Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Paracel Islands

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

Comments

[edit]

Question: How the heck can the Vietnamese claim victory even tho their ships were sunk, the territories under their control was taken over, and the Chinese didn't' lose a single ship and had less casualties? The logic fails me AKFrost 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the Vietnamese claiming victory anywhere. The Vietnamese government that took over a year later was a different one. DHN 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup notice

[edit]

As noted above, some problems with basic facts on the page. Plenty of grammatical and spelling errors ("continuing thru") and awkward expressions. Some terms need to be made consistent --Sumple (Talk) 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These problems remain as of 2012. For example, this sentence in the "Historical Background" section: " ...while South Vietnam controlled the Crescent Group since capturing it from North Vietnam in 1975". Seeing as the conflict referred to occurred in 1974, it doesn't make sense to speak of events in 1975 as "historical". Darkstar8799 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article about South Vietnam capturing the Crescent Group from North Vietnam actually states the opposite, North Vietnam capturing it from South Vietnam. Which would be much more logical, espacially for the last year of the war, 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.207.60 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North VN capturing the Paracels from the South is impossible and totally nonexistant, as the Battle occurred in 1974, not 1975, and the South Vietnamese were the only Vietnamese to have occupied and administered (the eastern half of) the islands. Such invasion didn't occur in the Paracels, but on the Spratlys between March and early May in 1975. Also, communist Chinese troops invaded, occupied and controlled the entire Paracels in '74, so there's no chance of North VN invading South VN forces therein '75. Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Background

[edit]

I've begun editing this entry, starting today with the Historical Background section. I've condensed it greatly, believing that most of the previously-included information rightly belongs in the general Paracel Islands entry rather than here. I've attempted to spruce up the vocabulary and narrative flow, and maintain a NPOV. I will try to edit the other sections soon. Comments are welcome! SteveStrummer (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very rewarding editorial project for me, and I hope what I've done contributes positively to an understanding of this notable but underappreciated event. With great respect for the subject, I'm going to consider my editing of this article finished, more or less. I thank the previous editors, and I hope that future editors will find the work useful. Comments are still always welcome! SteveStrummer (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work! DHN (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I still think that the section is a bit too PoV. After all, most of it is built around the idea that "the islands were historically considered part of ancient Vietnam" (the Vietnamese PoV) while the Chinese PoV is relegated to words like "undeterred", "sensing opportunity" and the like. (And according to the Chinese Wikipedia, China's claim actually dated back to the Tang Dynasty.) I feel that the section is still a bit too PoV-ish. Tim Song (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I do see your objection as valid, at least regarding the opening sentence: it is indeed unfair to say "historically considered part of ancient Vietnam" without saying who made those considerations, and I have revised this sentence accordingly. I've also eliminated "undeterred", but only because I removed its associated remarks entirely: the early skirmish to which it referred is, upon review, not sufficiently documented to be useful (it was only briefly mentioned in a NYT article), so I've consolidated the remarks to their most salient point, which is simply that the islands were intransigently disputed. As for "sensing opportunity", I must respectfully disagree that there is any bias inherent in that phrase: we are talking about politics and warfare here, and the military opportunity - set forth and explained in the preceding sentence - is patently obvious. Nonetheless, I appreciate your careful reading of this article and the constructive criticism it raised. With this new revision, I hope the PoV flag on this article can be removed by consensus. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that the article attributed to China the act of "sensing", when it's hard to say whether China did so proactively - a Chinese source described China's renewal of the claims as a response to South Vietnam's announcement of an oil survey in the disputed area, and further described the Chinese fleet as "hastily assembled" - hardly a sign of preparedness, as "sensing opportunity" would suggest. See [1]. Further, it is, I think, unlikely that China would attack Vietnam first during the Cultural Revolution and when its relations with USSR was extremely tense. (The Sino-Soviet border conflict occurred just 5 years before the battle.) Tim Song (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be realistically suggested that China somehow stumbled blindly or unwillingly into this conflict. However "hastily assembled" the fleet may have been, it was nonetheless sent to the Paracels vicinity on a specific date: after 20 years of dispute, there can be no doubt that January, 1974, was chosen as a uniquely opportune time to arrive and plant flags, as opposed to, say, January, 1950, or January, 1968. Pointing out the context of an event such as this is not PoV, it is necessary information in historical study. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realistic or not, according to China it was drawn into this conflict unwillingly - South Vietnam announced its intention to conduct an oil survey earlier, and according to China it had to do something to prevent it. At the very least, I think, the part should account for China's explanation and let the reader decide if China's position is persuasive. The political turmoil in China at that time and the hostility between China and the USSR d to suggest that China was indeed forced to respond lest its claim be forever lost. (China also has perfectly legitimate reasons not to send ships to the islands in 1950 - the Civil War has not yet ended - and in 1968 - tense relationship w/ USSR.) If an explanation is plausible, I think, then we should acknowledge its presence rather than totally omitting it. Tim Song (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "explanation" of either side is in question, and neither one denigrated at all. I think you are erroneously conflating the meaning of "sensing opportunity" with that of "exhibiting opportunism", but since this perception may be more widespread than I imagine, I have revised the section again. I have used your very words to change the text, and with that I trust you will remove the PoV flag.SteveStrummer (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the hard work. The flag is removed. Tim Song (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you too. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geneva Accord

Historical background

After an era of French colonial rule (c.1887-1954), the Geneva accord of 1954 gave administrative control of the islands to the new Republic of Vietnam in the South. This arrangement was immediately contested by the fledgling People's Republic of China, which had not been party to the accord, and which voiced a longstanding Chinese claim to the islands. Despite persistent diplomatic brinkmanship, the situation remained unchanged for another two decades.

