Talk:Spratly Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spratly Islands article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Good article 2 Inconsistent about oil exploration? 3 Context map? 4 Biased in China's favor? 5 NPOV 6 The Spratly islands belong to the Philippines. 7 Kalayaan state 8 Population 9 Contribution from 61.6.39.138 10 Legal Terminology 11 Heavily China biased edits 12 NPOV dispute 13 Nothing too controversial

[edit] 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: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seav (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 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)

[edit] Context map?

Can someone please provide a 'context' map? 95% of readers don't want to know the relative positions of Northeast Cay and West York Island, they want to know where in the hell these islands are! Herdrick Feb 17 2005

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Population

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

[edit] Contribution from 61.6.39.138

(I've moved this here from the main article. This edit [2] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)