Talk:Johnson South Reef skirmish

Old talk
Question: How the heck can the Vietnamese claim victory even tho their ships were sunk, the territories under their control was taken over, and the Chinese didn't' lose a single ship and had less casualties? The logic fails me AKFrost 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The original article by me stated that it was a clear Chinese victory. There was a later edit which said both sides claim victory. I'm ok if it is only 'claimed'. But who actually won is pretty clear.Koxinga CDF 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

I am not able to read Vietnamese. Therefore, I am unable to provide a more balanced POV from the Vietnamese perspective as I am unable to research this area. If you can help, please go ahead.

Thanks

Koxinga CDF 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What types of ships were the Viet HQs? Patrol boats? Destroyers? Sandy of the CSARs
 * Non-combat ships filled with military engineers. Also, they were ordered not to open fire and did so. This article contains lots of unsourced craps. Tmct (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * it seems unlikely any intelligent naval commander would openly confront other combat vessels with three "non-combat ships filled with military engineers". really if your version is to be believed, are three non-combat ships manned by engineers the best response the PAVN can muster at a perceived encroachment at its soveignty? PAVN's inexperience at open water combat is well established and shown by previous defeats in naval skirmishs and as its duties mainly involve coastal and river patrols in the vietnam's delta region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.15.113 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tmct is correct. The HQ-604/605 are essentially armed freighters used to deliver supplies to the islands. Even now, PAVN operates a fleet of these armed freighters for the same purpose.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this, both of Vietnamese ship in this event is old, stained armed transportation ships which was built before 1975 while the Chinese has new light cruisers. I could not believe that the Vietnamese was the force attacked first.--AM (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten
Article rewritten with new data from the other page.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PAVN ship names
I have removed names and references to the US PGM class gunboats and LST. I presume whoever added them made the reference to Navsource http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/11idx.htm.

That is incorrect. The PGM boats were given to South Vietnam and were no longer in service with the PAVN. The same pennant number were appropriated for other ships, hence the confusion.

In the event of doubts, this is a video of the actual battle by the Chinese forces. The PAVN forces are using the armed freighters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxjLjmmPs3I

Koxinga CDF (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Vietnamese soldiers were ordered to not fight back so that the Chinese navy had no reason to start a full-scale attack and take over the entire chain of islands. You know, the Vietnamese navy was much weaker than the Chinense (and it still be).
 * This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. Your video link has died.--AM (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Victory
China successfully captured Johnson South Reef, but failed to capture Collins Reef and Lansdowne Reef. Should this be considered a tactical Chinese victory and a minor strategic Vietnamese victory ? And who were the political victors? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The battle took around Johnson South Reef, which was attacked by the Vietnamese. How could it be considered a strategic Vietnamese victory because they held on to what the Chinese never attacked in the first place....Teeninvestor (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I have source(s) for your claim that Vietnamese attacked first. Reliable third-party/independent sources are needed. I could read Chinese, Vietnamese, and English. So feel free to provide sources in any of these languages.--AM (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Provided a source. There are plenty of accounts of these battles in Chinese as well as English. According to the source, the Chinese captured about 6 islands, another detail which has been incorporated. The incident started when a PLAN soldier uprooted a vietnamese flag, causing PAVN forces to fire on him. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I requested third-party/independent sources. You provide a Chinese sources and said that it is third-party/independent sources? As far as I know, Vietnamese sailors were ordered to stand and keep the flag, not to fight back because Chinese navy was superior, and they had firmly obey this order. I have so many source which was written in Vietnamese, but I would not use because I don't want to start a "according to..." war because two side have their own bais. If you provide me with good source, I would not ask any more.--AM (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Teeninvestor, since you said "There are plenty of accounts of these battles in Chinese as well as English", then can you provide us more reliable and independent sources in English instead of your single source in Chinese at this time? You surely know that each side has its own reason, Chinese sources will claim the right for China while Vietnamese sources will naturally hold their sense for Vietnam, thus we have an editing war of no end! Therefore I think we'd better use third-party (and somewhat "neutral") sources here, for example, about the "who attacked first?", this article states that "Disagreements exist over which side initiated hostilities, but a gun battle began between PRC and Vietnamese forces after the Chinese landed on Da Gac Ma.", a much more neutral account. If you can't find out more reliable and independent sources, I'll have to replace your sole biased-source by the above one. Please, be neutral here! Grenouille vert (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, your source on hawaii.edu covers the battle in like 2 sentences, not nearly enough for an article. Also, my source is on almost every Chinese website; there are versions of th

