Talk:Sansha

message: There is no official report of the establishment of this city. There were only a bunch of postings on all kinds of web sites. The Viet Nam protest does exist, but they were just protesting based on an internet rumor. --Mongol (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I've added lend may shed more light on the subject. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you provided only proves that there are some reports of this establishment, while those reports are all based on an unnamed official of another city in Hainan province. That's not reliable at all. --Mongol (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is a rumor 

message: This article is not about the disputes on the islands; readers come to this article to read about the structure of a Chinese county, and they can always read about the disputes in the individual articles on the islands. I propose to shorten the disputants' details in this section and remove the flags. Maybe a mention of who the claimants are and what they're controlling should be enough. STSC (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The subdivisions 

message: Sansha was established by the PRC, not Vietnam.  Even when hovering over the reference in the first line of this article, it says it was established by China...blatant mistake.  I'm unsure of how to edit articles on Wikipedia so please, someone with more knowledge, take care of it.
63.239.65.11 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sansha was established by China, not Vietnam 

message: Why do people want to add (and also remove) a section on "Ancient Cartography"? Fleetham (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why people want to add that section. Ancient cartography has nothing to do with a prefecture-level city that was established a few weeks ago. See also User talk:Vnlstar - the person who began this hubbub has had a history of copy-pasting text from one place to another since July 2011. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient cartography section 

message: "Before the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea's (UNCLOS III) addendums to the Law of the Sea, the Central government had always maintained a staggering claim to nearly 3.5 million km2 in maritime area of the South China Sea" <-- I need source, where, when ??? If not, I will remove. Alphama (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed these sentences temporarily because of no source. If the sources are existed, please recover and add them to the article, thank. ! Alphama (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Source about this sentence

message: I see someone created Template:Sansha the same day the PRC created Sansha.  Wikipedia is not an arm of the PRC and its navigation and administrative structures are accordingly distinct.  I propose that this Template be deleted as it cannot be applied to the many articles it is in a neutral way, unless Templates are also applied that reflect the administrative claims of others.  It seems to me that the only reason this Template is applied to, say, James Shoal, and no PRC administrative region template is applied to Taiwan, which are of the same status as far as Beijing is concerned, is that the Wikipedia community pays more attention to the latter sort of article and would accordingly refuse to implement the PRC's administrative structure over disputed territory without discussion.  That there is a problem here should be obvious from the fact the Template is supposedly about Chinese territory yet is full of English names (a reflection, of course, of the fact that the Chinese names are disputed and a renaming would be challenged).  The Template could be applied to THIS article, like one is to Taiwan_Province,_People's_Republic_of_China, but I do not believe it should be applied to geographic areas where there is only one article (that has to serve everyone, unlike Taiwan/Taiwan province where each jurisdiction claimant has its "own" article).--Brian Dell (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a right place to discuss about templates. Please use the template's Talk page. Just for your information: a "navigation template" does not bear any political implication; it's simply a tool for easy navigation of related articles. STSC (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The creation of this article and the creation of the Template are associated.  Why was this template not created before the PRC made a political move if there are no political implications?  It is not just a "navigation template" when the only relation between the articles as far as the template is concerned is that the PRC has declared a political entity that relates them.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sansha Template 

message: As Sansha is known to be part of the currently controversial South China Sea spate (See, "China's hawks gaining sway in South China sea dispute" Reuters. Jul 25, 2012 ) I think citations are needed for any content addition that touchs on topics close to the controversy (e.g. the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). A recent edit to this page stated that "citation needed" tags should remain for months, but I think the sensitivity of the South China Sea issue means that anything to do with that dispute needs to be cited immediately. Fleetham (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't just tag and delete within half an hour as you did to the article. STSC (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: You certainly don't tag and promptly remove. However, I wouldn't object if you tagged (with the current month) and commented out immediately. GotR Talk 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial issue needs citations 

message: Why is John McCain quoted in the article? He's not on the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations (see Committee Assignments of the 112th Congress). I'm afraid his comments may be perceived to reflect the view if the US government or the Senate. Fleetham (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Although he does sit on Armed Services and not Foreign Relations, this is not Syria or Iran, where he takes a more openly assertive stance than does the Obama Administration, so improperly "reflecting the view of the US government" isn't a concern. GotR Talk 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: John McCain quote

message: this should be under the Chinese portal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.138.20 (talk • contribs) 
:Already done. GotR Talk 21:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:China 

message: I'm interested in finding out if the Xisha, Nansha and Zhongsha now have been upgraded to county-level districts (3rd level) or still remain as township. Apparently the Chinese government websites do not have information on this. STSC (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Township or County? 

message: I refer to a recent edit,"no actual city is under construction"...
In Chinese, the Sansha "city" is a term for a political entity which does not necessary mean a city literally; "Sansha City" can just be islands and reefs. That's why we preferred "Sansha" to "Sansha City" in English as it could be confusing. STSC (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems that we're in agreement. But as some major news outlets don't simply say "Sansha" instead referring to "China's new city on disputed island" and  "China's newest city", I think there's reason to make explicit something that may appear obvious. Fleetham (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious to you or I, that is. Fleetham (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant "we" the editors preferred "Sansha" for this article. I don't blame the English press because they could only translate "市" as "city". STSC (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but I still think there's a strong case to be made for including the fact that Sansha becoming a city does not mean there's construction of a city. Fleetham (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there's a need for this, please don't do it in the lead; maybe a new section can be created to clarify the term "city" in the "Sansha City".  STSC (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The clarification would be helpful for the average readers who have no knowledge in Chinese language. This sort of specific information does require a separate section for it. According to the MOS, the lead as it is already looks too long relatively to the body of the article. That's the reason for not including it in the lead.  STSC (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my argument is that the people who would be helped by this are not likely to read past the lead. I advocate inclusion not for people who wonder if a city is being built but to ensure that idea isn't fostered. And I'm not sure if there are hard and fast rules about the ratio of lead length to article. I think a six word sentence isn't too much to add, and if you're worried about length, why not remove the bit about Woody island being supplied from the mainland? That surely is the least important thing mentioned in the lead currently. Fleetham (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with this assessment. Also fits in with other 市 (e.g. Hulunbuir) that may be colossal in area but are minimal in terms of urban area percentage. GotR Talk 16:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

