Talk:Battle of the Paracel Islands

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 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the Vietnamese claiming victory anywhere. The Vietnamese government that took over a year later was a different one. DHN 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: As noted above, some problems with basic facts on the page. Plenty of grammatical and spelling errors ("continuing thru") and awkward expressions. Some terms need to be made consistent --Sumple (Talk) 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup notice 

message: I've begun editing this entry, starting today with the Historical Background section. I've condensed it greatly, believing that most of the previously-included information rightly belongs in the general Paracel Islands entry rather than here. I've attempted to spruce up the vocabulary and narrative flow, and maintain a NPOV. I will try to edit the other sections soon. Comments are welcome! SteveStrummer (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your hard work! DHN (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Background 

message: I request an administrator to change this article's name to "Battle of the Paracel Islands". Originally this article was titled "Battle of Hoang Sa", using the Vietnamese form of the name. It's been changed to the English form (which seems only fair, since this is an English page), but unfortunately the contributor settled for "Battle of Paracel", an incorrect form of the name. "Paracel" is not the name of any island, nor is it used to denote the archipelago as a whole. The full descriptive name "Paracel Islands" is the definitive form. The simple plural "The Paracels" is used usually (though not necessarily) only after context has been established: note how all substantive maps and atlases denote the area as "(the) Paracel Islands", and use "The Paracels" only in subsequent text. Currently there are four redirecting pages to this article: "Battle of the Paracel Islands", "Battle of the Paracels", "Battle of Xisha", "Battle of the Xishas", and "Battle of Hoang Sa". The requested name change requires an administrator because the requested name is already in use. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm going to go ahead and do it right now. I doubt there will be objections. Keep up the good work! El_C 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Through the reading, what I felt was that Vietnamese firing and firing and firing and the Chinese only counter-fired afterward. And the article left me with the impression that the Chinese were the underdogs and suddenly the result was that the Chinese won and took over the whole islands. No offense but this article sounds like a Vietnamese patriotic propaganda material.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true. Not only that, and in fact, in 1958 North Vietnam (which later unified Vietnam and becomes the current Vietnam) sent a diplomatic note to China acknowledges and approves the declaration made by China defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly and Paracel Islands. The diplomatic note of North Vietnam's prime minister, Phamreco Van Dong, stated that "We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of China fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision.". But the original historic background section sounds like that the islands belonged to Vietnam and that China suddenly took over the islands, which is completely biased. --173.206.61.152 (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle badly written? 

message: It appears that the Vietnamese did fire at the Chinese side first. Also, they had bigger and better equiped war ships.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.109.194 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Later comment

message: The writer of this version tries to rewrite history by distoring many facts which are not relevant to the battle at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.62.104 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   My comment   

message: It seems users have been spamming the "citation needed" template in a matter that's not what it's for. A  tag at the top of the page is sufficient enough, and having  placed at the end of every second sentence is blatant WP:POINT. When using templates like these, it would be preferable if users actually read the documentation regarding template usage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:POINT]]-y spamming of {{tl|cn}} 

message: Hi, I have added the coords for these islands. (27.34.39.97 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Added

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Paracel Islands. 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/20070427051450/http://www.vietnamexodus.org:80/vne/vnenews/conghambannuoc/conghambannuoc.htm to http://www.vietnamexodus.org/vne/vnenews/conghambannuoc/conghambannuoc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160801074649/https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b5ec8a0-cc48-4d9b-b558-a4f1cf92e7b8/The1974ParacelsSeaBattle.aspx to https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b5ec8a0-cc48-4d9b-b558-a4f1cf92e7b8/The1974ParacelsSeaBattle.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506213733/http://www.xuquang.com:80/dialinhnk/hsrinh.html to http://www.xuquang.com/dialinhnk/hsrinh.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Kindly verify if the Philippines has a claim in the Paracel Islands.
The article implies that the country is included in the disputing including this unrelated islands.
Kindly edit for brevity as some readers might be mistaken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.56.250 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine Claim 

message: this is a video of the U.s. advisor and South Vietnamese captured in the battle and released in hong kong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMNELhs-Lj4  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Us advisor and South Vietnamese released in hong kong 

