This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As this article discusses an international dispute over territorial claims that is getting more and more attention globally, this article has a high possibility of succumbing to nationalist wording (see WP:IMPARTIAL), Biased sources, and giving "equal validity" to arguments thereby creating a false balance. See also " Reliable sources and undue weight".
In particular I note that Lisan1233 has reverse the meaning of the lead sentence at leat four time times to give "viewpoint balance" by referring to the Chinese government statement as the actual motivation and then couching the global-consensus POV as "believed by the US Navy..." [1]. According to ALL non-government sources that I can find, this IS a territorial dispute (e.g. academic and journalist sources). More chinese/vietnamese-origin sources would be VERY useful for ensuring NPOV in this article, but it is not-neutral to simply declare that the Chinese government's statements are the objective truth. Witty lama 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Lisan1233 ( talk) 05:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
In what kind of reason English Wikipedia US BGN name in the first column? Does English Wikipedia turns to American Wikipedia. The such US BGN name should be put after the countries which claimed it.-- AddisWang ( talk) 21:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone provide sources that China has officially named those as "Dao"s? Because as a native Chinese, I have never read anywhere in official texts referring them as "Dao"s. They are always referred as "Jiao"s, as before reclamation. Many people on Internet sites and forums do start referring those reefs as "Dao"s after reclamation, but none of them represents the official view of Chinese government. 58.60.2.32 ( talk) 02:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Since no source is provided, I make the changes in main article. 58.60.2.31 ( talk) 06:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd like very much to see a map in the article containing the seven reclaimed islands to give an overall sense of their strategic importance. Also a bar chart of reclaimed acreage by nation in the contested areas would prove a better sense of scale than trowing raw numbers at the reader. Doyna Yar ( talk) 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I propose including the land reclamation in the Paracel Islands in the article. Doyna Yar ( talk) 16:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
There is some argument about the best way to phrase the opening sentences that describe this subject, especially since there is no standard term for the physical land reclamation projects as a group (as separate from the conceptual things like "
nine-dash line" etc.). When I first created this article the only term I could find with a reference was the metaphor "great wall of sand". As far as I know there isn't a [english-equivalent] Chinese term for the projects which, I suspect would be the most appropriate for Wikipedia to use - since this article applies to the Manual of Style somwhere between
WP:NPOVNAME &
WP:NDESC.
So, in the mean time until there is something better, how should the opening sentences be written?
Pdfpdf, with the edit summaries "big sigh" and Being polite about crap is a skill that is taking me some time & effort to develop proposed instead:
I then removed the self-referencing from the lead sentence ( diff), and Pdfpdf re-edited to move the element about the American admiral to the lead sentence ( diff):
My reply was this version to at least put Harris as a secondary sentence, since intervening changes meant there was nowhere else for that attribution of the name to go:
But this was reverted to "remove bias" [3].
I personally don't believe that the very first sentence should focus on an American admiral. The subject of the article is land reclamation - which IMO should be the very first thing we say. Harris just happens to be the person who 'coined the term' and is not mentioned again in the rest of the text.
I am no expert in land-reclamation engineering or the geopolitics of the south china sea. Could any hiterto uninvolved editors please suggest a better way to introduce this article?
p.s. I also received this terse message on my talkpage. Witty lama 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Wittylama: I find myself quite seduced by your line of reasoning to the point of having altered some of my prejudices.
I agree
PRC land-reclamation in the South China Sea is "not very catchy", and the more appropriate
PRC land reclamation in the Spratly Islands in 2013–2016 even less catchy.
Other things I agree with and/or propose are:
What do you think? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the added land owned by the state? See Talk:Post-glacial rebound#Legal implications for a similar question. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great wall of sand. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As this article discusses an international dispute over territorial claims that is getting more and more attention globally, this article has a high possibility of succumbing to nationalist wording (see WP:IMPARTIAL), Biased sources, and giving "equal validity" to arguments thereby creating a false balance. See also " Reliable sources and undue weight".
In particular I note that Lisan1233 has reverse the meaning of the lead sentence at leat four time times to give "viewpoint balance" by referring to the Chinese government statement as the actual motivation and then couching the global-consensus POV as "believed by the US Navy..." [1]. According to ALL non-government sources that I can find, this IS a territorial dispute (e.g. academic and journalist sources). More chinese/vietnamese-origin sources would be VERY useful for ensuring NPOV in this article, but it is not-neutral to simply declare that the Chinese government's statements are the objective truth. Witty lama 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Lisan1233 ( talk) 05:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
In what kind of reason English Wikipedia US BGN name in the first column? Does English Wikipedia turns to American Wikipedia. The such US BGN name should be put after the countries which claimed it.-- AddisWang ( talk) 21:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone provide sources that China has officially named those as "Dao"s? Because as a native Chinese, I have never read anywhere in official texts referring them as "Dao"s. They are always referred as "Jiao"s, as before reclamation. Many people on Internet sites and forums do start referring those reefs as "Dao"s after reclamation, but none of them represents the official view of Chinese government. 58.60.2.32 ( talk) 02:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Since no source is provided, I make the changes in main article. 58.60.2.31 ( talk) 06:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd like very much to see a map in the article containing the seven reclaimed islands to give an overall sense of their strategic importance. Also a bar chart of reclaimed acreage by nation in the contested areas would prove a better sense of scale than trowing raw numbers at the reader. Doyna Yar ( talk) 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I propose including the land reclamation in the Paracel Islands in the article. Doyna Yar ( talk) 16:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
There is some argument about the best way to phrase the opening sentences that describe this subject, especially since there is no standard term for the physical land reclamation projects as a group (as separate from the conceptual things like "
nine-dash line" etc.). When I first created this article the only term I could find with a reference was the metaphor "great wall of sand". As far as I know there isn't a [english-equivalent] Chinese term for the projects which, I suspect would be the most appropriate for Wikipedia to use - since this article applies to the Manual of Style somwhere between
WP:NPOVNAME &
WP:NDESC.
So, in the mean time until there is something better, how should the opening sentences be written?
Pdfpdf, with the edit summaries "big sigh" and Being polite about crap is a skill that is taking me some time & effort to develop proposed instead:
I then removed the self-referencing from the lead sentence ( diff), and Pdfpdf re-edited to move the element about the American admiral to the lead sentence ( diff):
My reply was this version to at least put Harris as a secondary sentence, since intervening changes meant there was nowhere else for that attribution of the name to go:
But this was reverted to "remove bias" [3].
I personally don't believe that the very first sentence should focus on an American admiral. The subject of the article is land reclamation - which IMO should be the very first thing we say. Harris just happens to be the person who 'coined the term' and is not mentioned again in the rest of the text.
I am no expert in land-reclamation engineering or the geopolitics of the south china sea. Could any hiterto uninvolved editors please suggest a better way to introduce this article?
p.s. I also received this terse message on my talkpage. Witty lama 16:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Wittylama: I find myself quite seduced by your line of reasoning to the point of having altered some of my prejudices.
I agree
PRC land-reclamation in the South China Sea is "not very catchy", and the more appropriate
PRC land reclamation in the Spratly Islands in 2013–2016 even less catchy.
Other things I agree with and/or propose are:
What do you think? Pdfpdf ( talk) 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the added land owned by the state? See Talk:Post-glacial rebound#Legal implications for a similar question. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great wall of sand. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)