text:  I suppose a few words addition would be ok. Yes, some of the Woody Island bit should be moved from the lead. STSC (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No actual city is under construction 

message: See this thread at ANI. GotR Talk 15:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea 

message: does eez mean anything?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.139.130 (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  eez 

message: I don't really care about the territorial dispute but I was confused by the term "city" as it's used here. After following the link to Prefecture-level city I see that it's really an administrative designation. A sentence about this might help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a "real" city? 

message: The following line should read as any other city-page does, with the ownership/sovereignty stated properley, not under a term that is vauge. Bailiwick should be replaced with 'sovereignty', or indeed the introduction re-worded as the line sounds strait out of a NATO/western propaganda notebook of double speak, not very wikipedia is it?. Or maybe somone could please give me a propper definition of the usage in this case.
'Sansha is a prefecture within the bailiwick of the People's Republic of China's Hainan province'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.35.43 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A "bailiwick" is the jurisdictional area of a sheriff. It is not vague or double-speak, it has a precise definition. The term is used in the UK, but not in the US, where the sheriff's jurisdiction corresponds to a county, so that term is used instead. China may or may not have sheriffs but without a reference I'm going to remove this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction bias 

message: I put two fact lables in this article because it needs to be improved the quality. Why does Lieutenant of Melkor revert my edits? Alphama (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the matter is many of your contributions are simply adding tags of no value to statements that are nowhere near patently absurd or are numerical; that's the only time I add  tags. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have rights to contribute anything I want and be sure that quality of article can be improved. Am I right? Alphama (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact 

message: I can't believe my eyes.Hoang Sa, Truong Sa of China while Viet Nam (Nguyen dynasty) controlled it from 17th-18th century.Conmplete set of Thien nam tu chi lo do thu of Do Ba,tu Cong Dao (1686), Phu bien tap luc of Le Quy Don (1776), Lich trieu hien chuong loai chi of Phan Huy Chu (1821), Hoang Viet nhat thong Du dia chi of Le Quang Dinh (1833), Dai Nam thuc luc tien bien (1844-1848); Dai Nam thuc luc chinh bien (1844-1848), Viet su cuong giam khao luoc (1876), Dai Nam nhat thong chi (1882); Du đia chi Kham đinh Dai Nam Hoi dien su le (1910); Hai ngoai ky su (năm 1696) of monk China Thich Dai San; Quoc trieu chinh bien toat yeu (1910), An Nam đai quoc hoa do of bishop of france Louis Taberd, Dai Nam nhat thong toan do (official map of  Minh Mang dynasty).Philipe Vandemaelen's World Atlas, published in 1827, in Belgium, which depicts and depicts the Paracel Islands in the territory of the Kingdom of Annam (Viet Nam).In addition, the Nguyen dynasties were the official administrative documents of the Nguyen dynasty (XVII - XVIII centuries) bearing the king's seal, a historical evidence confirming that the feudal state of Vietnam had establishing and deploying many activities of sovereignty implementation on the two archipelagos, such as sending the Hoang Sa and Bac Hai teams to the two islands to exploit marine resources and collect goods on the islands. shipwreck; cartographic measurement; erecting steles, establishing shrines, planting trees, rescuing foreign boats in distress ... These are valuable documents of the Nguyen Dynasty left for the next generation, the European version of the documents has been recognized by UNESCO. World Heritage Documentation.During the French colonial period, as a representative of Vietnam in foreign affairs under the Patenôtre Treaty (1884), the French colonial government had many specific activities to consolidate Vietnamese sovereignty over the Paracel Islands and Changsha. Since the 30s of the twentieth century, France has attached two islands to the mainland provinces, set up garrisons, built sovereignty markers, built lighthouses, meteorological stations, and radio stations on the two archipelagos. In international relations, France has repeatedly voiced opposition to the sovereignty claims of other countries over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. In October 1950, France transferred the management of the two islands to the Vietnamese nation.Vietnam's sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands was also acknowledged at the San Francisco Conference (September 1951) - a conference to resolve the issues of belonging to territories after World War II. with the participation of representatives of 51 countries. As a member of the French Union bloc, the Vietnamese national delegation representing the State of Vietnam led by the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tran Van Huu of Bao Dai Government participated in the conference.Speaking at the conference, Prime Minister Tran Van Huu reaffirmed Vietnam's sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Mr. Tran Van Huu emphasized: “... to quell the seeds of future disputes, we assert our sovereignty over the Spratly and Paracel Islands from a long time ago to Vietnam. Male". That statement was recorded in the San Francisco Conference and did not encounter any reservations or objections from the representatives of the countries attending the conference.Bao Dai's abdication projection, published on August 25, 1945, officially ended the Nguyen Dynasty and the monarchy in Vietnam and ceded the government to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The mat was composed by King Bao Dai with the help of Prince Vinh Can on the night of August 22, 1945 at Kien Trung Palace, Imperial Citadel in Hue.
2/7/1976, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Republic of South Vietnam (National Liberation Front of South Vietnam) unify into the socialist republic of Vietnam.
Havodich (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoang Sa, Truong Sa are not chinese