The People's Republic of China did sign the accord.1 2--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Airbase

By 1973, after years of debilitating struggle in the Second Indochina War (the Vietnam War), the ARVN military presence on the Paracels was reduced to a single platoon of soldiers, as most forces had been withdrawn to the mainland for defence. In an effort to strengthen its position, South Vietnam announced plans to build an airbase on the islands, one that could support the crucial C-7 Caribou transport planes. Lest its claim to the islands be forever lost, China vigorously renewed its call for recognition. In January, 1974, South Vietnamese naval vessels were dispatched to protect the airbase surveying project, and China responded in kind.

The airbase issue probably is not the main reason. After the Paris Peace Accord signed in 1973, the war in Vietnam was considered winding down by many parties, including US, Russia, France, China, North and South VN. As a result, the US limited and eventually cut off military supports to the Republic of Vietnam. It would be difficult to explain why RVN wanted to strengthen the position on the islands under such circumstances. The South people knew that they were completely abandoned. The government of South VN just had to act somehow protect its sovereignty at least to keep people's fighting spirit, and she might had placed some hope on the oil reserves from the Paracels to finance herself. Moreover, after the accords, it was obvious that any intervention from the US was out of question. China clearly understood the entire situation and wanted to act at the right time as it did when France’s withdrawal from VN in 1956: It quickly occupied Woody Island. In addition, the letter to Zhou Enlai from Pham Van Dong in 1958 would make the case more than perfect. The Battle of the Paracel Islands solved some problems for both sides regarding the islands. For the Vietnamese, North VN didn't give the islands to anyone. South VN lost it to China. And at the same time, it is not difficult to understand why China didn't want to wait until the war ended to officially receive the islands from the North. In other words, the airbase is not the main reason. South Vietnam naval vessels would never be dispatched if there were no suspected and provocative activities from China.--Trinhbaongoc (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

I request an administrator to change this article's name to "Battle of the Paracel Islands". Originally this article was titled "Battle of Hoang Sa", using the Vietnamese form of the name. It's been changed to the English form (which seems only fair, since this is an English page), but unfortunately the contributor settled for "Battle of Paracel", an incorrect form of the name. "Paracel" is not the name of any island, nor is it used to denote the archipelago as a whole. The full descriptive name "Paracel Islands" is the definitive form. The simple plural "The Paracels" is used usually (though not necessarily) only after context has been established: note how all substantive maps and atlases denote the area as "(the) Paracel Islands", and use "The Paracels" only in subsequent text. Currently there are four redirecting pages to this article: "Battle of the Paracel Islands", "Battle of the Paracels", "Battle of Xisha", "Battle of the Xishas", and "Battle of Hoang Sa". The requested name change requires an administrator because the requested name is already in use. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm going to go ahead and do it right now. I doubt there will be objections. Keep up the good work! El_C 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle badly written?

[edit]
Inserted note: I was confused by some of the content here. I added the Later comment subheading and made My comment into a subheading under this major section instead of a major section alongside it. I was/am not sure whether "this version" in My comment referred to the article version or to content in this section and guessed that it was probably the latter because of the signature timings. If I've confused things here, please fix and clarify as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Through the reading, what I felt was that Vietnamese firing and firing and firing and the Chinese only counter-fired afterward. And the article left me with the impression that the Chinese were the underdogs and suddenly the result was that the Chinese won and took over the whole islands. No offense but this article sounds like a Vietnamese patriotic propaganda material.--Tricia Takanawa (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. Not only that, and in fact, in 1958 North Vietnam (which later unified Vietnam and becomes the current Vietnam) sent a diplomatic note to China acknowledges and approves the declaration made by China defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly and Paracel Islands. The diplomatic note of North Vietnam's prime minister, Phamreco Van Dong, stated that "We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of China fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision."[2]. But the original historic background section sounds like that the islands belonged to Vietnam and that China suddenly took over the islands, which is completely biased. --173.206.61.152 (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later comment

[edit]

It appears that the Vietnamese did fire at the Chinese side first. Also, they had bigger and better equiped war ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.109.194 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment

[edit]

The writer of this version tries to rewrite history by distoring many facts which are not relevant to the battle at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.62.104 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been quoted. History has NOT been distorted. Tonytran2015 (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT-y spamming of {{cn}}

[edit]

