Talk:Paracel Islands

Vietnamese claim

These islands seem to belong to Vietnam. Why isn't there more information about a Vietnamese claim to them?--Sir Edgar 05:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems Vietnamese claim was based on the annexation by French Indochina in 1932. — Instantnood 21:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference document for Vietnamese claims: [1] DHN 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Before French Indochina, Vietnam was used to be under the protection of China and a tributary state of China, sometimes, even a province of China, so in what basis "these islands seem to belong to Vietnam" I wonder? The Chinese fishermen and merchants use these islands longer than Vietnamese. These islands have been found more Chinese heritages than Vietnamese. The French empire "stole" these islands away while China was weak, and there were no formal treaties signed between France and China regarding to the status of these islands.--Jerrychen0067 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese are greedy, do you guys know The Great Vietnam has longer history than China? The south of Yangtze river used to be belong to the Great Viet people, and the greedy Chinese stole our land and people!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.189 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC) The claims of Chinese heritages are awkward at best. Every one knows how easy it is to plant those evidences. Besides, there are Chinese bones in South America too; when are the Chinese going to claim their territory there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Actigers0874 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection ?, a tributary state  ? a province of China  ? Who need your protection, which is your triburary state ? Or we had said we are Chinese ? We are other civil, Vietnamese civil. Our country founded before China, but yes, because we were weak, Chinese Empire stole us the independence for 10 centuries. But our cultural wasn't with intermingled by the Chinese cultural,yes our culture was under influence of Chinese cultural, we borrow it to build our own culture not use it to MIXED and CREATED our cultural. Today, some brainless man,learnt History form one side ( the side yelled We are Higher-ranking mandkind another are dog; our Emperor are God's son another Kings are servant of Him,Our country is a Heavenly Empire and other are none, WE are super man who eat paper instead of dumpling, use fake drug but still remain strong!...)will never know it.

try to keep your nationalist hogwash down aye? I'm sure it makes u look high and mighty in your own country but on here, all it does is to make you look like an idiot...oh wait, whats the difference between ultranationalists and idiots again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.13.143 (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

84.19.57.254 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:57, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Do you chinese people think there is not enough land for you to survive? What on Earth you guys ask for something not belong to you? Let's see, these islands is 200 km distance to Vietnam and 230 km distance to Hainan, China. What do you think about that?84.19.57.254 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Falkland islands are close to Agentina, but far away from U.K. Don't the British have enough space to survive? --Jerrychen0067 08:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: the Falklands were uninhabited until the British assumed sovereignty. Amdurbin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Oh yes, English taken Falkland during their Great Conquest of Britain ( or Great Invasions of Briton) and China had done the same way. You said China taken the Island during 18th century? Ya, we claimed it from 15th century : Map of the Island by [[Le Dynasty. Today, some hungry dog forced us give it. But remember this is a part of Great Viet not a part of Heaven Empire. 84.19.57.254

Sorry, I found the "Tienjin Treaty" signed between France and Qing Dynasty in 1885 and later "the border agreement" add-on document signed in 1887 did clearly state the Paracel islands and Spratly islands belong to China. Well, I belive no one would recognize that "uneaqual" treaty today; however, it is probably the latest international treaty regarding to the status of Paracel and Spratly. --Jerrychen0067 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

LET SEE, THE GREAT VIET WAS NMAE GIVING BY THE CHINSE; THAT MEANS THAT LET RULE THAT LAND BUT NOT OWN THEM, GET IT! Ladies and gentlemen. this is wikipedia history section to be shared amongst mankind. Dig out the facts and talk only about facts. Can anyone suggest evidence for china and vietnam claims? Documents? Photos? I supposed if we can prove which country actually administered the islands before the 18th century it will be clear. My personal opinion is that if the administrator was under direct rule of China, then the islands should belong to China. However, if it was under the rule of "tributary state of vietnam, then I think the island should belong to Vietnam. Latter rules of French / whoever doesn't really matters because everyone agrees that it was an invasion and France should return the islands to their original owning country. 24.83.219.120 (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Lincoln

