Jump to content

Talk:Spratly Islands/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Map in China's passport

The map in China's passport was changed to include the Spratly Islands, as explained in news articles

Is it reasonable to add a sentence about this?

A wider context is suggested in many other news articles, including the Los Angeles Times which explains, "The maritime disputes between the Chinese government and its neighbors have a decades-long history, but have greatly increased in visibility over the past year as Chinese media have cycled the public’s attention from confrontations with one neighbor to another." --Ansei (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should edit the controversy to People's Republic of China passport first. Several editors added the controversy[1], however it is not sufficient. There are many sources to support Chinese passport is controversial.[2]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion -- talk page diff added here. --Ansei (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Territorial rigging style outpost

Article reads:

...four territorial rigging style outposts ... REF A Chinese Outpost.

What is a "territorial rigging style outpost"? -- the phrase appears in no online source except this article, and has no RS. Also, a random Panoramio photo, especially with no provenance, is not a Reliable Source or an appropriate External Link. --Macrakis (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks like original research to me. This was inserted in this February 2009 edit, with an edit summary saying, "Geography and economic development: How does one better describe an outpost built on a support structure in the middle of the ocean that is oil rig like but for territorial purposes?". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

volcanic origin

I removed the statement about these islands being "most likely volcanic in origin" because it is completely false. I have added a couple of paragraph about their geology with some key verifiable sources. If I have time, I might add a note about their petroleum geology. Paul H. (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

sources on claims

http://books.google.com/books?id=taOrjN83rLEC&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=83BIxG7Ig2cC&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=szcywfgKySAC&pg=PA92#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/561209/Spratly-Islands


http://books.google.com/books?id=rfu-hR8msh4C&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=CNVf9R_L5FAC&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=9VrMXX3CgBMC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Early cartography

I was going to take a stab at the requested source translations in the "Early cartography" section, but I can't even find the sources. They seem to be titles of old maps, but there is no publisher, date, location, or other info that would help track these down. In addition, citing these as sources strikes me as WP:OR. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted @Kendall-K1:, I never noticed this before. I've translated the titles of the maps and marked them as requiring citation. They no doubt do exist, it's just a question of finding them so it's not original research. Alas, the Qing were quite big on maps but not so good at providing indexes. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 07:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Now that we have the titles in English, do you think it would be appropriate to remove the "needs translation" template? Oops, I see you already changed these, but I don't think "fact" is correct here, since we have do have a source. It's not really "failed verification" either. There is probably a better template but I don't know what it would be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. In the circumstances I think {{fact}} is OK as we just need a reference, which is detailed in the "reason" field. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 07:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

New History paragraph

The new opening paragraph in the History section mostly just duplicates material found later in the section, but out of chronological order. I hesitate to just remove it because there is a bit of new stuff. But it would be nice if someone could incorporate the new material into the section and get rid of that paragraph. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan's position

Taiwan and China are largely strategically aligned on the Spratly islands issue, since they both claim the same area and Taiwan's control of Taiping island is an extension of China's claim. Taiwan views Vietanam as the greatest threat.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NH10Ad01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NF13Ad01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JB22Ad02.html


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/CHINA-01-140213.html

Taiwan has been very anti-Vietnam in the Spratlys

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LG29Ad03.html

http://www.newshome.us/news-2144953-Photo:-Taiwan-military-exercises-with-Vietnam-as-an-imaginary-enemy-generals-admit-Taiping-Island.html

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120905000091&cid=1101

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/vietnam-demands-taiwan-cancel-spratly-island-live-fire-drill.html

http://www.philippinenews.com/read/latest-news/8067-vietnams-angry-at-taiwan-as-it-stages-live-fire-drill-in-the-spratlys.html

http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/vietnam-protests-taiwans-fire-drill-exercise-plan-on-island-5633.html

http://www.vietnambreakingnews.com/2012/08/vietnam-protests-taiwans-fire-drill-exercise-plan-on-island/

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/foreign-affairs/2012/08/21/351637/Taiwan-to.htm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/08/21/2003540824

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/56128/taiwan-to-hold-live-fire-drill-in-spratlys

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/taiwan-to-stage-livefire-drill-on-disputed-island-in-soth-china-sea/1081701/

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Taiwan_to_stage_live-fire_drill_on_disputed_island_999.html


http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/international/taiwan-to-stage-livefire-drill-on-disputed-island/article4465611.ece

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2013/04/23/376779/Drills-held.htm

http://www.roc-taiwan.org/LV/ct.asp?xItem=372040&ctNode=7925&mp=507


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JA29Ad01.html

Even pro-independence, anti-China Taiwanese have vigorously asserted Taiwan's claims to all the Spratly islands and bashed the Philippines for its claims to the islands.

