Talk:Paracel Islands

China, France, Vietnam and treaties
This edit caught my eye. II haven't been able to access the cited supporting source and without seeing that have no dispute with the edit, but either I am especially dense this morning or the edited paragraph is confusing. That [aragraph now reads:

I don't see how treaties with China would give the French "effective control" of an area "nominally ruled" by Vietnam. I've added a clarify inline tag;. Maybe something like "but effectively controlled by China" needs to be added and perhaps "nominally ruled" needs clarification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Lying to you, since when did China control the Paracels??? Hoang Sa has been the territory of Vietnam since before the Nguyen Dynasty. Where are the historical evidences along with the relics of China's exercise of sovereignty over the sea and islands??? When the French invaded and occupied Dai Nam they managed it very well and controlled it very effectively, They built research stations, lighthouses and many things on the island, the French flag was planted on the island in 1933, France annexed the whole island. the Paracel Islands into French Territory, and during the Qing Dynasty, the southernmost island was Hainan Island, the Franco-Qing treaty did not mention China's rights and claims to the Paracels, the Republic of China had take advantage of this overthrew Japan to monopolize the East Sea and created an illegal 11-dash line in the South China Sea in 1947, After the People's Republic of China came to power, they didn't realize this and they blatantly fabricated it to create the 9th line after 50 years PhamHoangThạch (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In October 1956, the Republic of China Navy captured Itu Aba Island. Taking advantage of the opportunity, the People's Republic of China immediately jumped in to occupy Woody Island. until 1974 by invasive measures, they annexed the eastern Paracel Islands until war between South Vietnam and China occurred due to Chinese aggression, Before 1956, China had no de facto control over the Paracels and your claim that China controlled effectively is a lie whereas the Paracels were part of the State of Vietnam when it was a French colony and in fact Vietnam and France ruled the Paracels effectively, not nominally https://www.camau.gov.vn/wps/portal/?1dmy&page=trangchitiet&urile=wcm%3Apath%3A/camaulibrary/camauofsite/gioithieu/chuyende/biendaoquehuong/tulieuvanban/sdfgaetwet PhamHoangThạch (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

North Vietnam never highly appreciated the South Vietnamese troops, this is complete nonsense
North Vietnam never highly appreciated the South Vietnamese troops, this is complete nonsense 37.54.230.242 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? What specific part of the article does this refer to? Can you cite supporting sources, or is this your unsupported opinion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Names in other languages in the lede
The current version of the lede gives the name most widely used in western countries (Paracel Islands) as well as native names used by participants in the sovereignty dispute (PRC, ROC, Vietnam). I see that some editors are trying to change this; please kindly discuss any changes and rationale here in order to avoid WP:EDITWAR. AristippusSer (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Japan in 1939
Here, I have reverted what I assume to be a good faith edit by. The edit would have reworded an article from "invaded the islands in 1939 on the pretext of their being a Chinese territory" to "invaded the islands and declared them a Chinese territory" citing a source containiing the following "4 April 1939: Paracels. Japanese troops invade the Paracels. Japan claims the islands were Chinese territory and that Japan is at war with China. Japan then declares the islands as a Japanese Protectorate." I understand the meaning of that snippet from the cited source to be that (1) Japan was at war with China at the time, (2) Japan invaded the islands (3) Japan explained this invasion in some way that the source does not describe by stating that it was their official position that the islands were the territory of a country with which they were at war. The source then goes on to say that Japan declared the islands a Japanese protectorate after the invasion.

The problem I have with the wording, "invaded the islands and declared them a Chinese territory" is that it can be read that Japan (1) invaded the islands and (2 -- sometime after the invasion) declared them to be Chinese territory. That is contrary to my reading of the source, which is that Japan saw the islands as Chinese territory prior to the invasion, then invaded the islands and wrested control of them from China, then declared them to be a Japanese protectorate. I think that the previous wording that I have restored better expresses that understanding.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable source?
So yesterday I found a pretty striking claim:

I've checked the first citation, and as far as I'm concerned this source largely parroted the Chinese position and as such might not satisfy WP:NPOV. The segment itself was sourced from page 405, which cite its source as "China's Indisputable Sovereignty over the Xisha and Nansha Islands. DOCUMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 3 (1980) [hereinafter DOCUMENT OF THE MINISTRY].". For now I've been unable to access this document.

I'd also love to know where The Straits Times get its info from and if they've affirmed or discarded that in later articles. Terstegeniguess (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you do not understand the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Reputable secondary or tertiary sources are preferred to primary sources. All the sources are reputable as far as I personally can ascertain. The Strait Times is a Newspaper of Record and hosted by a nation independent of the dispute. If you wish to do your own research on the primary sources or The Strait Times reporting on issue since 2018 this can be done. If you find inconsistency in the former or later you may wish to submit this to an academic peer reviewed process or other source for original research. If you identified by such research a Strait Times correction statement relevant to its report or an academic retraction/analysis statement of the other sources you should state this factually in the article. (Happy to declare potential COI here in that I was in Singapore at time of its 50 year celebrations, by shear coincidence had a perfect grandstand seat to view the firework display and have intermittently read the Strait Times so know they published such corrections at time of article. I have no interest in reviewing all the reputable secondary and tertiary sources that exist on the dispute) ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Having had my attention brought to article I have tried to tidy up at least the academic sources that document history before 2000 odd. I added in for example the coincidence that when Japanese traders tried to exploit guano this issue became politically charged in China around 1909. Academic analysis exists why over the next few decades various countries did not always protest formally. On specific point WP:NPOV appears to be satisfied. ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)