ese sources on baidu, sina, everywhere. And besides, there is no reason to discredit a source from a large well known website simply because of it's national origin. If you want to add a vietnamese interpetation, perhaps you can split the article into 2 sections: Chinese claims/Vietnamese claims.70.55.31.39 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, 70.55.31 is me. Forgot to log in. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One more time (and the last time) I request more references from independent, neutral sources, don't say "I have"/"there are plenty" again and again, and finally can't have anything valuable for us, it's really impolite, you know. And I remind you that I did not try to discredit anything, I just want to use third-party sources instead of those nationalist ones from Chinese side or Vietnamese side, you work here long enough to understand the WP:NEUTRAL, right? Grenouille vert (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, my source is a news story while your source is an english source trying to prove Vietnamese sovereignty over the Paracel islands. Which is more biased, I wonder? Wikipedia policy allows the use of sources from various points of view. Teeninvestor (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So that's your final answer? Then don't be surprised with information that I'm going to add. Regards. Grenouille vert (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind addition of info from a reliable source as long as the previous info isn't displaced.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link on youtube with footage of the battle. Here we see what seems to be a rusty boat and soldiers lined up on the ocean. Then they were fired at. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2ZrFphSmc This looks more like a protest and massacre than a battle. I too believe that it's highly unlikely that a gravely underarmed force would start a battle against battleships using machine guns. Again, we may like to disregard what our eyes see and prefer to, instead, trust our newspaper sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.185.183 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That version of the footage is distorted and is heavily edited by the uploader. Not raw footage. 67.188.179.66 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
As far as is described in the article, China only attacked Johnson South Reef, hence the name of the skirmish, otherwise this would have been called something around the lines of "Battle of Spratly Islands". Which source describes China ever attacking Collin and Lansdowne Reef? Additionally, both sides were armed combatants and both fired shots by all accounts, and is generally referred to as a battle.67.188.179.66 (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wondered about the mention of Collins and Lansdowne Reefs. As you say, the article is titled " Johnson South Reef Skirmish". However, the article is titled "Johnson South Reef Skirmish ", not battle. Where is it "generally referred to as a battle"? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

According to the independent accounts from the two American professors (Cheng Tun-jen and Tien Hung-mao) as well as the South Korean professor (Koo Min Gyo), what took place at the reef was at least a military conflict between China and Vietnam. I'm not sure that I should have described it as a battle though. 67.188.179.66 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the military action that took place, there's no reason not to call it a Chinese victory. China achieved its goal of taking the Johnson South Reef and there's not a single source that says anything about any Chinese attack on Collin or Lansdowne. 67.188.179.66 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you again raise the topic of Collins and Lansdowne Reefs - I've already agreed that 'As you say, the article is titled " Johnson South Reef Skirmish"'. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You say: there's no reason not to call it a Chinese victory - Well actually, there are a number of reasons, not the least of which is that wikipedia uses neutral language, and it's not neutral language. Also, it's a point-of-view. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In one of your edit comments you say: All sources on the skirmish describe it that way. Well actually, no they don't - not all of them. Just for the record, can you please name one neutral source that describes it as a Chinese victory? (You might also want to re-read the discussion above.) Pdfpdf (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheng Tun-jen and Tien Hung-mao (American professors) and Koo Min Gyo (Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea) as described earlier in the discussion. Both describe a naval confrontation between China and Vietnam, with the Chinese navy successfully capturing the reef by force, which seems to translate to a victory. These sources are only described briefly on this article. It's kind of hard to obtain quotes or further detail of the engagement from these sources since they don't have links. 67.188.179.66 (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, just adding this source from the Vietnamese side in to the discussion, which does have a link: Mai Thanh Hai - Vu Ngoc Khanh (14 March 2016). "Vietnamese soldiers remember 1988 Spratlys battle against Chinese"
 * Later on the same day, three other Vietnamese naval ships arrived at the site to support the defense of Co Lin and Len Dao. But Chinese forces managed to occupy Gac Ma.