These islands isn't seem belong to Vietnam but they really belong to Vietnam! The name South Chinese Sea isn't true, the true name is East Vietnamese Sea! For more information, please view http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tam_Sa or search with keywords Hoangsa, Hoàng Sa, Truongsa, Trường Sa in tuoitre.vn or tuoitrenews.vn. This is the two news websites which is the most reliable of Vietnam. Bumblebee1248 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Your personal opinion???? Read WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, by this Saturday I will have drafted a Code of Conduct (as put in place for the Sea of Japan naming dispute and the like) that may include provisions to block users for posts such as this that demonstrate clear non-intent of contributing to build an encyclopaedia. GotR ^Talk 06:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Claim by the ROC

When did the ROC start claiming Paracel and other islands in the South China Sea? Was it done right after its establishment? Did the Qing government have similar claim? — Instantnood 21:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• there is a good history of land claims here:

  The most proactive claimant in the region is China. In 1909 it seized some islands in Xisha (the Paracels). In 1946 it seized Itu Aba (in the Spratlys) and Phu Lan Island (in the Paracels). In 1950's China seized additional Hoang Sa (Paracels) islands, which it forcibly repeated in 1974. Vietnam claims that these acts were unlawful and that the United States in 1974 conspired with China for the take-over of the Paracels.

  [2] and a chart [3] SchmuckyTheCat 22:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not find the source of 1909 stuff. What is that? I have another question. Where do the island belong to during Japanese occupation? Taiwan province? --Jjok 03:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In 1909 Qing dynasty did send a small navy force to occupy Paracel; Paracel and Spratly were officially under the administration of Canton(Guangtong) Province.--Jerrychen0067 09:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing important is that there were live evidence: tombs and wells were there in Par. and every "real" seven Spratly islands, not to remind of Chinese coins and those bowls and pots. What's more, Viet Nam officials and maps once indicated these two groups of islands belong to China, only after VN invaded Cambodia and chanllenged China —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camphorjoshua (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

the distance from Vietnam to paracels?

I think that it is nearer vietnam than China but the website www.paracels.info [4] said: 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 Some thing is wrong?

About the France and Qing Dynasty's Tienjin Treaty in 1885

Although you can argue that Qing lost the actual control of Paracel, the legal "border agreement of China/Vietnam" followed by 1887, France did state Paracel, Spratly islands belong to Qing Dynasty China. The problem is that probably no country will recognize this old "unequal" treaty. so...............--Jerrychen0067 09:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the book "Sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands"[5] and The Sino-Vietnamese Difference on the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa Archipelagoes [6] ,some misunderstand in the France and Qing Dynasty's Tienjin Treaty in 1885,china intentional don't understand this Treaty clearly.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.7.2.200 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The article says There is some Chinese Tang and Song culture relics in Paracel islands, thus Chinese once stayed/lived in Paracel Islands in Tang and Song. Unfortunately the references aren't easily available to an English reader. I believe that "There is some Chinese Tang and Song culture relics in Paracel islands", but without more information I question the conclusion. Were the relics the kind of things that would only be used for habitation, or where they things likely to have value as trade goods? If the latter, the relics might have put there by Vietnamese, Taiwanese or Philippino pirates who captured a Chinese ship. Readin (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a Category:User zh-1 user. Give me your E-mail and I'll send you one of those papers in different journals. In that paper the author discribe traditional cultur related to Paracel Islands. --Yohan (China) (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to trust you if an English translation can't be provided. zh-1 is pretty basic level. I wouldn't be able to understand even two sentences of a Chinese technical paper. Readin (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It IS very hard to find the reliable source. Most articles are blogs. These days I got some paper in Journals, nevertheless there's few such kind of information in English. There're also some paper claims "some of the Vietnam's ancient Paracel history are false history in that ..."--Yohan (China) (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the difficulty of finding a reliable source. English articles usually don't provide much detail on something like this. And I find it difficult to trust Chinese sources when they are making an argument for saying the islands are Chinese. Readin (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Chinese sources are biased, they meant to claim all the south China sea belong to them which is outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.123.218 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

History section

I suggest to re-org the History section for the purpose of securing clearness:

• Avoiding listing order dispute/complaint. Instead it will be alphabetically by country names.
• Easier for readers to follow.
• Easier for editing, including additional citations for verification.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Color of templates

Color of templates (near the bottom of the article) should be consistent. The red color of the template Province of Hainan Haikou (Capital) should be changed accordingly to follow suit with the rest:

• To avoid a possible color warring in the future.
• To avoid an unpleasant design if people use color arbitrarily.

