Talk:Woody Island (South China Sea)

Violating "Neutral point of view": This is not an objective encyclopedia article

I assume this is not an objective encyclopedia article. This article written in a way that make readers think it's a Chinese island without any serious dispute. We need to review whether this article follows "Neutral point of view" or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.172.114.31 (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Though the island is disputed, it is not disputable over who holds actual control. Dokdo is de facto controlled by South Korea, despite a dispute with Japan; the Kuril Islands are de facto controlled by Russia, and the Senkaku Islands are de facto held and administered by Japan. Vietnam has made no serious attempt to militarily retake the island, and there is little evidence to say that the island is physically contested outside of political and diplomatic circles. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy does not state that, for the sake of equal balance between two sides of a dispute, equal footing be allowed to essentially what may be a fairytale side of the argument (WP:UNDUE), and in our case, it cannot be argued that the island has any serious administrative control from Vietnam.
>113.172.114.31: HO CHI MINH, HO CHI MINH CITY, VIET NAM - DSL, 3G + GPRS VINAPHONE, VINAPHONE.COM.VN
Oh wait, you're not serious. I sure hope I won't be talking to a wall. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If "equal footing [should not] be allowed to essentially what may be a fairytale side of the argument", then why is this article titled "Woody Island, South China Sea", instead of "Woody Island, Hainan" or "Yongxing Island"? (Same goes for the other Paracel Islands, which are all administered by Hainan) Quigley (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Woody Island", I guess most people opposing a move to "Yongxing Island" would cite WP:Use English; as for "SCS", I guess this is where people opposed to having the island associated with China keep citing WP:NPOV over and over. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 23:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Vietnamese Communist youth paper, Thanh Nien news, refers to this island as "Yongxing Dao", with an explanatory note that it's also known as "Woody Island", but repeats only Yongxing thereafter.[1] The same newspaper refers to the "Hoang Sa (Paracel)" and "Truong Sa (Spratly)" archipelagos, so I think we have a case similar to Taiping Island, where Filipino sources conceded the name, if not the sovereignty. Shrigley (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a new user, so if I make a writing mistake in this article, please overlook it.
Thanks for replying. However, your references to encyclopedia articles about Dokdo and Senkaku Islands need to be discussed.

1. Although Dokdo is de facto controlled by South Korea, the writer still places the Japanese name "Takeshima" on the top of the image (on the right).
"Disputed islands
Other names: Dokdo, Takeshima"

2. Although Senkaku Islands is de facto controlled by Japan, the writer still places the Chinese names on the top of the image (on the right).
"Disputed islands
Other names: Japanese: 尖閣諸島
Chinese: 釣魚台列嶼 or 钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿"

Do you notice these differences? What I want to mention here is the sentimental feeling when a reader studies this "Woody Island" article.

In general, I suggest you complement this article with the Vietnamese name on the top of the image, namely under these phrases:
"Woody Island
永兴岛"

It should be:
"Woody Island
永兴岛
Vietnamese: Đảo Phú Lâm"

--ILovePeace1990 (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

...and the article clearly mentions Đảo Phú Lâm as a name of the island in the lede. You are emphasising a non-issue. Would you consider the article to be "NPOV" if it was covered in Vietnamese flags and "and this is also called Đảo Phú Lâm" written 17 times in the article? Because this is where I see you are going. Read the lede - it already mentions the Vietnamese name; this is clearly enough. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course I don't want this article to be "covered in Vietnamese flags and "and this is also called "Đảo Phú Lâm"" written 17 times in the article" as you said. OK, if it's what you want. I retreat. You can delete this discussion since the deletion doesn't affect the article.--ILovePeace1990 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also going to call out this article as being non objective. Given the current geopolitics of the region, not including the Vietnamese name in the title seems to downplay the fact that the island is disputed. This is a relevant issue involving current events and it gives the impression that the article is biased even if the writer has no direct political opinion.

The history section also appears to show a lack of detail, but this could be amended over time to include more information. A good comparison might be the Gibraltar dispute, which has so much history behind it that it seems to deserve its own wiki article separate from the territory itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.168.16 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)