Talk:Great Wall of Sand

Nationalist wording

As this article discusses an international dispute over territorial claims that is getting more and more attention globally, this article has a high possibility of succumbing to nationalist wording (see WP:IMPARTIAL), Biased sources, and giving "equal validity" to arguments thereby creating a false balance. See also "Reliable sources and undue weight".

In particular I note that Lisan1233 has reverse the meaning of the lead sentence at leat four time times to give "viewpoint balance" by referring to the Chinese government statement as the actual motivation and then couching the global-consensus POV as "believed by the US Navy..."[1]. According to ALL non-government sources that I can find, this IS a territorial dispute (e.g.academic and journalist sources). More chinese/vietnamese-origin sources would be VERY useful for ensuring NPOV in this article, but it is not-neutral to simply declare that the Chinese government's statements are the objective truth. Wittylama 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP is NOT the US Navy's propaganda

• China do, US Navy explain?
• US Navy is world judge?
• WP is US Navy's propaganda?
• The west is the global-consensus?

--Lisan1233 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You have consistently reversed the meaning of the opening sentence in a way that contradicts every source available - except for the Chinese Government. There is global consensus that these constructions are for the purpose of strengthening claims on territory (land and sea) in the region. See, for example, the opening sentence of the article Spratly Islands dispute. Saying that this construction is for "improving the working and living conditions of people stationed on these islands"[2] is nonsense - these are reefs, they were mostly underwater until the construction began. Nevertheless, because the Chinese government's perspective is an important source for the article it is also included with two quotes in the opening paragraph and a third quote later on (and matching footnotes). You also consistently write that anything which is different from the Chinese government perspective is "according to the US Navy". Yes, but it is also according to everyone else. For example, the first public usage of the phrase "great wall of sand" was by a US Navy admiral (which has a reference) but that is also the only name that anyone has given to these constructions, and is used by many other sources (also footnoted). It is the name that is most familiar to the world and therefore is applied according to WP:COMMONNAME. If you know of another more "official" name for these constructions (n any language), then please include it. Equally, if you have ANY sources please include them too and add to the quality/diversity of the article's sources. But please STOP simply reversing the meaning of the opening sentences to say that the Chinese government's perspective is the correct one and that every single other source is therefore a contesting view and, by implication, simply US Navy propaganda. I would love, for example, to include some Vietnamese journalistic sources in this article to add their perspective. Wittylama 15:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the viewpoint-balance.--Lisan1233 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Name order

In what kind of reason English Wikipedia US BGN name in the first column? Does English Wikipedia turns to American Wikipedia. The such US BGN name should be put after the countries which claimed it.--AddisWang (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese names of the reefs

Can anyone provide sources that China has officially named those as "Dao"s? Because as a native Chinese, I have never read anywhere in official texts referring them as "Dao"s. They are always referred as "Jiao"s, as before reclamation. Many people on Internet sites and forums do start referring those reefs as "Dao"s after reclamation, but none of them represents the official view of Chinese government. 58.60.2.32 (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   Since no source is provided, I make the changes in main article. 58.60.2.31 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Map

I'd like very much to see a map in the article containing the seven reclaimed islands to give an overall sense of their strategic importance. Also a bar chart of reclaimed acreage by nation in the contested areas would prove a better sense of scale than trowing raw numbers at the reader. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to include a map. I'll put it on my "To do" list. I don't think a bar chart is nearly so useful. I think the raw numbers are quite clear and quite indicative. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Paracel Islands inclusion

I propose including the land reclamation in the Paracel Islands in the article. Doyna Yar (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I propose a separate Land reclamations in the South China Sea article. See below for more information. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragaph

There is some argument about the best way to phrase the opening sentences that describe this subject, especially since there is no standard term for the physical land reclamation projects as a group (as separate from the conceptual things like "nine-dash line" etc.). When I first created this article the only term I could find with a reference was the metaphor "great wall of sand". As far as I know there isn't a [english-equivalent] Chinese term for the projects which, I suspect would be the most appropriate for Wikipedia to use - since this article applies to the Manual of Style somwhere between WP:NPOVNAME & WP:NDESC. So, in the mean time until there is something better, how should the opening sentences be written?