--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone help to change it to this size and color. Thanks.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

There is nothing wrong with the current introduction of the article. However, I think it would need an overview about itself before jumping right into disputes. The following is my suggestion:

The Paracel Islands consist of over 30 islets, sandbanks or reefs, occupy about 15,000 km2 of the ocean surface, and located in the East Vietnam Sea or South China Sea. Turtles live on the islands, and seabirds have left nests and guano deposits, but there are no permanent human residents except for a small number of troops. The archipelago is approximately equidistant from the coastlines of Vietnam and China, and about one-third of the way from central Vietnam to the northern Philippines. The archipelago consists of two main groups. The Amphitrite group in the northeast and the Crescent group in the west, about 70 km from one another. The archipelago is surrounded by productive fishing grounds and by potential oil and gas reserves. The Paracels Islands are claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam. According to Vietnamese history, the country has possessed the islands since the 15th century.[citation needed] In 1932, France took over the islands and administered them as part of French Indochina. In 1956, Chinese troops started occupying Woody Island from the French, the main island of the Amphitrite group. On Prattle Island, the largest of the Crescent group, continued to be controlled by French Indochina and its successor, Vietnam. In 1974, after the Battle of the Paracel Islands between the Republic of Vietnam and People's Republic of China, the latter seized the entire archipelago and has taken control of the islands while sovereignty disputes remain unresolved.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation

In 1836, emperor Minh Mang received a report from his Ministry of Public Works that recommended a comprehensive survey of all the East Sea islands because of their "great strategic importance to our maritime borders".

Bộ Công or Công Bộ (as in Công Bộ Thượng Thư Lê Quý Đôn). According to Vietnamese dictionary (Viện Ngôn Ngữ, KH-XH-NV, 2nd edition): "công bộ là chức vụ trong triều đình ngày xưa coi sóc về việc xây dựng" (công bộ is a position under dynasties, responsible for construction). I think we should use "Ministry of Construction" instead of "Ministry of Public Works". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinhbaongoc (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC) --Trinhbaongoc (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Administered by

Today, under the bullet "Administered by", name was switched from "People's Republic of China" to "Vietnam". I do not agree with that action, but somehow it made me thinking a bit about the dispute of "Administered by" itself. VN and PRC both have assigned local governments to govern the islands either "remotely" or physically. However, on VN side, the continuity of the existence of that local government before and after the archipelago seized should be treated fairly within the context of this matter. I suggest to use "disputed" under this bullet or change it to "Occupied by" from "Administered by".--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

the PRC has direct control over the island due to forces stationed on and around the islands. Therefore, they are administering the islands. All three countries with claims on the islands are listed under the claimed by section of the infobox, in alphabetic order. "Occupied" is not a neutral way to refer to it because the only ones who would use that terminology are those who dispute the claim of those in control of the islands. "Administered" is neutral in that it merely states who is in control, and makes no judgements regarding that control. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That is only your point of view. My understanding is that control by forces under disputes is called "occupied". Forces stationed on and around the islands are to guard the islands not to administer it per the definition of the word. "Occupied" is not only neutral but also reflecting very well the situation. If you said Administered "merely states who is in control" so why not using "Controlled by" instead?--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, most reliable documents use the terminology "occupied" because it is a fact.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to open an WP:RFC on the topic if you wish. However, the wording in the template was arrived at after a lot of debate over the most neutral wording. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to be the authority here, so I request you to open an WP:RFC. Did that wording come out as a result of the debate over this specific article, The Paracel Islands?--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it was over a different article, Liancourt Rocks. As for opening the RFC, I'll see if I can get around to it, as I have a lot of other things on my plate right now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding from learning the Liancourt Rocks case:

• No military engagement fought between Japan and Korea.
• No forces used to drive other forces out to take over the place.
• Some permanent residents live there.
• Some administrative personnel stationed there.

