Talk:Pratas Island

message: should an e-mail address be in the article as a reference? Jjjsixsix 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I do think responding to this five years after it's asked is slightly silly, but the answer is still no. Sven Manguard Talk 05:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: Much of the content is copied from http://vm.nthu.edu.tw. I'm too lazy to do anything about it, of course, but I'm posting that.
207.224.49.221 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied Content 

message: Both the administrating state (ROC) and the disputing state (PRC) agree that these islands are called the Dongsha Islands. Even before this romanization, they agreed to call it Tung-sha. So, why doesn't our article treat it as normal Chinese territory to which our WP:PINYIN naming conventions apply? A google search for both "Pratas islands" and "Dongsha islands" (even with the former getting a boost by including pre-pinyin sources for which the opposing name Tung sha is not counted) shows the latter is 4x more common. I was kind of confused when I came about this article, because it's talked about in the context of the South China Sea, where there are non-Chinese claimants who have non-Chinese names for the islands. The current title is misleading because it implies there is some non-Chinese claimant. I don't think a move to "Dongsha" would be controversial with the reasoning I presented above, so I don't think there's a need to file a formal move request. But, I will leave some time for people to respond and discuss before I move. Shrigley (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. --Danielinblue (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree with you too. --2.245.105.0 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Dongsha? 

message: I have modified external links on Pratas Islands. 
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215083030/http://www.laserbase.com.tw:80/bq9p/qth.htm to http://www.laserbase.com.tw/bq9p/qth.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://issuu.com/hnsa/docs/ss-242_bluegill_part2?mode=a_p
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313174059/http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.travel3_3.htm to http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.travel3_3.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.laserbase.com.tw/bq9p/qth.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313174002/http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.travel3.htm to http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.travel3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313174051/http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.travel3_2.htm to http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.travel3_2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313174059/http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.travel3_3.htm to http://vm.nthu.edu.tw/southsea/english.travel3_3.htm
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: These are islands are both officially claimed and controlled as sovereign national territories of the Republic of China (Taiwan), the People's Republic of China's attempted claim is officially and legally illegitimate and not recognized by the United Nations or any other country in the world, especially since the P.R. of China officially and effectively lost their island claims in the United Nations Hague Tribunal ruling: 
1.) https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/china-loses-south-china-sea-claim-in-ruling-at-the-hague/news-story/6ac8cf62db5bd4f3be2035dbe51e4763?nk=2ce8b8dd5d2629f7c0c101cfcea06b2d-1524882713</br>
2.) http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-south-china-sea-ruling-20160712-snap-story.html</br>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.89.17.127 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? (There's nothing in the article that disagrees with what you and your quoted sources say.) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "especially since the P.R. of China officially and effectively lost their island claims in the United Nations Hague Tribunal ruling" if you bother to read the ruling, the first paragraph explicitly said the ruling does not rule on nor have the power to rule on the question of sovereignty of said island. the Pratas was not even cover in that case. this is an unrelated island, it seem you are stupid. furthermore the UN does not recognize Taiwan as a country and so all Taiwan territory is considered PRC territory... you can thank the US for that since they back PRC in order to get PRC to help destabilized USSR in the 70s. 58.182.210.94 (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Are you drunk? The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan and Kosovo, they are considered a part of China and Serbia respectively. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:31BE:2887:901A:FE04 (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: People's Republic of China (PRC)'s claim to these islands are illegitimate

message: The book  has an extensive list of locations in China including Huaping Islet (listed as Pinnacle Island) and other very minor islands, but seemingly does not include Pratas Island. What explains this? Islands were particularly important from an international trade perspective.  Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereignty in the Early 20th Century