67.188.179.66 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So where does that leave us? I'm unconvinced this translates to "chinese victory", and I don't see that adding "chinese victory" to the infobox or article adds anything encyclopaedic. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

True about that. In the end, it should just be left that way (w/o disputable "chinese victory" statement) 67.188.179.66 (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You and I appear to agree with each other. Now to get the other editor(s) to engage in discussion! Pdfpdf (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It has also been mistakenly referred to as the Battle of Fiery Cross Reef.
The sentence above needs some explanation. Who calls it that? Why? Why is it mistaken to refer to it as the Battle of Fiery Cross Reef?--Bruce Hall (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias introduction added, with Chinese names used instead of English names
The revision added at 03:40, 6 May 2012‎ by Yuan52335233 was full of bias. Firstly, use Chinese's versions of island names instead of English ones. Secondly, it is apparently written from a pro-China POV, without any reference. I have intended only to change the Chinese names to their English equivalences, but after reading through the changes, I realize that is not enough. What should I do? Tryst Nguyen (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As no one objects, I will edit the part.Tryst Nguyen (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. put both names Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Extremely Bias Background sections
It is extremely biased, obviously the background is written by Vietnamese's perspective, and it has no source whatsoever to back up any of the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.86.249 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

POV
The background section contains Chinese names of the reefs and has absolutely no sources backing anything up. Moreover, it paints Vietnamese forces as aggressors which are very doubtful since they had only landing/transport ships and PRC navy had frigates. As I have no time to find a Western source, I will not remove or edit anything on this section but I tagged it as no source and POV.

A proper rewriting of this section is needed for removing the tabs. And if there is only PRC source, please mention it authors clearly when you are writing.--AM (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed your tag because it's the wrong one; oh what the hell, I'll do it for you. STSC (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edit made me think that you just removed the tag entirely so I reverted it. IF it was wrong, you should replace it with a right one, not remove it. According to POV template usage notes, I am right on this addition since POV-section is only a sub-template of POV which uses specifically to point out where-the-unneutrality-is.--AM (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh? You didn't even say thank you. STSC (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * List both chinese and english names. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But your outright removal (esp. the explanation) made me take a bit of offense to it; so I could not appropriate your later fix. Maybe later, but not now.--AM (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

War?
This article repeatedly claims this skirmish was a 'war'. Anyone else finding this a bit exaggerating?

I do agree with you, we cant call a skirmish between 3 transport ships and 3 war ships a war.

Vietnam's account
I am the one who added the Vietnam account. If anyone have any question regarding to the source, translation or needing a full quote to verifying. Please let me know at vi:Thảo luận Thành viên:Conongchamchi, I will reply as soon as possible.--Conongchamchi (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Casualties and losses
Hey User:Supersaiyen312, regarding your edit. I guess you've never heard of source integrity. Secondly... To your comment "The author states from Chinese source, you even admitted in your earlier edit". No, I didn't admit that; don't place words in my mouth. Thirdly... Deny all you want. WP:PERSONAL do apply to your edit summary, and I quote: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." This is clearly your intention with that previous edit summary, since you are not commenting on the content. --Cold Season (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mackerras (p. 30) states "[...] three Vietnamese sailors dead and 74 missing, according to Vietnamese accounts."
 * Could you provide me with the citation that explicitly state that the "over 70 killed" is a Chinese figure? Because, oh... 74 missing and never found; jeez, no one other than the Chinese would conclude that they are most-likely dead (sarcasm). Notwithstanding that this figure is the conclusion of a western author as cited.


 * Like I said, it might be best to leave the "figure" thing out of it. Plus "figure" is not the same as "account" or "claimed" anyway. Otherwise, we would use "account/claim" instead. "Because, oh... 74 missing and never found; jeez, no one other than the Chinese would conclude that they are most-likely dead..." Yes, that's why I combined it with "presumed dead". The author is citing from a Chinese source, even you said "since when is a figure from chinese newspaper..." And yes, if they're "missing and never found" then most likely they are dead. Obviously. Like I said, it's best to just combine it. It fits together anyway.