This case is quite different than that of the Paracels.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The details for every disputed island will be different. And Korea has fired on Japanese vessels that have come too close, the "permanent residents" are a fisherman and his wife who are paid to live there by the Korean government, and the Paracel Islands also have people stationed there who administer (or oversee) the functioning of any group stationed there (the "administrative personnel" on the Liancourt Rocks are either police or military, too). Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that "Occupied by" is less neutral than "Administered by". We can't go making individual infoboxes for every disputed island (or group of islands), just as we don't make a different infobox for American actors as opposed to Russian actors or Australian actors. Infoboxes—by design—are going to be somewhat generic so that they can cover a wide variety of possibilities, but they still must remain neutral. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The key differences are the first two cited above. They are the reasons that raise the issue. The case of Japan-Korea has none of them. What is the neutrality about? should that piece of said information be most popular and come from most of reliable sources? I agree that we can't make different box for every disputed island(s). I like the generic. Reuse-ability is always my first priority in any projects. However, sometimes one-size-fit-all scheme does not work. If some situation is quite different than others then we need to consider making one simply because the generic template can't cover it anymore. It's the quality and competitiveness question.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But the current template does accurately present the information in a neutral way. If people want to know more than what's in the infobox (which isn't supposed to be super detailed anyway) they can read the article where you can put in all the details. As you said, we should only consider another template (or making a change to the template) if it doesn't cover the needs of the article. In this case, the template does cover the needs of the article. "Administered by" is more neutral wording than "Occupied by". There's really nothing else to discuss as we are just going around in circles here. The neutrality of the wording in the template was already established in a previous RFC, so we don't need to reestablish it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You fail to answer my questions regarding the ground of the neutrality except for keeping saying "Administered by" is more neutral wording than "Occupied by".--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I started an RFC here. Give it an hour or so to be ready for actual discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ocuppied territories

• Occupied territories is a term of art in international law. In accordance with Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Fourth Hague Convention); October 18, 1907,[1] Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
• During World War II the use of annexation deprived whole populations of the safeguards provided by international laws governing military occupations. Changes were introduced to international law through the Fourth Geneva Convention that makes it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation.[6] GCIV Article 47, the first paragraph in Section III: Occupied territories, restricted the territorial gains which could be made through war,[6] and Article 49 prohibits mass movement of people out of or into occupied territory.
• If a state unilaterally declares a territory that has been under military occupation to be annexed, bodies such as the United Nations Security Council frequently describe such territories as "occupied" when that annexation is in breach of international law or not accepted by the United Nations General Assembly, even if the territory is governed through the civil laws of the state that has integrated the occupied territory into their own territories.
• Additionally, occupation has two distinct meanings:

1. The state of being lived in (as in: "Isle of Man is occupied by the Manx", or this house is occupied by the Smith family);

2. The state of military control following conquest by war but prior to annexation.

Although (1) and (2) are obviously distinct, they are sometimes intermingled. Under (1), the territory in question is under normal civilian law; under (2) the territory is usually under military law within the terms of the Laws of war, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention (according to the UN).--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

I need to verify (1838) Jean Louis TABERD, “Additional Notice on the Geography of Cochinchina”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, Vol. VII, 4/1838, who has this paper? Claims with this article seems to be odd. --Yohan (China) (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

History of Sovereignty: China

This is an English article. You need to translate the Chinese language in this section into English. Otherwise non Chinese speaking people do not understand what you're trying to say. And thus they should be removed.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• If "original citation" is allowed, I believe the Vietnamese have a mountain of "original citations', more than enough to flood this article as compared to that of Chinese's. It does not make any sense to let that happen. And, it is the reason why Chinese "original citations" were removed. However, you can refer them to reliable, chinese language sources.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did that for your will: remove all non-English source, espcially "The Royal Ordinance issued by Emperor Minh Mạng, 1835." --Yohan (China) (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think Image is good, I can upload the original source. --Yohan (China) (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The original source/reference doesn't need to be in English to be used as a source/reference. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But Trinhbaongoc alway removes them: [7] (several edits), [8]. So I removed the Vietnamese one, too: [9]. --Yohan (China) (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If people question the source, an English translation should be provided. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is lack of neutral point of view. It offers us informations from Vietnam in the wrong perspective with little Chinese info. And when I tried to add some claims from China, some contributors thwart me. --Yohan (China) (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the source should be proved to be exist. Since no one have the article Additional Notice on the Geography of Cochinchina, I suspect the existance of this article. And I suspect if the content in this article (if exist) has been presented correctly in this article. --Yohan (China) (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please post the information you wish to add here, and I'll be happy to help you format it in such a way as to prevent it from being removed. Please also provide sources that can be used for the content you wish to add. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you! --Yohan (China) (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yohan, I don't think I will remove things that comply with the rules. Instead of keep plugging the chinese characters into an English article, per Nihonjoe's suggestion, I think you should provide reliable sources so people, including me, can help turning them into useful format to make the article comprehensive and neutral.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS SUPPOSED TO BE WRITTEN IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