My original text was:

"The "great wall of sand" is a name used by the media for a series of land reclamation projects undertaken by the PRC since late 2013 in the South China Sea – particularly in the Spratly islands group – in order to strengthen PRC territorial claims to the region demarcated by the "nine-dash line..." [and a few paragraphs later] "...There is no known official term for the projects; the phrase "great wall of sand" was first used by Harry Harris, commander of the US Pacific Fleet, in March 2015."

Pdfpdf, with the edit summaries "big sigh" and Being polite about crap is a skill that is taking me some time & effort to develop proposed instead:

The "great wall of sand" is a name used by some of the media, (and this article), for a series of land reclamation projects on seven reefs in the Spratly islands area of the South China Sea undertaken by the People's Republic of China (PRC) since late 2013 – in order to strengthen PRC territorial claims to the region demarcated by the "nine-dash line".

I then removed the self-referencing from the lead sentence (diff), and Pdfpdf re-edited to move the element about the American admiral to the lead sentence (diff):

"Great wall of sand" is a name first used in March 2015 by US Admiral Harry Harris, (commander of the Pacific Fleet), to describe a series of land reclamation projects in the Spratly islands area of the South China Sea.

My reply was this version to at least put Harris as a secondary sentence, since intervening changes meant there was nowhere else for that attribution of the name to go:

"Great wall of sand" is a term used to describe a series of land reclamation projects, principally by the People's Republic of China, in the Spratly islands area of the South China Sea. The name was first used in March 2015 by US Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the Pacific Fleet.

But this was reverted to "remove bias"[3].

I personally don't believe that the very first sentence should focus on an American admiral. The subject of the article is land reclamation - which IMO should be the very first thing we say. Harris just happens to be the person who 'coined the term' and is not mentioned again in the rest of the text.

I am no expert in land-reclamation engineering or the geopolitics of the south china sea. Could any hiterto uninvolved editors please suggest a better way to introduce this article?

p.s. I also received this terse message on my talkpage. Wittylama 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Wittylama: I'm glad you brought the topic to the talk page. So many editors refuse to do this, and it's refreshing to find one like you who has.

The fact that people like you are an exception has caused me to become a grumpy old man and be "terse" rather than WP:AGF. Now that I see I will not just be talking to myself I'll have a go at communicating with you, or failing that, attempt to explain my POV and solicit your response(s).

In no particular order:

• To me the fundamental issue is that there appears to be a duplication of sub-purpose and/or an overlap of sub-purpose between "Great_wall_of_sand" and "List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands#Features by area", and I have not yet thought of a good solution to the problem. (I do not like either of the solutions I have so far thought of.) Some comments:

• On the one hand, "Great_wall_of_sand" could be merged into "List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands#Features by area", but I personally don't like this because, in my opinion, "List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands" is already too big and too heterogeneous
• On the other hand, "List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands#Features by area" could be merged into "Great_wall_of_sand" (and actually, I quite like the thought of this), but if this were to be one, the title "Great_wall_of_sand" would be inappropriate. A different title (something like "List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands by area") would be more appropriate.

• My personal prejudice is against using catchy phrases like "Great_wall_of_sand" in any and all circumstances, but particularly as the names of wikipedia articles. In my experience they usually mean nothing and are, at best, ambiguous. Again in my experience, they almost always have to be explained. (In wikipedia terminology - disambiguated.)
• Another issue is that things change with time. e.g. At one time the only significant reclamation in the Spratlys was Malaysian activity at Swallow Reef. Then there was the "incredibly significant" PRC activity at Johnson South Reef where they reclaimed a "massive" 10ha!!! Compared with the 1379ha at Mischief Reef, and activity at 6 other reefs, with hindsight this now looks rather "passe"! However, since then Taiwan have built a herbour at Itu Aba, and Vietnam have reclaimed areas at 10 sites, including doubling the length of their airfield on Spratly Is and adding a harbour.