 * Secondly, citing a policy is not a personal attack only I also said I confirmed by my analysis. Lastly, you said "presumed dead and killed are not the same". Then "presumed killed" and "killed" are the same then? Like I said, it's best to combine both figures. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The 3 dead and 74 missing is a figure, and that is from a Vietnamese account, so what you just said really made no sense. Over 70 dead is a conclusion of those figures in secondary sources, so they are not they same and combining them is improper.
 * I said "since when is a figure from chinese newspaper..." in reference to you putting the Chinese news article citation about which ships had sunk under "Vietnamese figures". This is your error, not mine. It has nothing to do with this issue.
 * You still haven't provided me with the citation that the over 70 killed is a Chinese figure. I will remove it per WP:INTEGRITY if you don't.
 * Did I say it was a personal attack? No, I said WP:PERSONAL applies to your comment and remains valid. You are commenting on the editor and not content. Your analysis is meaningless; also all my edits on that article is cited/verifiable (do feel free to contest it, the content and not me) and I may remove anything uncited. And you're still ongoing... --Cold Season (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well obviously, if the actual "ships had sunk" then there's no denying that the ships had sunk then, as it's most likely true. "Because, oh... 74 missing and never found" means they're most likely dead. Obviously. "Over 70 dead" is also vague as over 70 doesn't say the exact number.


 * Also WP:PERSONAL links to "personal attack" so yes, that's what you said. I still feel your WP:COI, but I don't think matters at this point anyway.


 * Finally, this whole thing started because "those edits make no sense since those are not official figures given and since when is a figure from chinese newspaper an vietnamese figure..." Yes, I agree. So just remove the "figure" part and problem solved. All I did was combine the figures. It still says the same thing, "presumed dead" and "dead" are the same thing. So it's not like it's contradicting each other anyway. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter what it links, I quoted and stated exactly what I meant. Just because you like to put words in my mouth, does not change that. Yes, it didn't matter and never did.
 * Simple matter is that the 3 deaths and 74 missing is a Vietnamese figures (as only they can know that figure) and the over 70 deaths is the conclusion that everyone makes from it. I state things "as is" from the sources, that is, to reflect the sources faithfully. This is what I do and will continue to do consistently. You may disagree with this habit, but it still remains valid to aforementioned Wikipedia guidelines. --Cold Season (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. So hopefully, the current version now reflects all the figures neutrally. Like I said, it still says the same thing. So I just combined the figures whether Vietnamese, Chinese, secondary because it still basically says the same thing technically. The figures do not contradict each other in this case.


