Jump to content

Talk:Taiping Island/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The current article show us an unilateral argument about the definition/explaination of Itu Aba island.

The current article

"Itu Aba Island or Taiping Island (traditional Chinese: 太平島), is the largest of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. It is controlled and governed by the Republic of China. The Spratly Islands consists of seven reefs. The governments of the People's Republic of China, the Philippines and Vietnam also claim the island. The Vietnamese name for the island is đảo Ba Bình (Ba Bình Island), while in Filipino it is called Ligaw ('Lost'/'Wild') Island." 

show us an unilateral argument about the definition/explaination of Itu Aba island.

The article didn't mention about management of the governments of Vietnam to the Itu Aba island hundreds years ago and the presentation of the old Vietnamese thousands years ago. It also didn't mention about many maps written by the Chinese which confirmed that Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands (which includes Itu Aba island) are parts of Vietnam and either the Quing dynasty of China - the last one in China which confirmed the similar case.

So, from thousands years ago to until now, Vietnamese has never been giving up the management, the sovereignty to the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Island.

Who can change history? God can't change the history!

- These are the old maps drawn by Vietnamese in 1754: [1]

- These are the old maps drawn by Westerners [2] about the Paracel Islands

- These are the old maps show us the southern most border of China since 1561 : [3]

All shown us that: Paracel Island and Spratly Islands belong to Vietnam and the China never claimed they belong to them!

So with my respect, please revert current version to my latest version.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thungraccongcong (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:NPOV. If you can think of a way to make your edit NPOV and verifiable (i.e., give proper citations), additional information is always welcome. However, as WP:NPOV indicates, Wikipedia does not take sides in territorial disputes, and violation of NPOV is a blockable offense. --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite the definition

Nlu, I'm not sure about the NPOV but the links I gave are strong enough to put my article as the main one.

Unless you give stronger evidences than mine you can keep the current article as the main one.

You cannot keep the current article without any strong evidence or weaker than mine.

If you don't want to put my article to first, please rewrite the definition by timelines. For example:

- In 15xx, the goverments of China announced the office map as the link [link] - ... - Since 19xx, the Island is under control of Vietnam - In 19xx, it's controlled by Taiwanese ....


Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thungraccongcong (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. If you can't abide by it, your edits will not be accepted, no matter how well-written. (And, to be blunt, they were not well-written, no matter what point of view you're taking.) --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I do not believe that the currently protected version is appropriate. It is clearly the result of a single user not only POV-pushing, but also using nothing short of inappropriately inflammatory language. The prior version already noted that Taiwan, Vietnam, and other states all claim the island. Until the matter is resolved by international consensus, claiming that the Taiwanese occupation is illegal is inappropriate. --Nlu (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, East 718. The article can still use improvement, but certainly one of the things that should be watched out for is to claim, particularly in an inflammatory manner, that a certain nation's claim is legitimate or illegitimate. --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the unbiased independence of Wikepedia must be maintained here, in fact the first claim to be settled should be Indonesia's claim to the whole Sea, because that is by far the greater area and counld otherwise usurp and cloud all issues if not first ruled on by the appropriate authorities in a suitable international tribunal.--Robbygay (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask for rewriting again!!!

Nlu,

As you said:

However, as WP:NPOV indicates, Wikipedia does not take sides in territorial disputes, and violation of NPOV is a blockable offense. --Nlu (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So NPOV doesn't apply for this article. With my evidences, you can rewrite the article from the past to the present. Not like the current topic, it only mentions about the present. It's not a full definition of the Itu Aba.

Please rewrite the article or if you don't have much time, I can help you.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thungraccongcong (talk • contribs)

You are clearly not listening. Until you read and understand the NPOV requirement, I will make no further response to you, since it is apparently futile to do so. --Nlu (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think you could all re-read the Indonesian claim for nthe entire Sea, or follow the logic from the Wikepedia articles on "South China Sea Islands" particularly the claim that Cham Sea has better than 3,000 years (Hindu decendents, or not) culminating in the War victor's claims inherited through ROV to DRV and SRV Vietnam current claims.

