Talk:South China Sea

earlier commments

Discussion:

I note that the Chinese name for the South China Sea is given (Nan Hai) at this entry. Would it not also be useful to note the Vietnamese name, Dong Bien (diacritics omitted), which means 'Eastern Sea'? Although giving the Chinese name obviously doesn't imply upholding Chinese claims to the sea (after all, Chinese is a major language), giving the Vietnamese (and if relevant any other names) would underline the concept of competing claims and demonstrate that the sea does not historically or notionally only belong to China.

Incidentally, although Nan Hai is the official name, many Chinese here in Hainan, at least, use an unofficial alternative name that is a direct translation from English: Nan Zhongguo Hai.

Greg Pringle Hainan

Excuse me, but in Vietnamese the name of the sea is Bien Dong (diacritics omitted), not Dong Bien. Its Sino-Vietnamese equivalence is Dong Hai 東海 (Eastern Sea).

Besides, many Vietnamese documents also use the name Nam Hai 南海 (Southern Sea), which is equivalent with the Chinese name Nanhai. However, as the name Vietnam means "Southern Yue", or "Far South", Nam Hai can also interpreted as "Vietnamese Sea".

The Portuguese gave the sea the name "South China Sea" because their principal trading partner was the Chinese, and the sea was south of China... It has nothing to do with ownership of the sea, since the high seas is international territory (minus EEZ zones off coasts and islands of course.) However, using the East Sea signifies equality to China, and refusal to be in a subordinate relationship relative to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.253.55.211 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I agree Biển đông is the name for the East Sea (East of Vietnam) also the common usage in Vietnam for the "South China Sea, as they do think this reflects on ownership claims. Now China appears to think the same as they insist Philippines has recently stepped out of line in renaming it the West Philippines Sea. Obviously Philippines Government think it's name also influences the arguement of what belongs to whom. Earlier in January 2009 I tried to point out that there was a serious situation brewing in the region, but the Wikipedia editors and project people desided to do nothing to clarify the debates. Then about July 2010 Hillary Clinton attempted to generate a multi-lateral, or regional settlement with USA offering to arbitrate and help. China responded by demanding the US keep out of the issue. As of June 2011 China repeats this warning to the World.

I have just finshed reading the Bernard Madoff case current summary article and talk pages and can't help wishing Wikipedia had a simple place for me to complement those writers for such a fantastically clear and concise summary of just where all those matters are heading up till now. Of Course China's accute shortage of Oil, its greatly increased need for oil to feed its fast rising industrial and economic prosperity gains. Besides it buys oil mainly from the Middle East (mostly Saudi), which oil must transition through these waters, meaning they can easily be held to randsom or sabotage risk by anyone angry with them, particularly terrorists and pirates.

I hope here I can inspire someone to do that with the South China/Vietnam East sea/Philippines West Sea, debates and argued ownership reasoning as world news many offered comments do on what is what and what is likely to make more trouble than good.--Robbygay (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC) --Robbygay (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article on Brunei is currently listed to be improved on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. You can support the nomination with your vote there. --Fenice 06:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Southwestern limit

What is the geographical coordinate of its southwestern limit with the Indian Ocean at the Strait of Malacca? — Instantnood 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found it's defined in the sections 46 and 49 of the Limits of Oceans and Seas (pdf), an IHO publication. — Instantnood 12:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

East Sea ⇒ Sea of Japan redirection

It has been proposed that East Sea should redirect to the Sea of Japan page, instead of the current East Sea (disambiguation) page. As concensus will determine this, please discuss it here in Talk:Sea of Japan#East Sea diambiguation page. Thank you.

Note: Wikipedia:Disambiguation policy mandates that if there is risk of confusion, East Sea should redirect to a disambiguation page first. The Vietnamese government uses East Sea to mean South China Sea as shown here in the Official Website of APEC 2006 in Vietnam.--Endroit 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you read Wikipedia on Potsdam Declaration pages and the official web pages, recording these details, and where it becomes clear the intentions of the World based on USA, UK, China and later Russian accords. Japan was to be left with certain islands and territories etc is well explained and may help you decide such views.--Robbygay (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for PRC naval buildup

The claim that the PRC is building up a naval presence in the area could use a source. TheKaplan 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs a better more neutral map. Why use a Chinese map with Chinese names for the islands when the SCS is international waters and its islands are claimed and occupied by various countries? Seems like an attempt by a user to legitimize the PRC's bogus claim over the entire southeast Asian maritime region. Also, this is an English language article. The English names for the area and islands are to used, not Chinese pinyin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.127.13 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely needs more information, particularly in respect to claim details and WW II Potsdam accords relativity to ownership matters and claims.

