples you have cited. What is the "cut-off distance" for something to be appropriate, may I ask? Is it something set in stone, or is it, again, something subject to opinion? It's not that I'm specifically trying to say that your interpretation is definitely wrong; rather, I'm trying to justify that my interpretation may also possibly be correct. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

'Between' is a ratio, not absolute distance. If it were, we wouldn't be able to say the Earth is between Venus and Mars. By listing the four countries as you have, you imply that they surround the Spratlys, which is not the case. The Philippines and Malaysia are very close, Vietnam less so (though closer than they are to the westernmost cays), and China not close at all, relatively speaking. If you look at the Chinese territorial claims, it has the appearance of Chinese territory sandwiched between Vietnam and the Philippines. Also, if we're going to list distant countries with claims, why not add the ROC to the list? How about saying they're between Taiwan and Indonesia? That's mathematically true, but IMO not helpful in illustrating the geography. China is not a neighboring country—it's almost three times farther away than Indonesia—and if it didn't have territorial claims we wouldn't mention it at all, any more than we currently mention Taiwan. — kwami (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorization as District of Khanh Hoa Province

I've reverted this edit, which would have removed categorization as Category:Districts of Khanh Hoa Province. The categorization appears to have been added by this January 2008 edit.

FWICT, Vietnam has considered the Spratleys to be a district of Khanh Hoa Province for some years -- possibly since 2008. See e.g., [4], [5], etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr Mitchell, we're not interested in how long Vietnam has claimed the Spratlys as their district. To classify the Spratly Islands as Vietnamese territory in the article is against the NPOV guidelines, therefore, they must be removed. STSC (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a POV dispute here about sovereignty over the Spratleys. My take on this is that Vietnam can classify districts of their provinces however they want, as can the Philippines, China, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. I think that it is legitimately encyclopedic for this WP article to report, both textually in the article and by WP categorization, the info that VN has classified the Spratleys as a district of Khanh Hoa Province. If reported textually, and if challenged, the info should be supported by cited reliable supporting sources. This does not amount to an assertion by WP that what VN has done here either is or is not legitimate. If the Philippines were to classify all or part of the Spratleys into one or more of their provinces (something along the lines of what they've done with the Sulu Archipelago, perhaps), it would likewise be legitimately encyclopedic for WP to report that.

Incidentally, while digging for info on this, I noticed that VN has also apparently classified the Paracel Islands as a district of Danang Province. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:es]].20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a somewhat similar situation with the Batanes Islands. The Philippines classifies those islands as the island province of Batanes. Taiwan challenges the Philippines' possession of the Batanes Islands for the same reasons that it challenges Manila's claim to the Spratly Islands (or it did in 2007; I don't know whether this is an active territorial dispute today -- See [6]). WP categorizes that article on the Philippine island province of Batanes into Category:Provinces of the Philippines, among other categories. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLN#Categories warns that "Be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." The hotly disputed Spratly Islands should not be classified as a Vietnamese district in a category, and the Vietnamese template and category in the article were unnecessary because there's already the infobox giving the information on all the claimants with their provinces under Claimed by heading (including the link to Khanh Hoa). STSC (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the alternative solution of putting the appropriate categories for every claimant on this article? Quigley (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The article's infobox has the information and links on the 6 claimants. There are 8 existing categories already, further listing of their categories is unnecessary and would lead to category clutter. It's better KISS as it is, no need to include any. STSC (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, it's a more question of what the category names mean than of categorization in this article. I've mentioned two categories above

• For Category:Provinces of the Philippines, WP:CAT says that some explanation about which pages a given category is supposed to contain may be placed in the text of the category page, and that category page contains a template transclusion which names the Provinces of the Philippines article as the source of info on what articles should be categorized there. The Batanes article is categorized there even though, apparently, there is a territorial dispute between the Philippines and the ROC about the islands comprising that Philippine province.
• The Category:Districts of Khanh Hoa Province category page contains no explanation beyond its name. The question seems to be whether that name means "List of districts which have been categorized as components of Khan Hoa Province by the Vietnamese government" or "List of districts which Wikipedia editors assert to be components of Khan Hoa Province", or something else. The first mentioned alternative is verifiable and, to my mind, makes good sense. If there is some question about that, however, the proper place to resolve the question is probably on Category talk:Districts of Khanh Hoa Province. (added) Digging around a bit more on the web turned up a Khanh Hoa provincial government web page titled Spratley Islands District.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It actually means the naming of the category titles must explain what the underlying pages really are. In both cases above, the category titles are valid.

In the Batanes case, it can be categorized as such because the sources in general do not reflect that it is a controversial issue.

In the Khanh Hoa case, the Districts of Khanh Hoa Province category simply categorized the pages relating to the districts in the Khanh Hoa province (by the editors). The categorization process is based on the sources in these underlying pages (within the NPOV guidelines). STSC (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked the Khánh Hòa Province article and found that it mentioned "Trường Sa (also known as the Spratly Islands)" (Trường Sa redirects to the article associated with this talk page), but without citing supporting sources. I added the relevant cites which have come to light during this discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

In the history section, kindly change "BCE" to "BC." The reason for this is to eliminate bias against acknowledging the birth of Christ as an important and established dividing point of history.

Ewzm (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. WP:ERA, specifically bolded point #1, expressly prohibits such mass changes in articles without reaching a new consensus on the talk page. GotR ^Talk 03:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea

See this thread at ANI. GotR ^Talk 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)