Whatever you do please be careful as now the Oil Hungry World of the Multi-national Corporate competition could easily push us all into a great war and no "Enola Gay" will save that if we don't all defer to a World Court or Tribunal sooner than later.--Robbygay (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Taiwanese Landing Strip

The article in the Taiwanese News about the opening of the airstrip, given as Reference [3] http://paper.wenweipo.com/2008/01/26/YO0801260015.htm shows a pretty different image than Google Earth of the island. If Google Earth is correct, then the shown photo is of Pratas Island. Is the article they really talking aobut the same island? --Stefanhanoi (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC) I can't decide and don't really find the same reference entries, what's more translating Chinese to English is too slow for the average people, so unless someone can decide this question I suggest it be dropped which I may do next visit.--Robbygay (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My Chinese is fairly good. This is supposedly a satellite photo of "Taiping" Island. But you're right, the picture does not match up. I'm looking into this. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, go to Google Earth and search "Pratas Island". The island in the picture is CLEARLY Pratas, NOT Itu Aba. Lame journalism. In Chinese this is 東沙島 or Dongsha Island. Mystery solved. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fairness

The following was posted in the main article. It is not my opinion, but someone else's. It should have been posted in talk so tada!

Reference here to "Malay language" needs refining as I think the wroter means "Bahassa language" as such is equally "Indonesian linguistics" the small point of clarrification is desireable as the day will come when the first question for an adjudication of Border Claims will need to settle "Indonesia's claim" to the entire basin of the South China Sea rathere than any one Islean in that sea. As is traditional in the area from malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia even on into the Northern and Eastern parts of the Sea there are Islands traditionally known as Indonesian by name if not nature, Pulau Cong Dao (Clearly Vietnam) and Pulau Tenga (I think Singapore) many others using the Bahassa word "Pulau" meaning "Island". To not correct this simple point suggests a malay claim incorrectly, since "Bahassa" is the language of more than the one Nation. --Robbygay (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, its writer, not wroter. wink

The more you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mao Zedong quote

Apparently, Mao Zedong once said that "(Chiang Kai-shek) is a true patriot" (the original words might have been "蔣先生是重民族大義的人"), when supposedly, Chiang ordered lighthouses on ROC-controlled islands in the South China Sea (such as Taiping Island) lit in order to guide People's Liberation Army Navy ships to their destination to expel a landing force by the Vietnamese navy due to the South China Sea island disputes, during the naval skirmishes in the 1960s. Is anyone able to verify this story by finding a reliable reference? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Widuabe

The Hainan name is 黃山馬峙 - Huangshanma Chi. No way that's pronounced "Widuabe" in any Chinese language/dialect. --Sumple (Talk) 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

黃 - Wid, 山 - Ua, 馬 - be. Hainan Min is not related to Standard Mandarin in any way, other than that they use the same characters. But hey, Japanese and Korean use the same characters too. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Itu Aba Island → Taiping Island

