Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the South China Sea dispute

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

2017 Events

[edit]

Well, 2017 is ending. No updates for the whole year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.103.209 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the South China Sea dispute. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the South China Sea dispute. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of YASAY CORRECTED

[edit]

So easy to take off Hague ruling.. If the regular WIKIPEDIA works around here, eplease reinsert these periodicals as footnote.. YSay is just new and didn't know much what he is to say in public.. He got booed all over the country then be had a moment of awakening.. Read his retraction... CHINA

http://www.rappler.com/nation/144089-philippines-black-sand-china-artificial-islands-dfa

http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/139252-cheat-sheet-compilation-philippines-china-case-hague

http://www.rappler.com/nation/140235-philippines-says-imminent-talks-over-china-sea-row-unlikely

http://www.rappler.com/nation/138305-dfa-secretary-yasay-philippines-afraid-china

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/07/12/manila-wins-south-china-sea-arbitration-case-hague/86984274/

http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/139252-cheat-sheet-compilation-philippines-china-case-hague


http://globalnation.inquirer.net/34369/scarborough-belongs-to-ph-old-maps-show

http://m.inquirer.net/globalnation/99689



http://www.rappler.com/nation/144089-philippines-black-sand-china-artificial-islands-dfa

http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/139252-cheat-sheet-compilation-philippines-china-case-hague

http://www.rappler.com/nation/140235-philippines-says-imminent-talks-over-china-sea-row-unlikely

http://www.rappler.com/nation/138305-dfa-secretary-yasay-philippines-afraid-china

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/07/12/manila-wins-south-china-sea-arbitration-case-hague/86984274/

http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/139252-cheat-sheet-compilation-philippines-china-case-hague


http://globalnation.inquirer.net/34369/scarborough-belongs-to-ph-old-maps-show

http://m.inquirer.net/globalnation/99689





Bebe0114 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should say it belongs to any country

[edit]

The article has claimed all the islands belongs to Vietnam as if that's a fact. But multiple countries including Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines and China always disagreed. Where is the source that claims those islands officially belong to Vietnam and nobody else? It seems biased to take a dispute and make a bold unilateral claim like this. You can say it's associated but you can't claim it "belongs" to Vietnam. Nobody can actually say it belongs to any country as the dispute was never once firmly resolved for the past plus centuries. I have recently changed the wording from "belonging" into "associated by France". Because you can neutrally say those islands are "associated" with various entities and regions including a realm in Vietnam, but it's not neutral to claim it belongs to Vietnam, as there's no treaty or agreement that resolved this multi party dispute which is still ongoing. 49.186.227.219 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of instances of Freedomland Free Territory

[edit]

Pinging @Vacosea for attention. I noticed the removal of mention of Free Territory of Freedomland from the article, even if the subject has an article which contains some references. I hope this is reinstated but now with source. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph I removed did not have a citation since 2021, but I have now added information from the main article and its sources. Vacosea (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]