Talk:Sansha

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

It is a rumor[edit]

There is no official report of the establishment of this city. There were only a bunch of postings on all kinds of web sites. The Viet Nam protest does exist, but they were just protesting based on an internet rumor. --Mongol (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I've added lend may shed more light on the subject. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you provided only proves that there are some reports of this establishment, while those reports are all based on an unnamed official of another city in Hainan province. That's not reliable at all. --Mongol (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subdivisions[edit]

This article is not about the disputes on the islands; readers come to this article to read about the structure of a Chinese county, and they can always read about the disputes in the individual articles on the islands. I propose to shorten the disputants' details in this section and remove the flags. Maybe a mention of who the claimants are and what they're controlling should be enough. STSC (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Pengyanan is correct that a histmerge wasn't necessary. Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sansha City → Sansha per naming convention –123.125.157.43 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sansha → Administration Office for the Xisha Islands, the Nansha Islands and the Zhongsha Islands – It should be moved to Administration Office for the Xisha Islands, the Nansha Islands and the Zhongsha Islands until July 20 when the city to be established. The article does not reflect the current status of the body. --123.125.157.48 (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. No it doesn't reflect the current status but, in 17 hours and about 36 minutes, it will be. I'm not a crystal ball type but drop it unless the official name change cancelled before then. —  AjaxSmack  23:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the time this discussion ends it will already be July 20th. It also does not make much sense to move the article when it will simply be moved again in 3 days.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it has been postponed or not, the establishment of Sansha City will occur at any rate. The China Daily has ran a piece showing photographs of the newly built prefectural-level city town hall; the newly-built government buildings are already there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if it is (or will be) the official name, official names have little bearing on Wikipedia's naming policies, which promote the use of article names that are commonly used in English-language sources. This is the reason why the United Kingdom article is located at "United Kingdom" and not at "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."--SGCM (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • China established Sansha City on 24 July 2012 (official news), the original reason exists no more. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV-tag[edit]