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. There seems to be consensus that Taiping Island is the common name. Terra nullius, the location of Wikimedia or its servers, and the territorial dispute haven't been shown to be relevant, as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Itu Aba Island → Taiping Island – "Taiping Island" appears to be the most commonly used English name. Google hits: "itu aba island" -wikipedia - 13,400; "taiping island" -wikipedia - 36,500. Most notably, the International Civil Aviation Organization uses the name "Taiping" for the island's airport here. Furthermore, whilst the island is claimed by China (which calls it Huángshānmǎ Jiāo/黃山馬礁), Vietnam (named Đảo Ba Bình) and the Philippines (named Ligaw), the island is de facto controlled, governed and administered by Taiwan, which calls the island "Taiping Island". Use of the name Taiping Island would reflect the de facto (i.e. reality situation) administration of the island. The other parties have never set foot on the island before, as the prior owners of the island were French Indochina and then the Empire of Japan (as part of Takao Prefecture), and none of the alternate names (Huángshānmǎ Jiāo, Đảo Ba Bình, Ligaw) are the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. It doesn't make any difference who controls the island, or who disputes that control. The issue is simply what is the island most commonly called in English-language RS. I get 320 (85 deghosted) post-1990 English-language Google Book results for "Taiping Island" Taiwan, 177 (73 deghosted) for "Itu Aba Island" Taiwan. GNews yields 34 post-1990 hits for "Taiping Island" Taiwan, 7 for "Itu Aba Island" Taiwan. Reuters, AP, USA Today, and China Post, Taiwan's English-language daily, call it "Taiping Island." This article in The Philippine Daily Inquirer uses "Ligao Island" once, "Taiping Island" four times, and "Itu Aba Island" not at all. Wiki should not be more sensitive to the dispute than the actual parties involved are. Kauffner (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rather than validate a controversial territorial claim, Wikipedia should go with historical English usage (as the CIA does in the map on the right) to avoid a war like the Liancourt Rocks mess. —  AjaxSmack  02:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Just like Senkaku Islands? Last time I checked, the common argument there was that Pinnacle Islands was not the common name, but Senkaku Islands was. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • But "Itu Aba" is more common than "Taiping Island" at least according to the almighty Google Books: 3790 vs 1420 results. —  AjaxSmack  03:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
        • You are comparing "Itu Aba" to "Taiping Island"? You could just as well compare "Itu Aba" to "Taiping". I assume we don't want references to things that happened in the 1930s or 1940s, so there needs to be some qualifiers. I get 526 post-1990 English-language hits for island Taiwan "Itu Aba", 1,960 for Taiwan Taiping island. Kauffner (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Of course if you add "Taiwan" to the search parameters, that's going to increase the "Taiping" count since, from the point of view of Taiwan, Taiping is the most common name. However, in a general work like Wikipedia we should be a little broader in our context. (And if you remove "Taiwan" from the search parameter, you get Itu Aba 774 vs. Taiping Island 414 even limiting the results to 1990–present.) —  AjaxSmack  05:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
            • You are still comparing "Itu Aba" to "Taiping Island". If you remove "Taiwan" as a term from the searches I gave earlier, the ratio in favor of Taiping Island actually increases. Compare here and here. Kauffner (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
        • "Itu Aba" means "what's that?" in Malay. "Taiping" can refer to a multitude of things, such as the Taiping Rebellion, hence, my google searches had "X Island" in quotes. If you're going to search for terms without "Island", then you're opening up twenty other cans of worms. These google searches are only meant for general comparative purposes only, and are not supposed to be all-inclusive. Since we're focusing on the island only, it's only logical that we'd have "X Island" in quotes, right? Even in the CIA map you've provided above, the name used is "Itu Aba Island", and not "Itu Aba" by itself. It would be like using a google search for "however", if an island was called "However Island". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Per evidence WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources.--Jiang (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME. --Zanhe (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - As the case of Falkland Islands. STSC (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for the reasons Ajax Smack has very clearly set out. I hope that the closing admin will give weight to the serious concerns Ajax Smack has raised and stay with an old, and vanilla, name. The article could however do with pinning down when the name "Itu Aba" is first documented. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Terra nullius de facto. — No, and no known history of, Taiwanese permanent civilian settlement. — Whereas the Falkland Islands were settled permanently by permanent civilians, long before even the establishment of Hong Kong as a British colony, in the year 1841. The Falkland Islands analogy and argument is also a [novel argument] that only the Chinese (and some Taiwanese) seem to employ and be advancing, and no others, not even the Vietnamese. More of a "Chinese straw-man" and "Chinese bogeyman" for some to make snipes and swipes at England, Great Britain and the old British Empire, for the supposed Imperial colonial oppression, than any-thing else, much less a valid analogy or argument, I think. If any Taiwanese civilian can produce his Taiwanese livret, or registration book, stating that he was born upon that particular island, I shall be most delighted to know, and be most obliged. — KC9TV 07:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Terra nullius? Are you ignoring that there is a airbase on the island? Do you know what "terra nullius" means? inb4 some WP:OR interpretation of the phrase "de facto". Also, this discussion is not "who owns the island?" or "who has the right to claim the island?", it's "what should the article title be, and for what reasons?", and the reasons given given relate to WP policy such as WP:COMMONNAME. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