It seems users have been spamming the "citation needed" template in a matter that's not what it's for. A {{refimprove}} tag at the top of the page is sufficient enough, and having {{cn}} placed at the end of every second sentence is blatant WP:POINT. When using templates like these, it would be preferable if users actually read the documentation regarding template usage. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added

[edit]

Hi, I have added the coords for these islands. (27.34.39.97 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Paracel 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) 23:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Claim

[edit]

Kindly verify if the Philippines has a claim in the Paracel Islands. The article implies that the country is included in the disputing including this unrelated islands. Kindly edit for brevity as some readers might be mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.56.250 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Us advisor and South Vietnamese released in hong kong

[edit]

this is a video of the U.s. advisor and South Vietnamese captured in the battle and released in hong kong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMNELhs-Lj4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more information about the American Gerald Emil Kosh captured in the battle

[edit]

http://visiblecontents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/gerald-emil-kosh.htmlMan74 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam war

[edit]

Don't you think that this battle should be classified as part of Vietnam War?

Biasedness of contents

[edit]

The entry

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands

Has the paragraph: China first asserted sovereignty in the modern sense to the South China Sea’s islands when it formally objected[citation needed] to France’s efforts to incorporate them into French Indochina during the Sino-French War (1884–1885). Initially, France recognized Qing China's sovereignty[citation needed] over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos, in exchange for Chinese recognition of Vietnam as a French territory. Chinese maps since then have consistently shown China’s claims, first as a solid and then as a dashed line.

No source has been cited for the claims that France had given the Islands to China. No proof of Chinese maps with the Islands had been provided.

I supplied two wiki entries (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hu%E1%BA%BF_(1884), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tientsin_Accord) which contradicted the claims and the editor said that I attempted to change history and the sources were unreliable !

"4 hours ago

rvt WP:OR, please summarize information from reliable secondary sources 

Dan Cherek"

I then put the remark "unsubstantiated claims" after the claims in that paragraph and I got a message from ClueBot: Edit

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Battle of the Paracel Islands

>

So Wiki allow unsubstantiated claims with no citation. Attempts to ask for source or to supply sources to the contrary was undone.

Tonytran2015 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. I took a quick look at your edits, and see that you cited wikipedia articles as supporting sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source -- see WP:IRS and WP:TERTIARY. Sources outside of WP which are cited in those articles may be useful to cite here as well in support of your assertions -- I've only glanced at those articles and haven't looked at those sources, and I'm also not a topical expert -- I don't know enough at present to have an opinion about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Wiki allows unsubstantiated claims with absolutely no citation in that paragraph and even Wiki entries cannot be used to debunk the assertions from that paragraph.

I sincerely hope that you can see the problem here. 

 Tonytran2015 (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert here, but it seems to me that the unsupported para at issue is only there to support the unsupported assertion ending the preceding paragraph saying, "the archipelago’s ownership has been in dispute since the early 20th century.", and that assertion only refers to the Paracels because of the Sino-French War (involving territorial disputes between Vietnam and China, which the French became involved in because they promised Vietnam military protection against China in the Treaty of Saigon (1874)) -- relying to justify mention here on an unstated (and, of course, unsupported) presumption that the government of Vietnam considered in 1874 that Vietnam owned the Paracels. This article has a Notes section, and I suggest that the paragraph at issue be stricken and replaced by a note following the conclusion of the preceding paragraph, with that note saying something to the effect of what I just said and citing supporting sources. That other article cites plenty of sources relating to how the French got dragged in (mainly various page ranges of this book, and there's more in this article -- how that came about seems pretty messy). I haven't looked for support of the presumption that, in 1874, VN considered the Paracels were Vietnamese territory. Perhaps, as you seem so interested in this, you can help resolve some of this by identifying sources to clarify and support some of this. Altrnatively, perhaps the assertion saying, "the archipelago’s ownership has been in dispute since the early 20th century." should be stricken unless it can be supported. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph under dispute should be struck out.

Otherewise your Wikipedia entries will be inconsistent and that is terrible.

I will NOT trust anything that is not self-consistent. Tonytran2015 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia is by its own declaration not a reliable source, you should not trust it. At best, it contains paraphrasings by untrusted editors of information in supporting sources which they cite. Where trust is an issue, you should examine the supporting sources cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Island naming in the article.

[edit]

This edit caught my eye. It strikes me that usage of both current naming and naming in timeline context may be confusing, may not be consistent across the article, and may not be stable in the WP environment of drive-by edits. "Current" is subject to change, so I'm thinking that consistent naming in timeline context is probably better, with clarification and first-usage wikilinks where appropriate. Perhaps info, probably in a higher-WP:SS level article (e.g. here) on name changes over time would be useful. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese ship discrepancy

[edit]

There is a discrepancy in the number of ships on the Chinese side. In the strength of the belligerents, you have two(2) minesweepers (#271 and #274), then under the Balance of Force, you have four(4) (#389 and #396 added). Then on the Chinese sub chasers, in the strength of belligerents, their hull numbers are 389 and 396, but in Balance of Force, the hull numbers are 281 and 282. 2601:2C5:4700:6D0:4D4E:1627:45C6:760D (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands&oldid=1206184900"