Talk:Paracel Islands

North Vietnam never highly appreciated the South Vietnamese troops, this is complete nonsense

North Vietnam never highly appreciated the South Vietnamese troops, this is complete nonsense 37.54.230.242 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh? What specific part of the article does this refer to? Can you cite supporting sources, or is this your unsupported opinion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Names in other languages in the lede

The current version of the lede gives the name most widely used in western countries (Paracel Islands) as well as native names used by participants in the sovereignty dispute (PRC, ROC, Vietnam). I see that some editors are trying to change this; please kindly discuss any changes and rationale here in order to avoid WP:EDITWAR. AristippusSer (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Japan in 1939

Here, I have reverted what I assume to be a good faith edit by @Malan Fun:. The edit would have reworded an article from

invaded the islands in 1939 on the pretext of their being a Chinese territory

to

invaded the islands and declared them a Chinese territory

citing a source containiing the following

4 April 1939: Paracels. Japanese troops invade the Paracels. Japan claims the islands were Chinese territory and that Japan is at war with China. Japan then declares the islands as a Japanese Protectorate.

I understand the meaning of that snippet from the cited source to be that (1) Japan was at war with China at the time, (2) Japan invaded the islands (3) Japan explained this invasion in some way that the source does not describe by stating that it was their official position that the islands were the territory of a country with which they were at war. The source then goes on to say that Japan declared the islands a Japanese protectorate after the invasion.

The problem I have with the wording, "invaded the islands and declared them a Chinese territory" is that it can be read that Japan (1) invaded the islands and (2 -- sometime after the invasion) declared them to be Chinese territory. That is contrary to my reading of the source, which is that Japan saw the islands as Chinese territory prior to the invasion, then invaded the islands and wrested control of them from China, then declared them to be a Japanese protectorate. I think that the previous wording that I have restored better expresses that understanding.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

So yesterday I found a pretty striking claim:

In 1909, Zhang Renjun (Chinese: 張人駿), the Viceroy of Liangguang, ordered Guangdong Fleet Admiral Li Zhun (李準) to sail to the Paracel Islands. In June, with over 170 sailors in three warships named Fubo (伏波號), Guangjin (廣金號) and Shenhang (琛航號), he inspected 15 islands, erected stone tablets engraved with each island's name, raised China's flag and fired cannons to declare the islands "sacred territory of China", which France did not protest. In 1910, the Qing government decided to invite Chinese merchants to contract for the administration of the development affairs of the South China Sea islands, and demanded that officials shall provide protection and maintenance in order to highlight Chinese territory and protect its titles and interests.

I've checked the first citation, and as far as I'm concerned this source largely parroted the Chinese position and as such might not satisfy WP:NPOV. The segment itself was sourced from page 405, which cite its source as "China's Indisputable Sovereignty over the Xisha and Nansha Islands. DOCUMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 3 (1980) [hereinafter DOCUMENT OF THE MINISTRY].". For now I've been unable to access this document.

I'd also love to know where The Straits Times get its info from and if they've affirmed or discarded that in later articles.

Terstegeniguess (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you do not understand the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Reputable secondary or tertiary sources are preferred to primary sources. All the sources are reputable as far as I personally can ascertain. The Strait Times is a Newspaper of Record and hosted by a nation independent of the dispute. If you wish to do your own research on the primary sources or The Strait Times reporting on issue since 2018 this can be done. If you find inconsistency in the former or later you may wish to submit this to an academic peer reviewed process or other source for original research. If you identified by such research a Strait Times correction statement relevant to its report or an academic retraction/analysis statement of the other sources you should state this factually in the article. (Happy to declare potential COI here in that I was in Singapore at time of its 50 year celebrations, by shear coincidence had a perfect grandstand seat to view the firework display and have intermittently read the Strait Times so know they published such corrections at time of article. I have no interest in reviewing all the reputable secondary and tertiary sources that exist on the dispute) ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Having had my attention brought to article I have tried to tidy up at least the academic sources that document history before 2000 odd. I added in for example the coincidence that when Japanese traders tried to exploit guano this issue became politically charged in China around 1909. Academic analysis exists why over the next few decades various countries did not always protest formally. On specific point WP:NPOV appears to be satisfied. ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Treaty of Tientsin etc

I have restored the paragraph as this treaty is well described (and hated by China) in other sources. At the moment my assumption is that the reason unverified reference found is that the web version of thesis is incomplete. I have started the necessary web check of other sources before such drastic action as undertaken by another verifier ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes confirmed likely puppet regime circumstances - another source for example confirmed French naval domination after its ironclads destroyed the wooden ships of the southern Qing fleet in afifteen-minute engagement at Fuzhou eventually forced the two sides back to the negotiating table. source ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something, but the removed content was due to failed verification. I've checked the source myself and it's just a copy of the treaty and its articles so it is well described, but I don't see anything regarding the Paracel islands themselves or whether or not they were under Annam's nominal administration. So the WP:OR claim is not resolved. I also see that the issue was brought up earlier in talk in 2023 at the top of the page but was never resolved. Currently the attached source just does not substantiate the attached sentence in full and would require heavy interpretation and additional sources that equate relinquishing Annam to also giving up the Paracels. Qiushufang (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As with anything to do with area its all in the eye of beholder and research reveals multiple unsaid things from potential POV point of view. The various treaties are relevant as the Nguyễn dynasty first put its flag on Pattle Island in 1816 (Russian secondary source so help balances French and other versions which say the same). Apparently until the French got involved the Nguyễn dynasty were vassals to the Qing dynasty (by relevant treaties, resulting from a lot of mutual history) and so perhaps the Chinese had no reason to be interested as any Vietnamese activity was under Qing overlordship and there was intermittent such activity by the Nguyễn dynasty in the Paracels. When the French got around to ensuring their colonial interests took precedent, the various treaties as far as my school boy French goes start out transferring all Chinese sovereignty to France and Vietnam alone to determine e.g. clause 2 of Tientsin Accord (1884). Later the relevant clauses are moderated in wording if not in fact by a wish not to totally humiliate China (I think they failed) by those parties that finally came up with the 1886 treaty which also had a relevant clause 2. ChaseKiwi (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Russian secondary source should be used instead of the primary source then and the content revised to reflect its contents. The relevant passages on the era seem to be:

In 1836, according to the Vietnamese chronicles special detachment arrived to Paracel Islands and by order of the Emperor of Vietnam, installed ten 5-meter steles with inscriptions about belonging of the islands to Vietnam. Chinese fishermen appeared in the water area of the islands only in the middle of the XIX century, and China declared its rights to the territory of the archipelago in 1885. The Chinese visited the islands earlier (from the Vth century).

and

There were no disputes over the islands of the South China Sea until the beginning of the 20th century. Vietnam became a colony of France after 1884, and the French government represented Vietnamese people on the international relations arena, continuing to govern these islands.

I still don't see anything on China specifically relinquishing the Spratly's though, and a tributary relationship would not have entailed territorial ownership in the first place, and there is no statement on previous ownership either. The current statement would therefore be an anachronistic post-hoc insertion since it was never established that China had territorial rights over the Spratly's at this point anyways. The statement would simply be: X islands were owned by Vietnam and then the French later on. Qiushufang (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree and will start a rewrite of paragraph trying to keep to statements in secondary or even tertiary sources or the treaties that I can read for myself. The last phase which shades everything was the unverified part and should not be said ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)