      • The language in which the words "Terra nullius" are from is called the language of Latin, a different and separate language from the English language. Words of Latin are still at occasions used in the English language, but it however remains a different and separate language. A Country or a Government, be it the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth of Australia or New Zealand, or France, the Government of Norway, Argentina (The Argentine) or Chile, or Brazil, or South Africa, can build and maintain as many military bases in Antarctica as it would like and care to, but at the end of the day, Antarctica is still Terra nullius, whereas Greenland is not. — KC9TV 08:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Taiwan, or Formosa, or the Republic of China, or Nationalist China, or Chinese Taipei, &c., &c., etc., etc., is now NOT internationally accepted and recognised, generally, as a sovereign entity, or the Government therein a sovereign government. — KC9TV 07:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The authors of the World Factbook have not agreed to adopt such a name (and Wikipeida IS based in United States of America, presumably at Miami, in the State of Florida) . — KC9TV 07:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment: What's this with you guys and all these island renaming initiatives? Which party are you: KMT, DPP, or CPC? You're lucky no one actually pays attention to this mess, or the POV of your WikiSpace name-grabs would be called into question. Come on. Be real men and admit the truth. What color is your flag: blue, green or red? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • My flag is pink with purple polka-dots. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm questioning whether your moves are POV-based. That is a legitimate line of inquiry, not a personal attack... let me ask a question that is not about you, then: If I asked the KMT, DPP & CPC what name they prefer, which wold it be? Ditto for Taiwan-PRC, Quemoy-Kinmen, etc. I'm thinking your moves align with CPC preferences, personally... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
        • There is no partisanship going on. I'm simply following what I think is most suitable for a Wikipedia article. Myself and Kauffner have had many disagreements, a la the ROC>Taiwan move, so if you're implying that there's a conspiracy going on, then I'm not sure what to say to you. Furthermore, this is my first RM proposal for an island since 2008. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) If I were a 50 center of the CPC as you are implying, then why am I suggesting a rename to the Taiwan-preferred name? The island is called Huangshanma Jiao on official PRC maps. Taiping is the name of a ROC Navy vessel, and such a name is politically undesirable for the CPC. As an example of political sensitivity to names, back in the days when Taipei Taoyuan International Airport was called "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Airport", the PRC media avoided all mention of CKS. Why would a "running dog" of the CPC support such a RM? Your accusations are completely unjustified and unwarranted. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Kauffner has made a cottage industry of CPC-based name changes. You seem to always be in the thick of things as well. All I'm doing is asking: which of those three parties would approve of this move, and PRC --> Taiwan and Kinmen --> Quemoy? let's pretend that you and Kauffner are both unaligned.... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
            • "You seem to always be in the thick of things as well." - Oh boy, a Wikipedia witch-hunt. How fun! Having a viewpoint on things makes you a 50 center! Well, since I advocate calling Linux as GNU/Linux, does that mean that I'm a running dog of the Free Software Foundation as well? This discussion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Witch-hunt implies punishment. There is no punishment involved here. I just wanna know: PRC --> Taiwan, Kinmen --> Quemoy, Itu Aba --> Taiping: what POV are we tilting Wikipedia to reflect? please stop saying it isn't POV. Real world time. The Kinmen --> Quemoy thing got beaten down precisely because it did not reflect real world practice. If the initiatives don't reflect real world practice, then.. if it quacks like a duck... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
                • This discussion is completely unrelated to the RM discussion. All we have here are baseless, empty accusations of partisanship. This discussion ought to be collapsed. You can take it to any of our user talk pages if you like, but it definitely doesn't belong in this RM discussion. It's bending the whole RM off a tangent. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
                  • I'm asking a simple, factual question: what POV are we tilting Wikipedia to reflect? I am asking. It is a very legitimate question. I will even say, "Wow, of course you two are not from any POV"! Now. Which POV do these moves support? Thanks for answering. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
                • I'm not even involved in anything relating to Kinmen. Stop asking me this question, go ask someone else. I don't give a monkey's vagina about Kinmen right now. I haven't participated in any discussion relating to Kinmen. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
                  • Those topics are all in one basket, as you know. But again, an objective question: "Wow, of course you two are not from any POV"! Now. Which POV do these moves support? Thanks for answering.Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
                    • How about this. Here's a summary of everything that I've done, and you decide for yourself what POV I have, if I have any. PRC to China? I !voted oppose. Changes to WP:NC-TW? I supported the status quo. ROC to Taiwan? I !voted oppose. Kinmen? I didn't even know we had a !vote on it until you told me. Itu Aba Island? I nominated this RM. Come up with your own wild theory, I've had enough of this silly game. Am I red? Am I blue? Or green? I don't give a damn. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If I understand the above correctly, the islands of the Pacific shake in their coral reefs when they see island movers™ Kauffner and Benlisquare coming their way. I was a nominator for the ROC-to-Taiwan move, and less successfully tried to get Kinmen moved to Quemoy and East Timor to Timor Leste. I support democracy against communism, so I have had disputes on occasion with those who support a Chinese communist agenda, for example with respect to Vietnam or Tibet. If I was Taiwanese, I'd vote KMT. That's cause I'm a nuclear power guy. An independent Taiwan will need it. To me, this RM is just about picking the most common name, which in this case is an issue that Beijing and Taipei agree on. Kauffner (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chu Nom