The intro and most of the rest of this write-up presents it as part of China. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a Chinese city. If you're looking for the disputes, it's not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seb az86556, the lede has certainly been altered for the worse in the past 12–24 hours
@Reallywiki: Oh come on. It isn't a Chinese city the way Sanya and Kaohsiung are. GotR Talk 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(@Seb): Uhh... is Woody Island (the administrative centre of Sansha) not under de facto PRC control? If a upstanding gentleman of Filipino or Vietnamese citizenship were to travel by boat to Woody Island and walk to the Sansha city town hall, would he be permitted to? Or, would he be arrested for trespassing and all that hubbub? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Seb az86556: what more is there to dispute? Facts are shown that this is a city under the adminstration of PRC. , why are you denying the facts? I think this resolved. Also i don't understand how this city has anything to do with how other Chinese cities are like? Non of the cities around the world are alike, what do you mean by "oh ... isn't a Chinese city..."? Just like Sanya and Kaohsiung, Sansha is also a Chinese city.--Reallywiki (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people get arrested or shot, that a member of some government or rebel group or whoever actually holds gun at your head if you act up, aren't reasons to treat it in the same way as any "normal" Chinese city. This is disputed territory, and must be treated as such. Start with the infobox. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altering the infobox to account for the dispute isn't a realistic wish. Each of the individual island group articles has an infobox specifically tailored to territorial disputes. However, I have worked with Infobox settlement frequently, and it doesn't bear fields to deal with territorial disputes. And rightly so: this article is about the settlement established by the PRC, and as such, the infobox presents the requisite administrative information. GotR Talk 05:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and that's presenting a POV. Look at Jerusalem; there's no country mentioned in the infobox (Admittedly, Jerusalem is older and existed before current disputes). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison to Jerusalem is faulty. Jerusalem fits snugly into a single region (as described by its infobox), while in terms of administration, these islands don't (even the ROC could claim it as part of a hypothetical Hainan province, but it doesn't). Also, Sansha City itself is solely a PRC "concept", whereas the eastern portion of Jerusalem is considered by the int'l community as "rightfully" part of the state which Obama hypocritically stifled.
And I should remind you that Sansha City is a purely administrative concept and so inherently represents a POV. For more, see STSC's comments on 26 June 2011 above, which I completely echo. GotR Talk 06:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, so then the article's intro should write exactly that (e.g. Sansha is a concept created by PRC-gov't), and not make it look like any other city. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad it used to. I will get to it, but if possible, I prefer larger stints of copy-editing to only adding missing periods, etc in one edit, which is AWB territory. GotR Talk 06:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It used to... can you find that version in the page-history? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I am referring to, which is nonetheless outdated. IMO, stating simply it is a prefecture-level city of Hainan, PRC is clear enough to indicate it is a "concept created by PRC-gov't". GotR Talk 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm...maybe. here's what I'd like to see: leave infobox blank for "country" or add a note about the dispute, and secondly, mention the dispute right in the first line of the lead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
personal rants
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
no one is being shot, please send more proof that after the establishment of the legitament Chinese city of Sansha, there was foreigner ether being shot or arrested. With your sayings are extremely bias and with out a creditable source we can not assume there these problems as you qouted above. This POV does not stand on any legitimate groud what so ever. urge for ending this non sence dispute. STOP pulling the City together with something off topic, what ever you're saying has nothing to do Sansha. It's internation territorial dispute, not a city. You can open a new Wiki page about the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs)
One of the prerequisites for discussing issues with me is a sufficient knowledge of the English language; I advise to re-read what I wrote and then comment on that. If you find yourself unable to do so, please do not comment at all. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, tell me how is this city disputed? some of the islands in this city might be, but it's not disputed as a whole(if it is please tell me which country also claim over Sansha, as a city). Also you can create a page about the disputes between the coountries and stop being dramatic, this is not drama class. The is also the dicussion of many people in the National Congress of the Communist Party of China, Not just "that a member from some government". Disputes can go to a different page, this is not a page about the issue, but simply about the city. Please read! --Reallywiki (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Sansha is not a concept, as you can see the Chinese government already made it possible. IT WAS a concept until July 24, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone should calm down. There's no need for everyone to get defensive or angry, and it would benefit everyone if we all took a step back and had a breather. It looks like things might be getting a bit hot in this discussion; try to keep cool heads, and avoid "attack-like" language. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that everybody should calm down and focus on the neutrality of the article. I maintain the view that the establishment of Sansha city on a disputed island of Paracel Islands is an unilateral action of PRC which admitted prompt diplomatic protests from Vietnam and the Philippines . This is a matter of fact; verifiable sources are numerous. This fact, as such, must be clearly and explicitly acknowledged in the lede and the info box.
  • I suggest to delete or move the sentence "Before establishment of Sansha, the county-level Administration Office for the Xisha Islands, the Nansha Islands and the Zhongsha Islands administered the same territory." down to the History; it does not fit to the lede. The remaining text "Sansha (Chinese: 三沙) is a prefecture-level city in the province of Hainan established by the government of the People's Republic of China on 24 July 2012, which nominally administers all of the Spratly and Paracel islands in the South China Sea, the Macclesfield Bank undersea atoll and surrounding waters, which are disputed with Vietnam, the Philippines and Republic of China, among other parties." sounds sufficient.
  • The info box must certainly be modified to acknowledge the dispute or better drop altogether. The argument that this is merely an article about a city of China is not accepted because unlike other cities that legitimately belong to China, this one is created by China on an internationally disputed area. Gacma (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Seb az86556 please also open a pov tag similar to this in Kalayaan, Palawantalk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to focus on one at a time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as neutrality, cities would never have disputes over territory, only countries would. I like suggest that people should open a "also see section" for the disputes, but as far as the facts about the city, it should just be about the city.--Reallywiki (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take what i said back, just saw the respownse the white house had about Sansha. It is highly disputed. I Strongly agreeying to change this info page accordingly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallywiki (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, the readers come to this article to read about the structure of a Chinese political entity. The tag is just plain silly. STSC (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@STSC: Don't remove the neutrality-disputed tag when everyone is in a middle of a constructive discussion and not yet reached a consensus. If you can't contribute, better keep silent! Gacma (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gacma, I don't think removal of the tag is the correct source of action, but "If you can't contribute, better keep silent!" is very rude and without evidence/merit. GotR Talk 12:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit my mistake in the cited sentence. Thanks GotR, and to STSC: my public apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gacma (talk • contribs) 13:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is use of the current infobox (China subdivisions: prefecture-level city) really so contentious as people are saying it is? Even vi:Tam Sa at the Vietnamese Wikipedia is using the same template, which displays Sansha as a prefecture-level city in theory belonging to "Trung Quốc Hải Nam". A handful of people are making mountains over something that even the Vietnamese Wikipedia doesn't have a problem about. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the main contributors on this article. The territorial disputes for the underlying islands have already been acknowledged in the article and this should be enough to address any neutrality issue. STSC (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox deserves special attention because it is often (and sometimes the only) place people look at to grasp some basic information. As such, the dispute must be promptly acknowledged in the box. I suggest, at the minimum, to add the following fields in the infobox:

|blank_name_sec1 = Remark of Dispute
|blank_info_sec1 = Sansha is unilaterally established by China in an internationally disputed area.
|blank_name_sec2 = Competing Claimants
|blank_info_sec2 = Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei

@Benlisquare: the same request of NPOV would be raised with vi:Tam Sa, too. Gacma (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the first picture in the info box may be removed; it does not add more information than the second picture. The second box and the third picture might also be removed for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gacma (talk • contribs) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant something like that for the infobox. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox in the article does not make a political statement at all; it only summaries the local administrative district as governed by the Chinese. Any country (Philippines, Vietnam, etc) can choose how it wants to govern a territory including the disputed ones; the readers would understand that and there's no neutrality issue here. STSC (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume that the prose within the main article body makes it clear enough that the region is disputed, and that Sansha is an administrative creation of the PRC, but if people really want to add those few lines to the infobox, then I wouldn't really mind either. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: I implement some changes and save the page simply to facilitate the view and discussion, NPOV-disputed tag remained open. Changes are clarified below:
I revert the lede to a version posted a few days ago, which I personally find short, concise, and carry reasonably balance view.
I implement 2 additional fields about the dispute in the infobox
Although I personally think the Dispute deserves its own section, I currently just implement it as a sub paragraph in the History. I also add some notable public views of the United States about the dispute. Gacma (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's the need to add more fields because there's already a footnotes field. We have now accommodated your concern therefore the tag will be removed. STSC (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't water it down w/o input; this is already a concession to your camp. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No such thing as your camp or my camp; this is not a battlefield. I presented the infoxbox according to the infobox MOS. STSC (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it interferes with some MOS-rules then we'll have to find a 3rd solution; yours is not acceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We shall make the infobox just reflecting what it is said in the lead section: "The areas are disputed with Vietnam, the Philippines and Republic of China" STSC (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We shall"? Are you more than one, or is that your way of giving orders? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reasonable proposal for all.STSC (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate STSC cooperative move but must echo Seb_az on this point. I think that my previous suggestion for the infobox was fair enough: it maintains administrative information as reported by China but provides readers with sufficient caution that this information is unilaterally set by China and not recognized by competing claimants as well as international community. All these things are nothing but neutral facts. I don't think footnotes field is appropriate for this purpose.Gacma (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should only carry a brief NPOV footnote; my previous edit should address your concern as it informs the readers about the current situation on the areas:
|footnotes= There are on-going territorial disputes on the areas covered by the City.
STSC (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable; or else the country-line needs to be removed entirely. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're still trying to reach a compromise but you're getting disruptive. STSC (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not vandalize my talkpage again. Warning given. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to post your personal messages on my Talk page anytime. Warning not given. Thanks. STSC (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I implement this text in footnotes as an act to move closer to consensus, although I do not think that the |footnotes is suitable for this purpose: |footnotes = Remark of Dispute: Information in this infobox is as-reported by China. There are on-going territorial disputes in the entire area covered by the city. Vietnam and Philippines officially oppose and do not recognize the existence of the city. Gacma (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I known this is not a part of POV like many other comments here, but i'm just curious about how does the removing of the media proof help the artical in anyway other than for some people's personal reasons. Also if the city was established by the Chinese, for what good reason should the English use the Vietman name? Guys please, as much as you hate China, start to give out some proofs? --Reallywiki (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also this artical did state that it has area that are disputed with Viets, Phils ,ROC and other nations. Which they themselves also have dispute with.--Reallywiki (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try to stick to the top whenever possible.
I don't mean to rock the boat, but it seems as if you want to stir trouble. See the graph to the right? Try to stay on top. Though I'm more or less not against you on the Sansha issue, your attitude and manner of speaking seems potentially problematic. Argue the content, and not the people; Wikipedia talk pages aren't places to start fights, they aren't pubs. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ture, i'm really sorry. I'm new to wikipedia, but i also started to see why my univercity professors does not allow their students to use wikipedia(Off topic). But what i would like to say is that personally, the true focus of this city is not meant to be about any disputes. I strongly believe that there should be a new page about any disputes, but the process of what the city has been through since(which means after, not before) establishment is needed. For example, the U.S white house has stated that this is action quite concerning. I would also want to know, why are the edits like "People's Republic of China in an internationally disputed area, amidst strong diplomatic protests from Vietnam, the Philippines" 1. does not include that POC is also part of the dispute 2. Hey buddy, got links? I would personally suggest to undo the last edit, since it is misleading.--Reallywiki (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited a bit. Shall we reach a compromise on this issue? STSC (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Any wording issues aside, this is a great compromise. GotR Talk 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remove the tag now. There have been no new inputs for more than 3 days so the dispute is regarded as resolved according to the tagging policy. STSC (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think someone told lies. There're always rumors like saying "Chinese shot Filipino fishermen" in mass media. The rumor that AXL John was rammed by Chinese (and here) has been clarified, and the officials in Phillipine stated that it wasn't rammed. --58.83.252.65 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sansha was established by China, not Vietnam[edit]