 * The Chinese casualties, however, are more complicated I guess, so they are unknown for now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The figure is what Vietnam reported. Why are you so adamant to hide this fact? How is this even considered a POV? Also, you can't say that the sources state that the 74 missing are presumed dead, because those sources don't state that. It should not be placed in front of the ref, but behind. --Cold Season (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hypocritical much? I never said I wanted to hide the fact, so stop putting words in my mouth. Also, the Vietnam War, Iraq War, Afghanistan war, ect. all have the figures reported by their countries, most notably the United States. I only based your POV from your contribs such as this where it looks like you're editing with a WP:COI in favor of China, but like I said it does not matter at this point. Also, you're the one being too difficult here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're the one yelling COI COI COI unwarranted (hell, you didn't bother to even provide a diff on the unrelated article with a explicit explanation, but just linked me to the article history), I just follow what's stated in the source and the source state that it is a Vietnamese figure. This isn't working. I've asked for input on the content from the three relevant Wikiprojects, since you just keep reverting to commenting about me rather than the content. Also, I said you are hiding the fact and not that you wanted to hide the fact. --Cold Season (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not exactly yelling "COI", although I have a good reason to think that you have a WP:COI. I also said it does not matter at this point so the fact that you keep going on about that only re-enforces to me what I said. And yes, in reply to your recent edit, that's a compromise enough. And sure, this isn't working also. And that history shows that you are deleting anything negative about China to make it look better. And for instince, it previously said Korean victory before you changed it to "truce". But like I said, that doesn't matter at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And hiding the fact about what and what for? In that case, I can accuse you of trying to hide the Chinese figures. And OK then, that means I can re-enforce my conclusion that you have a WP:COI after all. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going on about it, because I referred to the fact that the sources state it was a Vietnamese account when I said how this could be considered POV (not my fault that you made the link to yourself yelling COI, I just respond). To your argument in support of this "COI", the truce is cited to a Korean academic source in that article while anything previously was not cited. So you have a strong basis there, not.
 * I can't answer why you are hiding the mention that it is a Vietnamese figure. I'm not hiding the "Chinese figures", just provide me a reliable secondary source (as asked) and I will gladly accept it (since I don't even know how the mention of this can be considered a POV). --Cold Season (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, your edits on that article and similar like it looks like you have a WP:COI. Again, I also said it did not matter at this point, so the fact that you are still on that still re-enforces to me what I said even more. I also meant Chinese casualties. I look at "figure" and "claim" as different things. So the fact that you keep removing the Chinese casualties here and your edits in similar articles makes it look like you have a POV and WP:COI to me. Again, I said that it didn't matter now, so why are you still going on about it? This is just going in circles at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I remove what's uncited (your basis of what "looks" like COI about me to you), I leave alone what's reliably cited. You remove what's reliably cited (e.g. that the numbers are a Vietnamese figure). --Cold Season (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not only that article, but most articles you edit where you POV-push your defense of China. Again, I said it does not matter at this point, so the fact that you're still on that still re-enforces to me what I said even more. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep accusing me of it over and over (with no diff and explanation, so I can defend myself), then tell me to stop going on about it (while you do not) and that it does not matter, expecting me to take it. As if I deserve this treatment (I tried... but I take it back, this is a personal attack and just uncivil bad faith on your part). What's wrong with this picture? I have pointed out your hypocrisy above. And nice, it seems my comments in regards of the content gets evaded over and over in contrast. --Cold Season (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, this is going around in circles now. Yes, you've already said that. Linking to a policy is not a personal attack. Even you said "Yes, it didn't matter and never did"... but then you bring it up again 4 paragraphs later. The fact that you are still on that still re-enforces to me what I said even more. My mind is already made up on that, there is no point trying to change it. Like I said, it doesn't matter. It looks like we already reached a compromise in regards to content. We're just about done here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claim that this content dispute is over is an attempt to hide it, because it's not over. Also stop trying to hide cited information which state that these are Vietnamese-given figures as stated by the source. Also stop hiding my comments on this talk page by refracting this discussion (which you also did in the past; and I quote you during your sock unblock request: " [... I want to say sorry for deleting other editors comments (I stopped after the 1st warning). I've changed.]". I guess that statement was not true, as you repeated this behavior of removing talkpage comments fairly recently and on this talkpage. You are hiding opposing comments here/other places and hiding cited information, while claiming that this content discussion is over when it's not. This is unacceptable. --Cold Season (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just like the ships sunk are from Chinese newspapers and they were already there anyway. Of course they are Vietnamese-given figures and I didn't try to hide it obviously. Again, it doesn't matter who says it as long as they are not contradicting each other and are still consistent. Dead and presumed dead are the same thing. Just like Vietnam War, Iraq War, Afghanistan war, ect. all have the figures reported by their countries. And we already reached a compromise, so it is over for now. There is no reason to unnecessarily try to drag it out for no reason. I am allowed to remove your off topic personal attacks, especially since you have no intention of responding to my question about it; why does it matter here? Trying to use my old blocks is not helping you here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You did remove that it was a Vietnamese figure a few times . Yes, this dispute is over now with your edit here, which is what I wanted (that it's a Vitnamese figure). Anyway, my comment (that you removed) was not a personal attack, I merely stated that you were given a second chance from a block for socking , which is true, highlighting the irony of you assuming bad faith on another editor right from the start. It's only offtopic if hadn't you moved this talk away from being strictly a content discussion. --Cold Season (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Read your talk page. I only removed it because you said, "since when is a figure from chinese newspaper an vietnamese figure" so I assumed that was the problem. So then, what is the problem now really? And I said I don't care about your conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter, but then you still bring it up 5 paragraphs later and got stuck on it since then. Yes, I was given a second chance for socking, and so has other people. That is off topic. This conversation is over, or still there still a problem? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johnson South Reef Skirmish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203095105/http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/terms.html to http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/terms.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402164512/http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/explore/todd.html to http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/explore/todd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Formatting error?
There appears to be a large formatting error on the infobox of the page being massive and obstructing a great deal of the page, I am unsure how to fix it though, or for that matter if it is an error on my end. HistoricalSimon (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

1988 Spratly conflict
Info on both sides aren't accurate. Just one main point is which can explicitly explain the outcome of this incident. The defense ministry of Vietnam has ordered their soldiers not to shoot back or faced harsh discipline. Therefore there were only one injury on the count from the Chinese is 100% correct. 204.124.13.151 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)