Ba Bình, the Vietnamese name for this subject, was coined by Saigon University Professor Nguyễn Nhã. Nhã's book was published in 1973, and Sino-Vietnamese script was discontinued in 1945. So I don't see how it is possible for this island to have a chu Nom name. Kauffner (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just repeating what the China Times has written. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
By the way, it's not Chu nom, but Han tu. Chu nom is only for ideographs of words that are native to Vietnamese, and are not Chinese-origin words. For example, the Han tu of Trung Quoc is 中国. (I realised I might have written the wrong thing in the edit summary, I apologise.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
An highly dubious source. The entries in Wiktionary are anyway as follows, — [4] and [5]. — KC9TV 09:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
"An highly dubious source." - I hope you're not implying that the China Times comes from China. Reporters without Borders had a 2012 publication that showed Taiwan having the same media freedom as South Korea and Japan. Please justify your claims. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The mere fact that the source was from Taiwan, or in fact from any other place, does not render a particular source any more reliable or any less dubious. I have not think of a particular cliché for this. — KC9TV 10:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the two wiktionary links don't refute the characters used; they show both 巴 and 平 on the dictionary pages. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
But it is neither, and no longer either "Vietnamese", "Chu Nom" or "official", is it, if it was in fact some Chinese-speaking person or persons in Taiwan, in a news agency or in a newspaper-publishing company, with a tight dead-line to stick to, plucking some words out of an "old" Chinese-Vietnamese Dictionary? And have you also ever heard of such concepts as "unofficial translation" or "transliteration"? — KC9TV 11:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Or in Chinese, albeit not exact equivalents, " 非正式中文译名 " (fēi-zhèng-shì-zhōng-wén-yì-míng) and " 音译 " (yīn-yì). — KC9TV 14:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
[The] China Times may be a fine source, but here it is simply writing a Vietnamese name in Chinese script for the benefit of its Chinese-speaking readers. Converting is trivial, and you can even to it online here. To say that the character script is Vietnamese implies that Vietnamese are using this script to communicate with each other. This is not something that the source implies. Kauffner (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I thank my most learned friend, Mr Kauffner, for that, for explaining a bit about Linguistics, in the Layman's language, to the Layman, or roughly, " 群众 " (qún-zhòng), who might not (yet), well, you know, "get it". Most well put, jolly good speech, and I couldn't put it any better myself! An amateur translator of sorts and therefore also a linguist, I presume? I think that you, Sir, might also incline to agree with me that, that as with many various tongues and variants of Chinese, there are often several different forms of pronunciation for each of the characters of the Chu Han (Chữ Hán), but the most regular and usual pronunciation for the character " 平 ", in Vietnamese, might in fact be "Bang" (Bằng) instead, as in the name of the Vietnamese Province of Cao Bang (Cao Bằng; 高平). — KC9TV 14:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's not beat about the bush about this, parts of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and many who had in fact been brought up or partly brought up in the same People's Republic of China, do indeed labour under the belief that anything that comes from the without, outside of their own Country, or even from such places as Hong Kong or Taiwan, must necessarily be reliable, and ought to be believed without question, but The China Times (of Taiwan) is no more of a reliable authority (权威; quán-wēi) than, say, The Sun or the Daily Sport newspapers, as we (the correct pronoun in English, I believe, but not necessarily in Chinese) have here in the United Kingdom, say, e.g., on the subject of Chinese linguistics. — KC9TV 14:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Usually in cases like this where we have a nominally reliable source whose accuracy is in doubt, the first thing we do is to try and find other reliable sources that can shed further light on the situation. Are there any other sources which discuss a possible Chu nom/Han tu name for the island? If this is a usual thing to do in Vietnamese (which, by the way, I know nothing about), then it will probably appear in other sources like books or academic journals. Absent any corroboration in other reliable sources, I would assume that it is just a transliteration, and that it should be left out. (Bear in mind that as I don't read Chinese either, I am saying this without being able to judge the contents of the source.) Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of "Đảo Ba Bình"

