Talk:Spratly Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spratly Islands article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Biased again (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.


-qxezwcs

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

From what I can garner from the article. The Phillipine 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 Phillipines 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 Phillipines 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)

[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] 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)]]

[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

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)

[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)

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)

[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)

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)]]

[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?

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

[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)


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)

[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)


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)

[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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)