I therefore think it is inappropriate to have tracts of "quoted" Chinese text on this page without an English translation. Whatever they allege/support/suggest/endorse etc is redundant without English. They might as well as not be there...

It's quite obvious that the ownership of the Paracel Islands, a group of scrubby atolls, serves only the political and military purposes of the ROC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.194.204 (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinese text should be quoted. I understand that you love your English language so much but Paracel Islands isn't claimed by an English-speaking country. Alonso McLaren (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed three paragraphs of Chinese: they may be relevant but this is the English WP. They should only be re-added if they are translated into English, as per MOS:ZH--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Paracel Islands are not claimed by an English Speaking Country does not mean that we should not use English words for them in the English Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of geographical features in the world are not claimed by an English speaking country, and yet we still use English words to refer to them. This common issue is well dealt with by Wikipedia precedents. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NC_(geographic_names), "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."

The article is full of Chinese characters without even a transliteration let alone a translation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(use_of_Chinese_language). Since the article is in English, it makes sense to use the common english names for the various Islands. See also MOS:FOREIGN, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet—such as Greek, Chinese, or Cyrillic scripts—must be romanized into characters generally intelligible to English-speakers." In general, there has been too much emphasis on planting Chinese or Vietnamese names throughout this article, which is unnecessary and provocotive since perfectly adequate English names already exist and are in wide use. Almost by definition, Chinese characters are not English names.

Frankly, I think that this article should avoid all the Chinese and Vietnamese names altogether. But if non-english names are included, they must be romanized, and, frankly, given the disputed nature, should include both Chinese and Vietnamese names. But this would make the article unwieldy since every name would actually need five versions, the English name, the Chinese name, the Chinese romanization, the Vietnamese name, a Vietnamese pronounciation guide, and an indication as to which words were Chinese and which were Vietnamese. To the extent that this is necessary, the table at the bottom of the article suffices, though I think that this table could be split off to a seperate article.

Since I (along with the vast majority of English-speaking users of this article) can't do the Chinese or Vietnamese names, I've removed them from most of the article and just left the English names throughout. But I would be willing to look at a version containing both the Chinese and Vietnamese names along with appropriate romanizations. David s graff (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've also removed the Vietnamese names from the notes at the end of the table since it seems like they duplicate what is in the table. At any rate, I couldn't figure out what was going on with them, which is a sign that they need to be better edited before being reintroduced. And I deleted the map at the end of the table since the Chinese names were so large that I couldn't read the tiny English names. The article already has plenty of good maps in English. David s graff (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

More information required and Vietnamese bias

This article contains historical perspectives mainly from the Vietnamese side and seems rather biased towards them. Can we get some balance with more information from the Chinese? since Chinese have had none of them.

The balance would be hard because the Chinese have none to counter the Vietnamese claims. The Chinese biggest "evidence" on the issue is their current occupation, undoubtedly by brute force.

History doesn't matter here, Vietnam was owned by China for one thousand years. Does it mean the Great Vietnam belong to China too? I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.164.189 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if there are more information from Chinese side, an irony is that Chinese Communist Government has blocked Wikipedia and hardly any of them can reach here. And if they do, with all the lies from current government, they would be considered fabricated regardless real or fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.243.39.133 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

the article is still too biased, and needs more sourcing (the vietnamese section)

as said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.150.234 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2010 (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) 13:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous quotation of source and original research?