PRC naval buildup and increased aggressivness of attacking Philippines, Vietnam and Japanese assets, fishermen and seismic vessels etc., are being ignored. I believe, ignored unwisely by Wiki, as this is a War precipitative fact.

Sure I am an Australian living in SRV 23 years, a non-veteran, still perhaps I see the closer happenings with lacking neutrality. Thus I gave up trying to include details in Americas asset Wikipedia. Up to you guys to update this great encyclopaedia resource, we all can't live without it these days. I am a Wiki fan anyhow.--Robbygay (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bias Map

Why use a Chinese map with Chinese names for the islands when the area is international waters and its islands are claimed and effectively ruled by different countries? Seems to me like an attempt to legitimize the PRC's bogus claim over the entire maritime region. Also, this is an English language article. The English names for the area and islands are to be used, not Chinese pinyin. The map is removed. We'll use the remaining map instead. Akaloc 16:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the largest

Changed "largest sea" to "one of the largest". The Arabian Sea, for one, seems larger at 3,862,000 sq km, according to Britannica. Perhaps it is the largest marginal sea? Pfly (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, at least two marginal seas are considerably larger: the Philippine Sea and the Coral Sea. So, the South China Sea is nowhere near the largest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.220.165.111 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A little confused

I don't know which is correct, but this page asserts EEZ extends 200nm out from territorial waters. The EEZ page asserts it extends 200nm out from its coast, while the territorial waters extend 12nm from its coast (so the EEZ would extend 188nm from it's territorial waters). A little thing, but if anyone happens to know the fact of the matter clarification might be nice. Coanda-1910 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I guess the whole section removed as I don't find a 200 nm or anything like that on the page?--Robbygay (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Piracy

I know this area is a specifically bad area for modern piracy. Would someone who has a bit more knowledge in the area maybe be able to add a section discussing that? --198.53.112.165 (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does the "Chinese" infobox in the article only use the name "South China Sea" and translations thereof? Why can't names with other meanings in other languages be used? DHN (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"South China Sea" and "East Sea" are separate terms referring to the same body of water. Of all the languages listed (English, Filipino, Malay and Portuguese), all refer to a translation of "South China Sea". "Biển Đông" does not translate to South China Sea. Perhaps another infobox could be made below for languages that refer to it as "East Sea" (I recall from somewhere that it's called "Eastern Sea" in Cambodian). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Who decides that it should only mention to "South China Seas" and translations thereof? The infobox in chopstick doesn't only mention words that are translated from the Chinese. DHN (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the Vietnamese term since there doesn't seem to be a consensus on restricting the infobox to only using terms that mean "South China Sea". DHN (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can not agree the logic these China lovers are arguing, this is not a question of how many languages to translate in an English Language encyclopedia. However this is a naming question that has never been settled officially thus was being abused by some to suggest a Chinese ownership of the lot as evidenced in the 9 part dotted line they claim and now fight defendingly with guns even. Variously it is Vietnam East Sea, China's Southern Sea as even Nam Viet translats to the Southern Viets a nomadic people South of the Yangtze River, the Philippines have recently caused a Chinese objection by naming it "West Sea". Naming it "South China Sea" is the commonly recognised wording and hence what English Language readers place in the search box to find this page digitally on the Internet, and as this is a digital internet encyclopedia that name can stand as the most common acceptance, with no connotation of an ownership from the name.

Or does the "Red Sea" indicate it is owned by the "Reds" if so which reds PRC or SRV or other Russia no longer the Reds. Does the Tasman Sea belong to Able Tasman family, Tasmania or whom? The Black sea to the Blacks? Arabian Sea to Saudi?--Robbygay (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This article is about the waterbody, not about the specific name "South China Sea", so if the sea is called something else in a different language then it is still completely relevant. Bazonka (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we add every single imaginable language to the infobox? I can see the case for Chinese, Malay, Indonesian, Filipino, Vietnamese, since these countries border the sea, but why Japanese, Thai, and Portuguese? DHN (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Portugese because it was one of the first languages to coin the term "South China Sea"; Thai because Thailand borders the South China Sea; Japan because it uses a controversial name for the sea (and that it had significant historical control over the sea). That is nowhere near "every imaginable language". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Benlisquare. We need a common sense and consensus. "every imaginable language" does not make sense. However If you add a reasonable language agreeable by many like a Vietnamese name you added, it is a legitimate edit to the name box. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is absolutely no reason to add all fanciful names in every languages here, only the names that are common and used in the countries bordering this Sea such as The Phillipines, Vietnam, Indonesia or China are relevant and should be included here ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love4eveverymuch (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Thailand borders the South China Sea. The Gulf of Thailand is a shallow arm of the South China Sea, according to its respective article. The Japanese name is used for the same reason Latin names are included for many former Roman Empire settlements - Japan had a significant historical influence over the South China Sea. During World War II, Japan controlled and occupied (or partially controlled, in the case of China (militarily; including most of Guangdong) and Thailand (politically/diplomatically)) every single country that surrounds the South China Sea, and built many Imperial Japanese Navy submarine bases there. Even though today Japan does not control anything around the South China Sea, it has historically had significant control. Portuguese is also used for historical reasons - it was the first language to use the term "China Sea", due to its maritime trade activities. Other than Portuguese, Thai, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog (Philippines), Malay and Indonesian, there is no need to use any other language, as all other languages would be irrelevant to the main topic at hand. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest or second largest sea