Sansha was established by the PRC, not Vietnam. Even when hovering over the reference in the first line of this article, it says it was established by China...blatant mistake. I'm unsure of how to edit articles on Wikipedia so please, someone with more knowledge, take care of it. 63.239.65.11 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient cartography section[edit]

Why do people want to add (and also remove) a section on "Ancient Cartography"? Fleetham (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why people want to add that section. Ancient cartography has nothing to do with a prefecture-level city that was established a few weeks ago. See also User talk:Vnlstar - the person who began this hubbub has had a history of copy-pasting text from one place to another since July 2011. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source about this sentence[edit]

"Before the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea's (UNCLOS III) addendums to the Law of the Sea, the Central government had always maintained a staggering claim to nearly 3.5 million km2 in maritime area of the South China Sea" <-- I need source, where, when ??? If not, I will remove. Alphama (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these sentences temporarily because of no source. If the sources are existed, please recover and add them to the article, thank. ! Alphama (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sansha Template[edit]

I see someone created Template:Sansha the same day the PRC created Sansha. Wikipedia is not an arm of the PRC and its navigation and administrative structures are accordingly distinct. I propose that this Template be deleted as it cannot be applied to the many articles it is in a neutral way, unless Templates are also applied that reflect the administrative claims of others. It seems to me that the only reason this Template is applied to, say, James Shoal, and no PRC administrative region template is applied to Taiwan, which are of the same status as far as Beijing is concerned, is that the Wikipedia community pays more attention to the latter sort of article and would accordingly refuse to implement the PRC's administrative structure over disputed territory without discussion. That there is a problem here should be obvious from the fact the Template is supposedly about Chinese territory yet is full of English names (a reflection, of course, of the fact that the Chinese names are disputed and a renaming would be challenged). The Template could be applied to THIS article, like one is to Taiwan_Province,_People's_Republic_of_China, but I do not believe it should be applied to geographic areas where there is only one article (that has to serve everyone, unlike Taiwan/Taiwan province where each jurisdiction claimant has its "own" article).--Brian Dell (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a right place to discuss about templates. Please use the template's Talk page. Just for your information: a "navigation template" does not bear any political implication; it's simply a tool for easy navigation of related articles. STSC (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of this article and the creation of the Template are associated. Why was this template not created before the PRC made a political move if there are no political implications? It is not just a "navigation template" when the only relation between the articles as far as the template is concerned is that the PRC has declared a political entity that relates them.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial issue needs citations[edit]