Under the Vietnamese 19 century section, last bullet point this is written:

"1895-1896, German vessel Bellona and Japanese ship Imezi Maru sank at the islands. Chinese fishermen looted and resold them at Hainan. These countries protested but the Chinese authorities, the Governor of Liang Guang, denied any responsibilities on the ground that the Paracels belonged to Annam.[20]"

Going to the source given http://books.google.com/books?id=58q1SMZbVG0C&pg=PA74&dq=Samuels+%2B+hai+luc#v=onepage&q=Samuels%20%2B%20hai%20luc&f=false, this the actual description:

"The local Chinese Authorities (the Governor of Liang Guang) then protested, disclaiming any responsibility on the grounds that, for them, the Paracels were abandoned islands which belonged no more to China than to Annam," To me this is a very distinct difference from the above in that Governor believed that the island belonged to no one. Can the change be made accordingly?

Also, the table generated for the Vietnamese naval sorties sources [37] which is someone's PhD thesis in Vietnamese. Wouldn't this be original research? Shouldn't the original sources of the PhD be used if they exist or the table removed? Bedbug1122 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Table for the list of the islands (help needed)

The current listing of the different names of the islands make it hard for one to cross check how each island is called by different people. I created a table for easy reference. But it takes a lot of time to fill in all the information. So I only read the approximate coordinates form the map (uploaded). Anyone who would like to help please feel free to fill in the table of islands. San9663 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Extremely lengthy section on Name:Paracel

The section on the Name Paracel is extremely lengthy, with too many maps. (historical maps may be filed under geography section?) Anyone want to shorten it to 5-8 lines? San9663 (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Current picture gives wrong information

The picture did not object to the right islands but it highlights (in red color) to another dispute islands (Spratly Islands). This aims to make misunderstanding readers and move readers' attention to Spratly Islands.

The correct position of Paracel Islands is the one above the highlighted (in red), the one closet to Vietnam coastal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangtg (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll change it with a Paracels-specific map. STSC (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea

See this thread at ANI. GotR ^Talk 15:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

In this part, if STSC moved the sentence of establishment Hoang Sa District to 20th centuary, another delearation of establishment of Sansha must be also deleted (mentioned in 21 centuary section). It keeps POV.--Cheers! (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is China actually administers the whole of Paracel Islands, and Vietnam does not; therefore Sansha is stated in the lead. The lead has also mentioned that the sovereignty of the islands is disputed with Taiwan and Vietnam. STSC (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a disputed area, so any establishment of subdivision should be mentioned as the same status in the article (especially in the lead) without exception for any administered or non-administered countries/states which are related.--Cheers! (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam does not administer any part of Paracel Islands, therefore the Vietnamese administrative district "Hoang Sa" is not included in the lead. I have tried to treat you with good faith but your motive in this issue is clearly a nationalistic one. STSC (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I just follow style of some articles, for example, the lead of Senkaku Islands article, it keep POV. So, we can write Vietnam regards these islands as Hoang Sa District belongs to Da Nang. I would like to get more discussions of whom doesnt relate to this issue.--Cheers! (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Even in that Diaoyu Islands article, the lead does not say China is claiming the islands as part of Toucheng, Yilan County, Taiwan Province. The lead in this article has already acknowledged that Vietnam is claiming the islands and the Vietnamese name for the islands is included. STSC (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

...both governments (PRC and ROC) agree that the islands are part of Taiwan as part of Toucheng Township in Yilan County of their respective divisions - administrative meaning.

The lead in this article has already acknowledged that Vietnam is claiming the islands, but it doesnt mention that this Islands is an claimed District of Da Nang (in administrative meaning - ), and

the Vietnamese name for the islands is included, this name just mentions in the meaning of geographic. How do you think about my proposed sentence above?.--Cheers! (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement about "Toucheng, Yilan County, Taiwan" is concerning the same position of the two Chinese governments, please don't quote it out of context. It seems you just cannot accept that in reality the Paracel Islands are under Chinese administration of Sansha and you insist to include the Vietnamese administrative district. I would remind you the sovereignty of the islands is another issue and you should not mix the two. Why don't you also suggest to include the ROC's Kaohsiung municipal? It proves that your motive is nationalistic, and I'm not sure if I would waste more time on this. STSC (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead already said that is under the administration of Hainan Province, the People's Republic of China. It is to be continued emphasis that it belongs to Sansha city (redundancy). if you dont remove it, you should put other claimations include Tawain's with sources.--Cheers! (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Because both Vietnam and China established their own respective administrative body on the islands, it would be neutral to mention them in the lede or don't mention any at all. I agree with Cheer! If you , STSC, want; you might add Taiwanese claim of its administrative body on the lede, don't simply remove the claim of Vietnam and leave the China's alone. And please don't attack other editors as "nationalist" or I will report ANI as a misconduct. I has added this article to my watchlist, thanks.--AM ^(talk) 06:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The lede is not a catch-all trashdump for whatever the hell you want to put in it. All this hubbub about claims go down in the article body, how difficult is that to understand? The lede is merely a summary of the overall topic. Your argument "all claimants should have equal treatment and there no such reason as "de facto"" from your edit summary is as stupid as saying that for the Falklands Islands article, we should put everything in the lede about Argentine political subdivisions. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Map in China's passport