http://www.atimes.com/china/AG15Ad01.html

Other

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LG29Ad01.html

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/taiwan-challenges-its-neighbors-8164

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/taiwan-challenges-its-neighbors

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/04/taiwan_challenges_its_neighbors_117254.html

http://libertyvoter.org/2013/02/taiwan-challenges-its-neighbors/

Rajmaan (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

>> Philippines seizes Chinese boat in disputeLihaas (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Spratlys, other archipelagos, 30,000 islands and reefs, "governance" vs. "government"

This edit caught my eye. It looks like it was intended as cleanup. I've just made a further edit which essentially reverted part of it, as follows:

  • Prior to the edit, the article spoke of 30,000 islands in three archipelagos. After the edit, the article said that the Spratleys had 30,000 islands. I changed this back.
  • The Governance article says, "To distinguish the term governance from government: 'governance' is the concrete activity that reproduces a formal or informal organization. If the organization is a formal one, governance is primarily about what the relevant 'governing body' does. The complication in the case of the Spratleys is that there are multiple governing bodies which consider themselves relevant governing bodies in ways which conflict between the. Government (what the relevant 'governing body' does) is not what is complicated. The question of which claimant is the relevant 'governing body' what is complicated. I think "complicated governance" is better here than "complicates government".

Also, I've found this source, which may be where the prior text came from. I haven't added a cite for it, but I note that it explicitly supports the points I'm addressing here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It was supposed to be minor cleanup (3->three, simplify complex sentence construction etc). It seems I also inadvertently changed the meaning, my bad. And you are correct that it should be "governance" not "government".  Philg88 ♦talk 03:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Some info

Vietnamese claimed TruongSa/HoangSa's were not China's Nansha/Xisha Islands, The real locations of Truong Sa and Hoang Sa Islands were along the coast of Vietnamese shore, not Spratly Islands or Paracel Islands --Lisan1233 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Racist vandalism

I've requested semi-protection of the page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Spratly Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

spelling

many news stories are spelling it spratley, with an "e". is this a british thing, an accepted variant, or flat-out mistake? 64.134.67.6 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads

Greetings,

I wanted to suggest a modification of the para on the Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. As it stands the article asserts that "British naval captain James George Meads laid claim to the islands in the 1870s, proclaiming a micronation called Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. Descendants of Meads have continued to claim legitimacy over the islands, and continue to attempt to claim ownership of the island's resources."

However, a reading of Marvyn S. Samuels' 1982 book "Contest for the South China Sea" (Methuen, ISBN 0-416-33140-8) suggests that this overstates things.

In Appendix B "The Kingdom of Humanity and Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads", Samuels notes that this claim emerged in the 1950s from people claiming to act on behalf of Morton F. Meads, supposedly a great grandson of Capt James George Meads of the HMS Modeste. This group set out the story of the claim in an affidavit filed with the US embassy in Manila in October 1971, which claims that settlers continued this claim and established the Kingdom of Humanity on the islands in 1914, and that a dispute in 1959 led to the creation of the rival Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads - a dispute resolved in 1963. Samuels notes that the dates set out in the affidavit don't make sense. British naval records also give the name of the captain of the Modeste as Mead (no s) http://www.pdavis.nl/ShowBiog.php?id=1415 . So essentially the entire claim story is based on the 1972 affidavit by the claimants. This version is also presented as fact on the Philippine Wikipedia http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Humanity. Samuels also cites a more skeptical version, citing a Philippine source, which asserts that Morton F. Meads was discharged from the US army in Manila in 1946, and met other participants in this claim who had settled on the islands, with whom the "history" was subsequently developed.

I would also recommend cutting the sentence about descendants continuing to claim sovereignty, since there is no significant evidence to support the idea that this is in any way a live claim. Unless I am missing something?

I would propose rewriting the paragraph in question thus, sourcing to the Samuels book:

"In the 1950s, a group of individuals claimed sovereignty over the islands in the name of Morton F. Meads, supposedly an American descendant of a British naval capital who game his name to Meads Island (Itu Aba) in the 1870s. In an affidavit made in 1971, the group claimed to represent the Kingdom/Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads, which they claimed was in turn the successor entity for a supposed Kingdom of Humanity established between the two world wars on Meads Island, allegedly by the son of the British captain. This claim fell dormant after 1972 when several members of the group drowned in a typhoon."