This information appears to be false. According to Wikipedia, at least two seas are considerably larger than the South China Sea, namely the Philippine Sea (seems to be the largest) and the Coral Sea (the second largest). Please confirm or deny this, for I am not entirely sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.220.165.111 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (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 08:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Two new articles recently created relevant to this area.

Anyone following this page should also be aware of newly created pages which are directly relevant to this article in the region.

• Territorial disputes in South China Sea
• Nine-dotted line

Surprisingly, these articles have been created from translation from other lang wikis with no Chinese zh wiki articles. Would be nice if someone could vet the articles and check for bias or adherence to NPOV.

--Visik (Chinwag Podium) 08:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll check for inconsistencies right now. Perhaps after final exams, I'll write a ZH article for nine-dotted line (after I've checked that it doesn't already exist under an obscure name). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

Since the Philippine government now is using the term "West Philippine Sea" as an official settled doctrine to refer to the waters west of the country where the Philippines has overlapping territorial claims with five other nations, instead of the all-embracing tag of "South China Sea." The redirection should be remove and revive the "West Philippine Sea" Wikipage. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of 180 countries, how many countries is the Philippines? "South China Sea" is the WP:COMMONNAME used in English (WP:ENG), and is recognised by the majority of English-speaking nations and many international organizations. "South China Sea" doesn't imply that the sea is owned by China - it was a historical term originally denoting European sea trade with China, as it was the South China Sea where many of the vessels travelled through. Otherwise, under the same logic, all countries that border the Indian Ocean belong to India, as with the Arabian Sea, Persian Sea, Sea of Japan, East China Sea, et cetera. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the language of the Philippines is not English, so it's not actually called "West Philippine Sea" but the Tagalog equivalent. This is English-language Wikipedia, so why would we have an article for a foreign name? Certailnly worth mentioning in the infobox and maybe article lede though. Bazonka (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me just correct you, Bazonka, the official language of the Philippines is English and Tagalog and referring to my entry, I never mentioned that the West Philippine Sea Wikipage should be renamed to as “Dagat Kanluran ng Pilipinas” or use in a way other than in English Wikipedia, in the first place, who mention having an article of a foreign name? Benlisquare has a point that’s way I created this section to clarify it. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Even in everyday language, Filipinos never refer South China Sea as its equivalent in Tagalog except if it's in school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.247.248 (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. As I understand it though, West Philippine Sea is just an alternative name for South China Sea as used by Filipino institutions - see [1]. Therefore it certainly deserves a mention in this article, but not an article in its own right. South China Sea is still, by far, the commonest English-language name for the waterbody. Bazonka (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative names

This edit added ", also known as the West Philippine Sea" to the WP:LEAD (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Alternative names). This edit reverted that addition, saying, "rv, pov to only mention one alternative name". I disagree with this solution, as if flouts WP:DUE. A better solution, if other alternative names exist, would be to mention all alternative names having due weight.

Digging around, I found Amiel Ungar (June 13, 2011), East Sea, West Sea, South Sea or Our Sea, Follow Israel news, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144908 , an apparent WP:RS which says that the Philippine government has renamed the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea "West Philippine Sea" and that the Vietnamese call it the East Sea. Digging around some more, I found this archived copy of a page copyrighted "APEC Vietnam" (see the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation article) where, apparently, the Vietnamese government has used, in at least this one instance, the name "East Sea" as an alternative name for "South China Sea".

I've added the two alternatives which the aforementioned news article supports to the lead, but not in the lead sentence, and I have not bolded them.