message: http://visiblecontents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/gerald-emil-kosh.htmlMan74 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  more information about the American Gerald Emil Kosh captured in the battle 

message: The entry 
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands 
 
Has the paragraph:
China first asserted sovereignty in the modern sense to the South China Sea’s islands when it formally objected[citation needed] to France’s efforts to incorporate them into French Indochina during the Sino-French War (1884–1885). Initially, France recognized Qing China's sovereignty[citation needed] over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos, in exchange for Chinese recognition of Vietnam as a French territory. Chinese maps since then have consistently shown China’s claims, first as a solid and then as a dashed line. 
 
No source has been cited for the claims that France had given the Islands to China. No proof of Chinese maps with the Islands had been provided. 
 
I supplied two wiki entries (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hu%E1%BA%BF_(1884), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tientsin_Accord) which contradicted the claims and the editor said that I attempted to change history and the sources were unreliable !
 
"4 hours ago 
 
rvt WP:OR, please summarize information from reliable secondary sources
 
 Dan Cherek"
 
 
I then put the remark "unsubstantiated claims" after the claims in that paragraph and I got a message from ClueBot:
Edit 
 
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Battle of the Paracel Islands
 
---->
So Wiki allow unsubstantiated claims with no citation. Attempts to ask for source or to supply sources to the contrary was undone.
Tonytran2015 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tony. I took a quick look at your edits, and see that you cited wikipedia articles as supporting sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source -- see WP:IRS and WP:TERTIARY. Sources outside of WP which are cited in those articles may be useful to cite here as well in support of your assertions -- I've only glanced at those articles and haven't looked at those sources, and I'm also not a topical expert -- I don't know enough at present to have an opinion about that. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm no expert here, but it seems to me that the unsupported para at issue is only there to support the unsupported assertion ending the preceding paragraph saying, "the archipelago’s ownership has been in dispute since the early 20th century.", and that assertion only refers to the Paracels because of the Sino-French War (involving territorial disputes between Vietnam and China, which the French became involved in because they promised Vietnam military protection against China in the Treaty of Saigon (1874)) -- relying to justify mention here on an unstated (and, of course, unsupported) presumption that the government of Vietnam considered in 1874 that Vietnam owned the Paracels. This article has a Notes section, and I suggest that the paragraph at issue be stricken and replaced by a note following the conclusion of the preceding paragraph, with that note saying something to the effect of what I just said and citing supporting sources. That other article cites plenty of sources relating to how the French got dragged in (mainly various page ranges of this book, and there's more in this article -- how that came about seems pretty messy). I haven't looked for support of the presumption that, in 1874, VN considered the Paracels were Vietnamese territory. Perhaps, as you seem so interested in this, you can help resolve some of this by identifying sources to clarify and support some of this. Altrnatively, perhaps the assertion saying, "the archipelago’s ownership has been in dispute since the early 20th century." should be stricken unless it can be supported. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

text: As Wikipedia is by its own declaration not a reliable source, you should not trust it. At best, it contains paraphrasings by untrusted editors of information in supporting sources which they cite. Where trust is an issue, you should examine the supporting sources cited. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biasedness of contents 

message: This edit caught my eye. It strikes me that usage of both current naming and naming in timeline context may be confusing, may not be consistent across the article, and may not be stable in the WP environment of drive-by edits. "Current" is subject to change, so I'm thinking that consistent naming in timeline context is probably better, with clarification and first-usage wikilinks  where appropriate. Perhaps info, probably in a higher-WP:SS level article (e.g. here) on name changes over time would be useful. Discussion? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Island naming in the article. 

message: There is a discrepancy in the number of ships on the Chinese side. In the strength of the belligerents, you have two(2) minesweepers (#271 and #274), then under the Balance of Force, you have four(4) (#389 and #396 added). Then on the Chinese sub chasers, in the strength of belligerents, their hull numbers are 389 and 396, but in Balance of Force, the hull numbers are 281 and 282. 2601:2C5:4700:6D0:4D4E:1627:45C6:760D (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese ship discrepancy