Last version's original text:

"Vietnam calls the island Ba Binh (Đảo Ba Bình). This name is a translation of "Taiping Island" into Vietnamese."

I have corrected this imprecise information with the following text:

"Vietnam calls the island Ba Binh (Chinese: 波平, Vietnamese: Đảo Ba Bình which literally means "calm wave" or "calm sea" island)."

Reasons:

1. Vietnamese equivalent of "Taiping Island" is "Đảo Thái Bình". "Thái Bình" means "peace" while "Ba Bình" means "calm wave" or "calm sea". So it's illogical to state that "Ba Bình" is "a translation of "Taiping Island" into Vietnamese."

2. Furthermore, Nguyen Nha-Saigon University Professor, who devotes his time in studying mainly Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands through Vietnamese and foreign countries' ancient materials, has already explained why he chose the name "Ba Bình" through an unofficial interview.

According to him, "Đại Nam Thực Lục Chính Biên" ("The Main Part of The Chronicles of Dai Nam"), Volume 154 completed by Vietnamese Nguyen Dynasty in 1848 reads: "Hoang Sa (Paracel Islands), in the territorial waters of Quang Ngai, has a white sand island covered by luxuriant plants with a well in the middle. In the southwest of the island is an ancient temple in which there is a stele engraved with four characters "Van Ly Ba Binh"" (source: http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/special-report/9787/historical-documents-on-vietnam-s-sovereignty-over-paracel-and-spratly-islands.html)

The meaningful phrase "Van Ly Ba Binh" or "Vạn Lý Ba Bình" (Chinese: 万里波平) inspired Nguyen Nha to use "波平" or "Ba Bình" to call the island.

ILovePeace1990 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Use English name

Because different countries claim sovereignty over this island, Wikipedia should use the English name (neutral) to avoid any protest and to prove that Wikipedia do not support any party in this dispute. The English name of the island is Itu Aba. The name Itu Aba does not belong to any party in this dispute, it's a neutral name, while Taiping is an ROC's (Taiwan) name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerfeller (talk • contribs) 03:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Refer to the move discussion above. Taiping Island is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, regarding your edit summary "We should use English name to avoid any offensive to different claimants", Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't censor things simply because it "may cause offense". We have articles such as nigger and kike, for example, due to this policy. The potential for offense is not a valid reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Philippine Star says "Itu Aba or Taiping Island". So even the supposedly injured party isn't getting worked up about the naming issue. Kauffner (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion of completely reasonable, accurate and factual edit.

We now have TWO arrogant knowalls who don't feel that WP:BRD applies to them!

  • 20:30, 24 June 2014‎ Pdfpdf . . Undid revision (User talk:STSC) - Dear sir: Like your colleague, you are Reverting without explaining WHY you are indulging in WP compliant content removal. Please do your homework, and please explain: a) Why you are reverting compliant edits WITHOUT explanation. b) Just which bit of WP:MOS YOU feel I am not complying with. I bet I'm a LOT more familiar with WP policies than you are, so stop editwarring, read WP:BRD again if you need to, and discuss it on the talk page!!!
  • 19:18, 24 June 2014‎ STSC . . Undid revision 614171964 by Pdfpdf (talk) - as per MOS; Pdfpdf, don't keep making improper changes if you're not familiar with Wiki policies
  • 11:16, 24 June 2014‎ Pdfpdf . . Undid revision 614170234 by Zmflavius (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal
  • 10:52, 24 June 2014‎ Zmflavius . . (cur | prev) 23:15, 23 June 2014‎ Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,118 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (→‎History: annotate ref) (undo)
  • 23:00, 23 June 2014‎ Pdfpdf . . It is bizarre that the VERY common international name, which is still VERY widely used outside of Asia, does not appear in the lead paragraph.

NEITHER of you have explained your reversion of my edit, Nor have you explained on what grounds / basis you have reverted.
Dear User:STSC, if you do your homework, you will not find ANY part of WP:MOS that is NOT satisfied by my edit. Now "put up", or "shut up". Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion literally three sections above your little screed wherein the consensus reached was that Taiping Island was the English common name.Zmflavius (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
a) Yes, I know.
b) So what? i.e. In what way is my edit in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME?
c) Note that "common name" does NOT mean "only name".
d) Third time: What is your reason for reverting my edit?
Still waiting for an explanation. (And have you read WP:BRD yet?) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Conventionally, in the lead, the article title (Taiping Island), is placed first, followed by any alternative titles, such as Itu Aba, ie as in 'Taiping Island, also known as Itu Aba' (a format you seem to have some issue with) or 'Taiping Island, before 1946 known as Itu Aba.' Your edit and your talk page posts seem to imply that you are unaware of either this or that Taiping Island is the English most common name.Zmflavius (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!! (At last, a relevant response.)
'Taiping Island, before 1946 known as Itu Aba.' - Except that statement is false. It is STILL known as Itu Abu outside of Asia. (Just have a look at any "English" (whatever that might mean) map of the region.) As I stated, it is also known as Taiping Diao (or whatever) SINCE 1946 ...
Your edit and your talk page posts seem to imply that you are unaware of either this or that Taiping Island is the English most common name - That may be YOUR interpretation, but to conclude that I am "unaware" of anything is ill-informed arrogance.
So, does this mean you feel the lead paragraph should be changed to:
Named Taiping Island in 1946 by the Chinese, Itu Aba Island, also known by many other names
Pdfpdf (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm hoping we can find some middle ground here. I'm assuming that the main concern of Pdfpdf is the absence of "Itu Aba island" from the lede since the name is still widely circulating in English texts, and the main concern of Zmflavius is the ordering of the names as they are placed in the lede. Would it satisfy both of you if the lede mentioned both names, but in the opposite ordering? In other words, something like "Taiping Island (since 1946), also known in English as Itu Aba, is the largest etc etc"? --benlisquareT•C•E 13:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable and in line with the MOS.Zmflavius (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In principle. In detail: Almost.
What would satisfy me is my latest edit. (However, I am ALWAYS open to better ideas ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And then I see your edit, and although from my POV it ain't "perfect", it is most certainly "good enough". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Taiping Island, fresh water, and edit warring

There has lately been an edit war going on between User:ILVTW and User:Pdfpdf over the question of whether Taiping Island is the only source of natural fresh water in the Spratlys.