I see some useful guidelines applicable to this situation at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines. Those guidelines suggest that an alternative presentation might be used if there were three or more alternative names. In this regard, I note this earlier discussion which mentioned several alternative names -- unfortunately, without mentioning supporting sources. The guideline on whether or not to bold the alternatives (WP:AT#Emphasis) seems to turn on frequency of use. Feel free to improve on what I've done -- perhaps it would be better to move the mention of alternative names to the Names section of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think both names are already described in Names section and infobox. According to WP:LEAD#Separate section usage, the names are not necessarily in the lead. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've self-reverted. I say "Never mind" in honor of Gilda Radner and her SNL character Emily Litella. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Extra comments "The south china sea isn't china territory, it was actually shared by Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. Chinese government is just claim the sea for their own goods and needs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.26.132 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

UNCLOS

China seems to claim huge territorial swaths of this sea (see nine-dotted line). But this seems to go blatantly against the territorial extent specified in the UNCLOS, which China has signed. Are there any sources that talk about this apparent contradiction? Spellcast (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"UNCLOS has no provisions setting out how sovereignty disputes over offshore islands are to be resolved. UNCLOS establishes rules for uses of the oceans adjacent to continental land territory and islands. UNCLOS assumes that there is no dispute over which state has sovereignty over the land territory and islands. If the sovereignty disputes over offshore islands were decided by a court or tribunal according to international law, they would be decided by the rules of customary international law on the acquisition and loss of territory." —Security and international politics in the South China Sea

That's for the island aspect. I don't know how authentic the nine-dotted line is or what China considers the waters within to be. Quigley (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

According to PRC there is no "Dispute" over this Sea they own up to the 9 dotted line, hence they have not submitted a claim to UNCLOS as they have owned this since time immorial in recorded history. USCLOS requested countries to submit their "Claims" where they claim seas beyong 200nm from their mainland coastline. PRC have this as their mainland territories and claim nothing beyond the 9 dash line, to draw a solid overlapping line, over other's solid lines, would be presumptious of a "claim" but if they "own" it is not a "disputable claim".

In taking this approach, PRC ignore the facts of a WW II, whereby Japan took ownershiop of this territory from China, and ALL THE CONTENDERS of today claims. So Japan "owned" by war and when they surendered, the Potsdam Declarations (revised Cairo Declarations) were approved by China, USA, UK and later Communist Russia agreements. Thus the today ownership is there established, the allies did give Japan some Islands and seas to "own" ~ they also gave China Mainland back to China and settled "Ownership" on the other claimants. Wikipedia has details of that declaration and there are official Potsdam records online to review.

PRC having now the money and muscle to "unilaterally" clarify by the dotted line what they "Own" they feel historically. Now comes the catch, PRC has stated clearly "PRC will not use military solutions to extend borders, or to settle disputes" which in their view they have none of. They have also stipulated the 9 dot line as their territorial sovereignty and the oil and fish wealth therein is theirs. They have then stated clearly "PRC will use military force, to defend their borders and Sovereign assets".

As I always warn, do be careful when translating words of cultural significance, that may differ between those languages, as Sun Zhi of Wu said 2,400 years ago "know your advesories as you know yourself". --Robbygay (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

could an admin fix the syntax error?

Since people will be reading this while the dispute continues, under "Territorial claims" there is an error..."Generally, China has preferred to resolve competing claims bi-laterally,[8]bi-laterally]" Could an admin please remove that extra bi-laterally]? Thanks Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Map with undefined barrier

The map with file name: File:Schina sea 88.png includes the dotted line inside which China claims its sovereignty. This U-shaped line is legally undetermined. Therefore, this map should not be presented in Wikipedia which is an unbiased source of information. Please make attempt to edit this map. Thanks Neweco (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

However Wikipedia is descriptive, not subjective. Describing someone's POV isn't the same as supporting someone's POV; the article clearly states that the line is of Chinese claim, not Chinese control. Whether or not there are legal considerations, China's claims remain to be adhered to islands within that line, and Wikipedia describes that claim. Wikipedia does not take sides and state whether the claims are true or false, whether they are justified or not, but describes the de facto situation as it stands, from all sides. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned the map named "South China Sea" in the section [2], not the one in the section [3]. The map in "Islands and Seamounts" part is supposed to give an overview on a variety of islands in this sea. Therefore, the map should not include any territorial claims (and why is only China's claim presented in the map?) as it is just a general view of introduction, merely about natural geography. Do you notice the dotted line in the map [4]? This line should be eliminated to ensure the consistency between the sub-title and its content (which is actually about the distribution of islands over this waters, not about political disputes). Kind regards. Neweco (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If you provide a better map then we can switch it no problem. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The map in the Islands and Seamounts section shows the Chinese, Malaysian and Philippine claim lines, which all overlap. Whilst these claims might not be relevant to information about the islands, Wikipedia is not promoting any of them over the others. It is NPOV. Bazonka (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)