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

• "China passports claim ownership of South China Sea and Taiwan," The Guardian (UK). 23 November 2012; excerpt, "China's official maps ... on passports could be seen as a provocation since it requires other countries to tacitly endorse the claims by affixing their official seals to the documents"
• Larano, Chris. "China Seeks to Calm Anger Over Passports," Wall Street Journal (US). November 28, 2012; Godfrey, Hannah. "India claims disputed borderlands with China in row over passports," The Guardian (UK). 24 November 2012 -- see image of passport page showing map of China

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) 19:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

2007 incident worth a mention?

http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/vietnam-and-china-a-dangerous-incident/

Do we really need to record every little incident? Hcobb (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In my view the answer is a resounding "no", at least not in the main article. The amount of fragmented coverage of claims and disputes in this and other articles about islands in the South China Sea (and the East China sea come to that) is worrying, as is the constant game of POV ping pong. We did have a handle on this a few years ago in the case of the Spratly Islands with the spin off of Spratly Islands dispute, which was intended to allow the main article to do what it should do, i.e. focus on the topics that a location without a territorial dispute would and let the "dispute" article handle the rest including the little incidents you mention. Territorial disputes in the South China Sea was also supposed to help with this focus. I would like to see some sort of coherent framework for all affected articles but I'm not sure how we create one. An FAQ may be the place to start, which is why I made this comment yesterday. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes the incident should be added, however briefly. I'm thinking should we relocate the Paracel territorial claims and disputes to a separate article, perhaps "Paracel Islands Dispute" or smtg like that? Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, that proposal has my Strong Support ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 09:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of polities in the lede.

The original lede obscures the fact that there are two Chinese and two Vietnamese polities involved in the history of the islands.

The Paracel Islands . . . is a group of islands . . . whose sovereignty is disputed by the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Vietnam. All of the islands are currently controlled as part of China's Hainan Province, which in July 2012, established Sansha City to administer the three townships under its jurisdiction. Chinese and Vietnamese forces both occupied parts of the Paracel Islands before 1974, when the Battle of the Paracel Islands occurred, after which the former took control of the entire group.

The first sentence mentions the two Chinas but the second sentence refers to China, without specifying which one. The last sentence gives the impression that China and Vietnam fought a war over the islands and that Vietnam controlled the islands prior to 1974. In reality though, it was the PRC that took the islands from South Vietnam in 1974. The North Vietnamese government has never controlled the islands but has inherited the Vietnamese claim. My edits clarify those two points. The usage of official names of the two Vietnamese regimes follows the parallel construction of the two Chinese regime names.

The Paracel Islands . . . is a group of islands . . . whose sovereignty is disputed by the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Vietnam. All of the islands are currently controlled by People's Republic of China, which captured the islands from the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) in January 1974. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which unified Vietnam in 1976, has continued to claim the islands. The People's Republic of China established the city of Sansha, under Hainan Province in July 2012, to administer the islands.