Before the current edit war began, this assertion had a long history in this article. It may go back further, but the earliest appearance I've found is this November 20, 2010 edit which inserted it without citing a supporting source. It went through a few wording changes over the years (e.g., [6], [7], [8], [9]) and may have been in and out of the article a few times.

As of this 19:41, October 20, 2014 edit, the assertion was in the article as "the only one where fresh water is available" and had acquired a supporting source, "Taiping Island". Spratly islands. Marine National Park Headquarters (Republic of China), which says, "it is the only island in the Nansha Islands with fresh ground water." (which isn't precisely the same thing as the article assertion relying it for support).

In this 23:11, October 20, 2014 edit. Pdfpdf removed the assertion, leaving the supporting source (which presumably also supports other assertions) in the article, saying "Actually, there are a number of places in the SCS where fresh water is available - this needs to be revisited and defined!".

In this 00:04, October 21, 2014 edit, restored the assertion saying "the only one where fresh water is available", saying "Revert, Taiping is the only island in the Spratly which have fresh water supply, that is certain. http://www.businessinsider.com/r-taiwan-considers-permanent-armed-ships-for-disputed-south-china-sea-island-2014-10" and adding a cite of "Taiwan Considers Permanent Armed Ships For Disputed South China Sea Island", Business Insider, Michael Gold in support. That newly cited source says that Taiping "is the only island with its own fresh water supply, making a long-term presence possible."

In this 00:08, October 21, 2014 edit, User:Benlisquare inserted a word into the assertion, changing it to " the only one where natural fresh water is available" (inserted word italicized here), saying "perhaps clarify that we're referring to naturally occurring water, rather than man-made reservoirs of desalinised water reliant on diesel generators". (actually, it's not clear to me at this point precisely what we are referring to)

In this 00:14, October 21, 2014 edit, Pdfpdf removed the assertion, saying "Taiping is the only island in the Spratly which have (natural) fresh water supply" - Nonsense. Do your homework properly please, There are a number of places. e.g. See Pub. 161 "Sailing Directions". I dug up a copy of PUB. 161 : SAILING DIRECTIONS (ENROUTE) : SOUTH CHINA SEA AND THE GULF OF THAILAND, 2011, 13th edition, Prepared and published by the NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Bethesda, Maryland; Itu Abu island is covered in section 1.26 on page 9 (page 15 of the PDF). I don't see any information about the availability of fresh water (natural or not) for Itu Abu or for any other island mentioned in the publication. Perhaps I am missing something.

In this 00:25, October 21, 2014 edit, ILVTW reinserted the assertion, saying "I attached the credible resource stating clearly that 'Itu Aba is Taiwan's only holding in the disputed region... and is the only island with its own fresh water supply', I don't get the point how my edit was 'nonsense'".

In this 00:32, October 21, 2014 edit, ILVTW replaced this Business Insider source (mentioned previously here) with a Reuters source linked as "http://http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/uk-taiwan-soutchinasea-idUKKCN0I509O20141016" [http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/uk-taiwan-soutchinasea-idUKKCN0I509O20141016 that source says, "the only island with its own fresh water supply, making a long-term presence possible."

In this 00:43, October 21, 2014 edit, ILVTW added this Philippine Daily Inquirer source, which says that the island "[has] its own freshwater source", but does not say that it is the only source in the Spratlys.

In this 00:47, October 21, 2014 edit, Pdfpdf removed the assertion reading "and the only one where natural fresh water is available", saying "It's nonsense because it's wrong, and there are any number of source that say so - e.g. Pub. 161 Sailing Directions. Perhaps discuss it on the talk page rather than edit war? (i.e. Don't edit war - Discuss it on the talk page."