As Sansha is known to be part of the currently controversial South China Sea spate (See, "China's hawks gaining sway in South China sea dispute" Reuters. Jul 25, 2012 ) I think citations are needed for any content addition that touchs on topics close to the controversy (e.g. the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). A recent edit to this page stated that "citation needed" tags should remain for months, but I think the sensitivity of the South China Sea issue means that anything to do with that dispute needs to be cited immediately. Fleetham (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't just tag and delete within half an hour as you did to the article. STSC (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC) ‎[reply]
You certainly don't tag and promptly remove. However, I wouldn't object if you tagged (with the current month) and commented out immediately. GotR Talk 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain quote[edit]

Why is John McCain quoted in the article? He's not on the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations (see Committee Assignments of the 112th Congress). I'm afraid his comments may be perceived to reflect the view if the US government or the Senate. Fleetham (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although he does sit on Armed Services and not Foreign Relations, this is not Syria or Iran, where he takes a more openly assertive stance than does the Obama Administration, so improperly "reflecting the view of the US government" isn't a concern. GotR Talk 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:China[edit]

this should be under the Chinese portal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.138.20 (talk • contribs)

Already done. GotR Talk 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of authority to Central Government[edit]

While the establishment of the city amounts to little more than a transfer of administrative control from the provincial government of Hainan to the central government in Beijing—I removed this sentence because it contradicts sub-provincial city and direct-controlled municipality of the People's Republic of China, which is sort of a souped-up prefecture-level city: prefecture-level cities always report to the provincial government, whereas the former two report in whole or part to Beijing. If you wish to revert, revert only the changes to that paragraph. Thanks much GotR Talk 21:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point here, the point being that "amounts to little more..." is a statement about what is practically or effectively the case, not what the nominally the case. You are begging the question when you assume that the formal structure here has as much "on the ground" reality as all the other "prefecture-level cities" you refer to.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems Sansha is a special case; the citation reads, "according to a Chinese official, Sansha City will be directly overseen by the central government instead of the provincial government of Hainan". Fleetham (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time you blanket reverted, affecting parts of my edit which have nothing to do with this issue. Please exercise more prudence.
If you can find a second source, as being overseen by Beijing is highly unusual, that would be great. GotR Talk 23:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could check out what my source cites, a Xinhua interview in Chinese. No URL link in the pdf, but it might be available online. Fleetham (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is unreliable. The City is governed by the municipal congress of Sansha formed by the Hainan goverment. STSC (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "formed by" does not mean "directly overseen by". Unless someone can tell me how the source (an International Crisis Group paper, STIRRING UP THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (II): REGIONAL RESPONSES Asia Report N°22 ) fails Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, it's staying in the article. Fleetham (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your only one source is unreliable because:

  • Lack of original quotation for verification.
  • Lack of corroboration from other sources.

See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. STSC (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, and while further searching hasn't corroborated the single source, I'm a little surprised that what's so clearly stated in something from what I consider to be a wholly reliable organization would be so clearly wrong. I think I found the original source cited for the claim (here) but auto-translate doesn't turn up anything definitive. And a news bulletin from the Shanghai Government states, "Sansha is under the jurisdiction of Hainan". Fleetham (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During the interview the Chinese spokesman had not mentioned that the new Sansha city would be governed by Hainan Province. The ICG then jumped to its own conclusion; their credibility must be questionable. STSC (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Township or County?[edit]

I'm interested in finding out if the Xisha, Nansha and Zhongsha now have been upgraded to county-level districts (3rd level) or still remain as township. Apparently the Chinese government websites do not have information on this. STSC (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No actual city is under construction[edit]