China/Taiwan

Why are we calling Taiwan the "Republic of China (Taiwan)"? Ninety nine percent of the RS just says "Taiwan." Nobody else, nobody at all, is calling it this. Every single Taiwanese I've ever met says "Taiwan" and "China," just like native English speakers do. Whether they want the trade pact or they don't, the country the trade pact is with is "China." I never see this ROC/PRC nonsense anywhere except Wikipedia. "Chicken cutlet girl" doesn't just know how to cook. She also knows that she lives in Taiwan.[10] The great huha (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Um ... Because it's the official name, perhaps?  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style recommends using the World Factbook for country names. CMOS is recommended in our guidelines and is the most widely followed standard for English-language writing. It doesn't really matter what name is official. But it is certainly not hard to find examples of Taiwanese government using "Taiwan" officially.[11] The great huha (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've changed "People's Republic of China" to "Communist China" within the history section; that was probably an unnecessary change. Per WP:MOS-ZH, "People's Republic of China" is used when a distinction is necessary, and in other cases "China" will suffice. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So you would say that China took Hainan from Taiwan in 1950? It seems to me this incident is part of the Civil War, so it should be "Communist China" and "Nationalist China." The great huha (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I never said that, don't put ideas into my mouth. I'm suggesting that PRC and ROC are more definite and clear ways to express that section, since it allows for minimal ambiguity. "Communist Chinese forces" or "Chinese Communists" are also acceptable alternatives, however the terms "Communist China" and "Red China" are both loaded terms in western literature. We shouldn't be repeating Cold War rhetoric in a 2014 encyclopedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In 1950, there was a Cold War going on. "Communist" and "Nationalist" was the terminology everyone was using. Is it rude to call Mao a communist? To claim that the "Republic of China" and "China" are two different countries is just confusing and certainly not common practice off Wikipedia. The great huha (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not rude to call Mao a communist, but for a good part of the Cold War, the terminology for the two sides in US newspapers were "Communist China" and "Free China". I don't see what the Mao analogy is trying to prove. If you want to describe the political entity controlled by the Communist Party of China, use "Chinese Communists" instead. That said, is there any good reason why you absolutely do not feel like following WP:MOS-ZH at all? Do you have a good reason that you would like to share with everyone? You haven't made a strong justification yet regarding why you feel we shouldn't follow the MoS. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the link you gave, but I don't see anything that I am "not following." I would consider, "the PRC replaced the Republic of China [at the UN]" to be an example of awkward style. But it doesn't say you have to write that way. BTW, "Free China" is more of a WWII expression. In 1950, "Free China" and "Nationalist China" were running about even, according to this ngram. The great huha (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: I interpret the example to mean that if you use "ROC," then you must use "PRC" as a opposed to "China." IMO, the better solution is not to use ROC at all for the post-1949 period. The great huha (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Historical Perspectives - Sources

The 200 BC claim is stated as fact though in reality the source does not have any evidence that show any fishermen used those islands before. The statement must be removed. Paetsr (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference 27 contains a link to a website that has no connection with research to habitation of the Islands at all.

In just two consecutive assertions of the historical usage of the Island I have found one misinterpreted claim and a questionable bogus source. Highly recommend a review by someone who can actually make changes to this article as the Islands are making headlines in the news currently and it's in the interest of all to know the truth. Paetsr (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

Could a subject matter expert resolve the following contradiction?

1. China did NOT protest the German survey

See section "Territorial disputes and their historical background" Between 1881 and 1883 the German navy surveyed the islands continuously for three months each year without seeking the permission of either France or China. No protest was issued by either government and the German government published the results of the survey in 1885.

2. China did protest the German survey

See section "Historical Perspectives" When the Spratlys and Paracels were being surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.31.49 (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• It looks like the 1883 protest was about the Spratlys, not the Paracels: "In 1883, the German government tried to survey the Spratly Islands, but stopped when China protested," according to Chiu and Park. This is sourced to a paper put out by Guangdong Province in 1933. The Germans surveyed the Paracels in 1881-1884, i.e. they sent another expedition to the Paracels the year following China's protest, assuming this story is true. It would certainly be nice if we had a source from the German archive to confirm or debunk this account. The great huha (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1887 treaty

The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention of 1887 between Qing China and France, who had occupied Indochina by that time, expressly provided that the islands east of a delimitation line, known as the Sino-Tonkin delimitation line, should belong to China, whereas the Paracel and Spratly Islands are located east of the delimitation line.

I know this claim appears in various sources, but it is transparently bogus. This section of the treaty begins, "In Guangdong..."[12] In other words, it applies to coastal islands and such that could reasonably be assigned to Guangdong Province. The Spratlies are a long way from Guangdong. If you interpret the line as applying to the entire South China Sea, then the islands off the central and southern Vietnamese coasts should all be Chinese as well.The great huha (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)