Talk:Johnson South Reef skirmish

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: Article rewritten with new data from the other page.
Koxinga CDF (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Victory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: March 2018

message: 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)
thread_title: It has also been mistakenly referred to as the Battle of Fiery Cross Reef.

message: 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)
replies: text: As no one objects, I will edit the part.Tryst Nguyen (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. put both names Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias introduction added, with Chinese names used instead of English names 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extremely Bias Background sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  template usage notes, I am right on this addition since  is only a sub-template of  which uses specifically to point out where-the-unneutrality-is.--AM (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh? You didn't even say thank you. STSC (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

text: List both chinese and english names. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vietnam's account 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting error?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  1988 Spratly conflict