I refer to a recent edit,"no actual city is under construction"...
In Chinese, the Sansha "city" is a term for a political entity which does not necessary mean a city literally; "Sansha City" can just be islands and reefs. That's why we preferred "Sansha" to "Sansha City" in English as it could be confusing. STSC (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that we're in agreement. But as some major news outlets don't simply say "Sansha" instead referring to "China's new city on disputed island" and "China's newest city", I think there's reason to make explicit something that may appear obvious. Fleetham (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious to you or I, that is. Fleetham (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "we" the editors preferred "Sansha" for this article. I don't blame the English press because they could only translate "市" as "city". STSC (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I still think there's a strong case to be made for including the fact that Sansha becoming a city does not mean there's construction of a city. Fleetham (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there's a need for this, please don't do it in the lead; maybe a new section can be created to clarify the term "city" in the "Sansha City". STSC (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to also include a new section, but also no reason to bar it from the lead. Most of the coverage refers not to simply Sansha but Sansha City, and the impression is easily gained that China is building a new city in the South China Sea. It's important to disabuse readers of this all-to-easy-to-acquire notion. Fleetham (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification would be helpful for the average readers who have no knowledge in Chinese language. This sort of specific information does require a separate section for it. According to the MOS, the lead as it is already looks too long relatively to the body of the article. That's the reason for not including it in the lead. STSC (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my argument is that the people who would be helped by this are not likely to read past the lead. I advocate inclusion not for people who wonder if a city is being built but to ensure that idea isn't fostered. And I'm not sure if there are hard and fast rules about the ratio of lead length to article. I think a six word sentence isn't too much to add, and if you're worried about length, why not remove the bit about Woody island being supplied from the mainland? That surely is the least important thing mentioned in the lead currently. Fleetham (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with this assessment. Also fits in with other 市 (e.g. Hulunbuir) that may be colossal in area but are minimal in terms of urban area percentage. GotR Talk 16:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a few words addition would be ok. Yes, some of the Woody Island bit should be moved from the lead. STSC (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to this than just "does not necessary mean a city literally". I see "a political designation used by the People's Republic of China to portray the disputed South China Sea as part of its administration and national territory" was removed in order to declare that a "city" was "created" (as opposed to a "political designation") and that it was created in order to "administer" as opposed to being made for purposes related to territorial claim. This is a highly POV change (and should accordingly be cited to non-PRC controlled sources at a minimum if this language is to be used), since what may be established without dispute is merely that political designation has been created, NOT a "city" as the first sentence declares without any qualification. If the second sentence is accurate, that is was created for administrative reasons, then why is there any international controversy? There was a clear intention here on the part of the PRC to create, or more accurately appear to create, "facts on the ground" that supported its claim and for Wikipedia to promptly accept these manufactured facts as equivalent to real facts uncritically is inconsistent with Wikipedia's mandate to take a neutral stance.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea[edit]

See this thread at ANI. GotR Talk 15:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

eez[edit]

does eez mean anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.139.130 (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "real" city?[edit]

I don't really care about the territorial dispute but I was confused by the term "city" as it's used here. After following the link to Prefecture-level city I see that it's really an administrative designation. A sentence about this might help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction bias[edit]

The following line should read as any other city-page does, with the ownership/sovereignty stated properley, not under a term that is vauge. Bailiwick should be replaced with 'sovereignty', or indeed the introduction re-worded as the line sounds strait out of a NATO/western propaganda notebook of double speak, not very wikipedia is it?. Or maybe somone could please give me a propper definition of the usage in this case.

'Sansha is a prefecture within the bailiwick of the People's Republic of China's Hainan province' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.35.43 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "bailiwick" is the jurisdictional area of a sheriff. It is not vague or double-speak, it has a precise definition. The term is used in the UK, but not in the US, where the sheriff's jurisdiction corresponds to a county, so that term is used instead. China may or may not have sheriffs but without a reference I'm going to remove this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do folk saying need to be cited?[edit]

the only reason why it's a folk saying is because it's a catchphrase, how would you cite catchphrases since it is something that is passed along verbally?