And that is where we stand as of now. As I said above, I could not confirm the implied assertion that sources of fresh water exist in the Spratlys on other islands in the edition of Pub 161 which I checked. However there are sources out there, some of which are cited in the article, which claim that Taiping is the only source of fresh water in the Spratlys and I don't see any reason why the article should not report that and cite those sources in support. If there are verifiable reliable sources out there with contrary claims, the article should reword its assertions to note that not all sources agree and should cite those sources with contrary claims. WP:DUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

I have not restored the assertion that Taiping is the only island where natural fresh water is available, but sources currently cited in the article say

  • "... the only island in the Nansha Islands with fresh ground water."[10]
  • "... the only island with its own fresh water supply, making a long-term presence possible."[11]
  • "... and its own freshwater source."[12]

and I see no reason why an assertion which those snippits support should not be included in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Pub. 161, Sailing Directions

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub161/Pub161bk.pdf - 3.67MB - Seems to take a while to download.
PDU 3 - 16 July 2014
Prepared and published by the NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Springfield, Virginia
Pub. 161, Sailing Directions (Enroute) South China Sea and the Gulf of Thailand, Fourteenth Edition, 2013, is issued for use in conjunction with Pub. 120, Sailing Directions (Planning Guide) Pacific Ocean and Southeast Asia.
NGA Maritime Domain Website - http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal
By-the-way: Plenty of water available in the Paracels
1.13 Pattle Island (16°32'N., 111°36'E.) - There is a meteorological station and a well from which water is available on Pattle Island.
1.13 Robert Island ... well water can be obtained here.
1.15 Lincoln Island (16°40'N., 112°44'E.) - It is reported that water can be found on Lincoln Island
etc.
Humpf. The man is right - no mention of water anywhere in the Spratlys. My apologies.
Somewhere there is mention of several places with water - (1.26) Itu Aba, (1.23) Thitu, and others - I will check my sources.
Again, my apologies. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: Yes, although there is evidence somewhere that Itu Aba is not the only one, until such time as I (or somebody else??) can locate the references, User:Wtmitchell's statement: "I see no reason why an assertion which those snippits support should not be included in the article." is, in the current circumstances, entirely reasonable. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taiping Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taiping Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mining history:

The following comment in the history section: "In 1952, a Philippine civilian began to mine sulfur from Taiping Island ..." should be removed, as it is nonsense from a geological point of view. This is obviously a confusion with some other island (similar name?). Sulphur deposits are not possible here. Whoever it is on Wikipedia who insists on keeping this comment here should back it up with a geological map or at least some old photos.

(Please note I am a geologist interested only in the mineralogy of localities; I am not making any comment about the politics, nor about whether or not this is an island or a rock or a reef; nor about which nation should own it; and I'm not a citizen of any of the interested parties to the dispute. Let's stick to geology: There was never any mining here.)

74.106.51.242 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Significance of the July 12, 2016 ICA Ruling

The sentence at the end of the "History" section is misleading. The ruling only says that the dashed line is incompatible with the UNCLOS regarding the areas in the sea. It doesn't say anything about the "ownership" of the islands in this area. Stefanhanoi (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Data about the Photovoltaic Power Plant

I just corrected the stated power in the article from 40 kW to 40 kWp. But there are more inaccuracies: 1) 40 kWp is the power of the second phase only. Nothing is said in the source about the first phase, or the combined power. 2) The source gives the capacity of the second phase storage as "612 kWp", which is nonsense. The unit of "kWp" is the design value for photovoltaic power panels or arrays, not for a storage. Storage needs to be in kWh. With an obviosly wrong unit, the number in the source has to be in doubt. 3) The given 50 MWh per year is the estimated generated power of the second phase only. The article gives it as the value for both phases, contradicting the "189,492 kWh per year" later on. 4) The units should be consistent. Either give it in kWh per year (like in the source), or convert both to MWh per year. Right now the value for the second phase is given in MWh, while the value for both phases together is given in kWh. Stefanhanoi (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Taiping Island. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Good references and citations desperately needed

Hello everyone
Many of the statements in this wiki seem to be made "in the air"- can someone please provide good dependable citaitons and references to them. I have marked those sections that need citations.
Thanks
Notthebestusername (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really know what you mean. What do you mean by "in the air"? There are many easily available good dependable sources which are easy to find. I don't understand what you think you've achieved by peppering the article with a large number of tags rather than populating it with any of these easily available good dependable sources. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing that "in the air" was intended to mean not supported by cited reliable and verifiable supporting sources per Wikipedia policy. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Heliport

Hello wikipedians, On Google Map, we can clearly see building, the airport, a dock, a thing like solar pannels, but no heliports. Where is it ? Thank you, Nicolas de Bourgoing (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I dug around and found a source from 2015 which addresses that; I've added it to the article.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiping_Island/Archive_1&oldid=1155011611"