To me, to say that "The Great Wall of Sand" is ALL about PRC reclamations is missing so many other important issues that I am extremely uncomfortable.

(BTW: This response is incomplete, but it will do for a start. It gives you an insight as to what I'm complaining about, and also of what I think the important issues are.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for going into some detail here on the talkpage. I feel this could be much more productive than back-and-forth edit summary comments.

My original scope of this article, when I first created it, was to discuss the current PRC land reclamation projects as a geopolitical "thing" in its own right that is getting a lot of international attention recently. A part of this there would naturally be a summary of the physical works (number of hectares reclaimed etc.) but the important part is more about the policy/politics/tensions between PRC, USA and other countries in the region. It is for this reason I gave it that more 'catchy' name (as per WP:NPOVNAME) - based on the ONLY source I could find that actually gave the projects a collective name - rather than as a 'list of' which implies it is merely descriptive if the installations physical attributes. That, as you point out, could be easily covered by the existing 'list of maritime features' article.

Also, and furthermore, I was originally only aware of the Chinese reclamation works and only discovered that other countries had done/are doing their own things while writing the article. I added these in to attempt to ensure a more wholistic/neutral coverage but perhaps in the process that has muddied the scope. If there was a known PRC name for its policy of land reclamation, akin to the way the militaries names things like Operation Market Garden or Operation Barbarossa, that would make the scope/purpose much clearer. It would be a euphemism, yes, but a verifiable one and would make it clear that the article should discuss the 'who, what, why' of Chinese land reclamation activities in the area. The other countries' activities need to be described somewhere too of course (their own articles? Somwhere in the aforementioned list article?), but perhaps if this article were made to be more overtly just about Chinese actions/reactions then we would actually decrease the problems of implied bias? How about a descriptive title (as per WP:NDESC) such as PRC land-reclamation in the South China Sea? (not very catchy though :-) ) Wittylama 11:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Restructure / Clarify purpose of article

User:Wittylama: I find myself quite seduced by your line of reasoning to the point of having altered some of my prejudices.
I agree PRC land-reclamation in the South China Sea is "not very catchy", and the more appropriate PRC land reclamation in the Spratly Islands in 2013–2016 even less catchy.
Other things I agree with and/or propose are:

• Retain the article named Great wall of sand.
• Create an additional/new article named Land reclamations in the South China Sea (or similar title).
• Restrict the scope of the Great wall of sand article to "PRC land reclamation in the Spratly Islands in 2013–2016", and say this in the lead paragraph. Also say in the lead that the size, scope & nature of these PRC reclamations are unique, hence a separate article.
• Put EVERYTHING else into Land reclamations in the South China Sea. "Everything else" includes
  • ALL stuff in the Spratlys prior to 2014 - not just Swallow Reef - All PRC, Malaysian, Vietnamese and Philippine stuff. And harbours, too.
  • All non-PRC stuff in the Spratlys since 2013
  • All stuff in the Paracels since the 1930s
• Cross-reference everything to everything else.
• Probably other stuff as well.

What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good Pdfpdf! In effect, the 'everything else' article is what the GWoS article is CURRENTLY being, and the new GWoS article will be a breakout article about one of the subsections - about contemporary Chinese actions. Some parts might need to be written in BOTH articles as per the Summary-style, and we'd need to carefully explain the difference in scope not merely on these two articles themselves but also on related ones - especially nine-dash line. Wittylama 12:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ownership?

Is the added land owned by the state? See Talk:Post-glacial rebound#Legal implications for a similar question. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great wall of sand. 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/20080506104400/http://www.indianexpress.com/story/304797.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/story/304797.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)