Fact[edit]

I put two fact lables in this article because it needs to be improved the quality. Why does Lieutenant of Melkor revert my edits? Alphama (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is many of your contributions are simply adding tags of no value to statements that are nowhere near patently absurd or are numerical; that's the only time I add {{cn}} tags. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have rights to contribute anything I want and be sure that quality of article can be improved. Am I right? Alphama (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoang Sa, Truong Sa are not chinese[edit]

I can't believe my eyes.Hoang Sa, Truong Sa of China while Viet Nam (Nguyen dynasty) controlled it from 17th-18th century.Conmplete set of Thien nam tu chi lo do thu of Do Ba,tu Cong Dao (1686), Phu bien tap luc of Le Quy Don (1776), Lich trieu hien chuong loai chi of Phan Huy Chu (1821), Hoang Viet nhat thong Du dia chi of Le Quang Dinh (1833), Dai Nam thuc luc tien bien (1844-1848); Dai Nam thuc luc chinh bien (1844-1848), Viet su cuong giam khao luoc (1876), Dai Nam nhat thong chi (1882); Du đia chi Kham đinh Dai Nam Hoi dien su le (1910); Hai ngoai ky su (năm 1696) of monk China Thich Dai San; Quoc trieu chinh bien toat yeu (1910), An Nam đai quoc hoa do of bishop of france Louis Taberd, Dai Nam nhat thong toan do (official map of Minh Mang dynasty).Philipe Vandemaelen's World Atlas, published in 1827, in Belgium, which depicts and depicts the Paracel Islands in the territory of the Kingdom of Annam (Viet Nam).In addition, the Nguyen dynasties were the official administrative documents of the Nguyen dynasty (XVII - XVIII centuries) bearing the king's seal, a historical evidence confirming that the feudal state of Vietnam had establishing and deploying many activities of sovereignty implementation on the two archipelagos, such as sending the Hoang Sa and Bac Hai teams to the two islands to exploit marine resources and collect goods on the islands. shipwreck; cartographic measurement; erecting steles, establishing shrines, planting trees, rescuing foreign boats in distress ... These are valuable documents of the Nguyen Dynasty left for the next generation, the European version of the documents has been recognized by UNESCO. World Heritage Documentation.During the French colonial period, as a representative of Vietnam in foreign affairs under the Patenôtre Treaty (1884), the French colonial government had many specific activities to consolidate Vietnamese sovereignty over the Paracel Islands and Changsha. Since the 30s of the twentieth century, France has attached two islands to the mainland provinces, set up garrisons, built sovereignty markers, built lighthouses, meteorological stations, and radio stations on the two archipelagos. In international relations, France has repeatedly voiced opposition to the sovereignty claims of other countries over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. In October 1950, France transferred the management of the two islands to the Vietnamese nation.Vietnam's sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands was also acknowledged at the San Francisco Conference (September 1951) - a conference to resolve the issues of belonging to territories after World War II. with the participation of representatives of 51 countries. As a member of the French Union bloc, the Vietnamese national delegation representing the State of Vietnam led by the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tran Van Huu of Bao Dai Government participated in the conference.Speaking at the conference, Prime Minister Tran Van Huu reaffirmed Vietnam's sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Mr. Tran Van Huu emphasized: “... to quell the seeds of future disputes, we assert our sovereignty over the Spratly and Paracel Islands from a long time ago to Vietnam. Male". That statement was recorded in the San Francisco Conference and did not encounter any reservations or objections from the representatives of the countries attending the conference.Bao Dai's abdication projection, published on August 25, 1945, officially ended the Nguyen Dynasty and the monarchy in Vietnam and ceded the government to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The mat was composed by King Bao Dai with the help of Prince Vinh Can on the night of August 22, 1945 at Kien Trung Palace, Imperial Citadel in Hue. 2/7/1976, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Republic of South Vietnam (National Liberation Front of South Vietnam) unify into the socialist republic of Vietnam. Havodich (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sansha&oldid=1207255812"