Jump to content

Talk:Pratas Island

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 61.89.17.127 (talk) at 02:42, 28 April 2018 (http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-south-china-sea-ruling-20160712-snap-story.html https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/china-loses-south-china-sea-claim-in-ruling-at-the-hague/news-story/6ac8cf62db5bd4f3be2035dbe51e4763?nk=2ce8b8dd5d2629f7c0c101cfcea06b2d-1524882713). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reference

should an e-mail address be in the article as a reference? Jjjsixsix 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do think responding to this five years after it's asked is slightly silly, but the answer is still no. Sven Manguard Talk 05:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied Content

Much of the content is copied from http://vm.nthu.edu.tw. I'm too lazy to do anything about it, of course, but I'm posting that. 207.224.49.221 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Dongsha?

Both the administrating state (ROC) and the disputing state (PRC) agree that these islands are called the Dongsha Islands. Even before this romanization, they agreed to call it Tung-sha. So, why doesn't our article treat it as normal Chinese territory to which our WP:PINYIN naming conventions apply? A google search for both "Pratas islands"[1] and "Dongsha islands"[2] (even with the former getting a boost by including pre-pinyin sources for which the opposing name Tung sha is not counted) shows the latter is 4x more common. I was kind of confused when I came about this article, because it's talked about in the context of the South China Sea, where there are non-Chinese claimants who have non-Chinese names for the islands. The current title is misleading because it implies there is some non-Chinese claimant. I don't think a move to "Dongsha" would be controversial with the reasoning I presented above, so I don't think there's a need to file a formal move request. But, I will leave some time for people to respond and discuss before I move. Shrigley (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. --Danielinblue (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you too. --2.245.105.0 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pratas Islands. 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) 19:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pratas Islands. 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, 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) 08:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China (PRC)'s claim to these islands are illegitimate

These are islands are both officially claimed and controlled as sovereign national territories of the Republic of China (Taiwan), the People's Republic of China's attempted claim is officially and legally illegitimate and not recognized by the United Nations or any other country in the world, especially since the P.R. of China officially and effectively lost their island claims in the United Nations Hague Tribunal ruling:

1.) https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/china-loses-south-china-sea-claim-in-ruling-at-the-hague/news-story/6ac8cf62db5bd4f3be2035dbe51e4763?nk=2ce8b8dd5d2629f7c0c101cfcea06b2d-1524882713

2.) http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-south-china-sea-ruling-20160712-snap-story.html