In note that there is also a similary assertive wikipedia entry fro the republic, which would also benefit from an injection of skepticism to reflect the considerable uncertainty around this claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Morac-Songhrati-Meads

I am not sure whether anyone else follows this element of the Spratly story. I look forward to hearing thoughts from anyone who does! Many thanksJonathan Birchall (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, it's great to hear that someone else has read Contest for the South China Sea. I agree with your statements; I think micronations are popular with some segments of the community which like to play up the claims of these micronations. I think your proposed rewrite is as good as we're going to get. --Roisterer (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Countries map should be at the top of the page

Someone please put a South China Sea map at the top of the page, to show where the Spratly Islands are in relation to the countries around the region. It should be the first map anyone sees, because most users want to know the general location of the islands in the South China Sea rather than going straight into the details. - Cloudreaver (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Spratly Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent about oil exploration?

The article says that

"Foreign companies have not made any commitments to explore the area until the territorial dispute is settled or the claimants come to terms on joint development."

and then later discusses at length the exploration performed by a western company under an agreement with China. What's the true story? - Molinari 19:48 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Under agreement with China??? Not true.. 

Bebe0114 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Telecommunications in Spratly Islands" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Telecommunications in Spratly Islands. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent sock activity

FYI, Ggrandez17 has recently been blocked as a sock (not by me, I'm not an admin). I suggest the editors here review their edits and revert anything suspect. Crossroads -talk- 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: They've been active at other geopolitical Philippines articles. [3] Some of these are too hard for me to spend time extricating their content, but others here may wish to do so, or alter it. Crossroads -talk- 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Population

What is the population of the islands? -- Beland (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The real owner

The only thing that would matter is who won the last major War in the Region??? is it china??no is it Vietnam??no is it japan??no no no NOOOOO its the USAFFE forces that won the war so in any good thinking human being if you won a Major War you are the occupier the new ruler, but obviously the united states wanted to invoke "democracy" by 1. losing its former territories like the philippines 2. giving all the land with people in it, their own nationhood. which i think only gives chaos to the world. and too coward to flex it's own take in to the foreign affairs matter. so going back to the question of who won the war, if just in case the japs won WWII what do you think will happen?? i think the union jack on australian flag will be replaced by the japanese sunrise flag!! so going back to the argument who actually is USAFFE?? its the usa arm forces in the far east which composes of about 300,000 filipino soldiers and about 200,000 american troops but of course being lead by the american's and our liberator Gen.Douglas Mcarthur their the one's that won the war!!!! not the indonesian troops , not the chinese army, not the vietnamese, and most definitely not the malaysian troops. if there is any british/australia/indian that fought in WWII they are just in some reconnaissance missions , but doesn't have the numbers and the will to even save their own country. so now who do you think should the spratly group of island be with?? is it with the one's that claiming the 2thousand years ago/dinosaur age mapping of their country??? or the one's that liberated the region in what would have nearly come to a total fascist and ruthless empire??? it up to you to decide!!!

Posted by [ 58.105.44.230] at 10:13 on 1 February 2008

Japan invaded China which up Cbina has been asking until now for Japan to do..

All historical rights that China is claiming expired as soon as they signed to be signatory of uNCLOS that says all historical claims on land or territories is bypassed/relinguished and 200 nm EEZ IS IS GIVEN TO SIGNATORIES.. If China did not want to relinguish that claim they should have not signed the UNCLOS provisions.. There they have waive their historical http://globalnation.inquirer.net/34369/scarborough-belongs-to-ph-old-maps-show Bebe0114 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Never before has I witnessed such ignorance reflected in just two paragraphs. 182.239.155.240 (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Two snippets from WP:NPA: (1) "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attackregardless of the manner in which it is done." (2) "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
As I read the news article linked above, Senator Angara (1) has asserted in his private capacity that Spanish maps dating from 1734 show Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippines, and also (2) says that China has no historical or legal grounds for a territorial claim under UNCLOS. It is not clear from the article whether Angara believes that the Philippines has a historical claim under UNCLOS, but I infer that he does not but it does also quote him as saying, "“That should be a strong evidence of our ownership of Scarborough”. In any case, it might be useful to consider the following snippet from the PCA decision in Philippines v. China:

The Tribunal considers the text and context of the Convention to be clear in superseding any historic rights that a State may once have had in the areas that now form part of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of another State. There is no ambiguity here that would call for the Tribunal to have recourse to the supplementary means of interpretation set out in Article 32 of the Vienna Convention.[4])

It seems to me that it would be useful to include something about this in the article, citing the linked news article and in other related articles.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

'Hán-Nôm' section is no longer used by Vietnamese speakers. Add in clarification : 'no longer used' to ensure readers are informed 14.162.205.219 (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail[✉] 17:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoang Sa belongs to Vietnam, China is a liar

Hoang Sa belongs to Vietnam, China is a greedy country :)--Vothihoangduyen (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:V. ALso see the UNCLOS EEZ section of the article, the cited supporting source ([5]), this map, and other sources. Also see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG.
If you have a specific suggestion for source-supported imporovement of this article, please clarrify. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spratly_Islands/Archive_2&oldid=1165102122"