File talk:China map.png

The image and its NOPV

We all known that South China Istalnds' sovereignty is currently disputed betweent PROC, POC, Vietnam, Philipines, Malaysia...(see Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands for more informations and references).

I ask the image author two questions: Doesn't that map indirectly affirms that all South China Sea Islands are belonged to Two Chinas? Is it a total NOPV map?

Magnifier (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was sovereignty then it would be problem as it means "exclusive right to complete control" - however the map on the article has a caption saying "administration" so it says that PRC currently controls the islands, not that it has the right to do so. So to say that it is PRC controlled territory is correct. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, no the map does not "indirectly affirms that all South China Sea Islands are belonged to Two Chinas" as I have only coloured the islands and the reefs (in terms of the Spratly Islands) according to the actual "line of control". Secondly, Paracel Islands is under the control of the PRC. Basically Blnguyen has answered the question, it is a map of actual control and nothing more.  Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this is used in the article China which is about the "cultural region" I do wonder whether the South China Sea islands should be included. This article about the "region" seems to correlate with, eg Indian subcontinent and Australia (continent). Some territories and islands that are part of India and Australia are not part of the main continent and are not discussed in detail. Places like Norfolk Island are Australian territories but aren't really a part of the "geographic region" I think the same would apply here, especially as the South China Sea areas are not inhabited but are only territorial outposts (unlike the Taiwan strait). It would also remove any lingering (and unintended) suggestiveness that the ROC and PRC are the only two countries contesting the islands (since ROC and PRC are the countries discussed in the article and headlined in the caption). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think using such term as 'administration' is very confusing and ambiguous for people visiting the page. Why there's not a map of China like ones on other countries' pages? And instead of it, there's something called 'administrated territories'? Because of what reasons? There used to be an official MAP of China! But then someone then replaced the MAP by this ambiguous disputed image?

Btw, a country can not capture some land and claim it as its own. Without international official recognizing, it's nothing but a stolen, annexed land. There are something called Chinese administrations - like Hong Kong, Macao, because they're internationally recognized as such. But not those island!

And I think you've heard that Russian recently put a flag on the sea belt of Arctic and have some military on that now, do you think that we should put a picture of the Arctic and Russia similar like this one on Russia's Wiki page? And I also wonder why there's no image of 'administrated territories' on Russia's page where Kuril Islands are included? Is this how Chinese people respect international rules or even Wiki's rules? I've always thought that Chinese people were nice and respectful folks..

And btw, to have something under one's administration, one has to include it into current existing administration units (like provinces, states, region) or create a new official administration unit, but there's no such recognition to these islands in China even in official Chinese documents! Because Chinese government doesn't dare to do it, because they know that they can't. But you guess what, it is recognized as part of a Vietnam's Binh Thuan province for decades.

So please revert this image to it's original version. This is Wikipedia and things should be kept neutral, clear and correct as much as it's possible. Thank you!
Sontung007 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "Administration" is not the only word there. Actual Line of Control is also present and this map depicts that. nat.utoronto 23:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Paracels are completely under Chinese administration, it is nominally placed into Vietnam's Da Nang municipality; While the Spratlys are placed in Vietnam's Khanh Hoa Province, not Binh Thuan Province. As for China, it is under Hainan Province Paracels, Spratlys, and Zhongsha Islands Authority's administration. Russia's map does include the four disputed Kuril islands, which are claimed by Japan but actually administered by Russia. From what I understand, Russia does not yet claim the Arctic seabed, the officials only said that the sovereignty over the Arctic seabed should be discussed. Even if Russia had claimed the Arctic seabed as part of their continental shelf extension, and approved by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf of the United Nations Organisation, the infobox maps doesn't show territorial waters or seabeds, so it wouldn't be marked anyway. --Shibo77 (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It was untrue about Binh Thuan Province, thank you for your correction and information! But as you can see at the link to Hainan Province Paracels, Spratlys, and Zhongsha Islands Authority the Spratlys are not controlled only by China. The Authority is China's self proclamation, no other countries respect it and recoginize it, except China herself of course. So one can not say that the whole Spratlys are under control of China, not even speaking about 'administration'! None of the countries that have claims over the disputed have included this kind of image on their wiki page like China does. Why should be China treated/behave differently than the others? Why should Wiki be used as a tool for Chinese policy and government? Sontung007 (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I said the Paracels are completely under Chinese administration, while one shoal and 8 reefs of the Spratlys are currently under Chinese administration. The other political entities that currently administer the Spratlys are listed here, the political subdivisions to which they belong could be found under this article. These subdivisions to which these features belong are not widely recognised internationally either, they are therefore disputed territories. This map shows the line of actual control of China, not its internationally recognised-sovereign rights over these territories, nor its claimed territories. I've reverted it to the older version showing the features currently occupied by China. As you can see from the map, many features of the South China Sea (much of the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal) are shaded grey to denote that they aren't under Chinese control even though they are claimed by China. Would it be better if I added dashed lines to denote territories also claimed by other nations? --Shibo77 (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it because, as I said, the previous 'map' was very ambiguous and it could suggested to people that the islands are _Officially_ a part of China. As you can see some of previous versions of the 'map' _Somehow_ didn't have some islands the grayed out. And I'm glad that you and people have acknowledged that the islands are just occupied by China, not internationally recognized, claimed or so. But I think adding dashed lines to the 'map' would make it chaotic for people reading it. At Wiki our priority is to keep things clean, correct and neutral for people, not to be used by any Special interests. And what you've done was a good job, thank you Shibo ;) Sontung007 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

the south china sea islands are like a powder keg or something that is making the near by nation bicker over little scaps of land what i think the solution in future should be is no one county controls all the south china sea islands china should get paracel islands vietnam gets few islands and malasia gets some islands and philephines gets island and then borders in this region of world will be more stable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.50.34 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

China just captured the islands by force recently, and it claims more than 80% of all South China Sea water. What you are saying is just nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.57.144 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kashmir

The status of Kashmir is incorrectly depicted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Korea

Korea was never fully part of the Yuan Dynasty, this map marks the entire Korean peninsula as part of the Yuan dynasty. This is wrong. The correct map can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yuen_Dynasty_1294.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.108.66 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

thats a interesting point to make but i know that yaun dynasty was a part of Mongol empire. i did not make the map but i know that all of korea was part of mongol empire if yaun dynasty did control all of korea then what mongol nation "khanate" ruled the rest of korea? the mongol empire broke up in 1294 at the death of Kubla khan i know that it was dived into four parts. there was a mongoloid race part (oreiental people) a russian part a central asian part and a middle eastern part. if what you say about yaun dynasty not controling all of korea is corect then what mongol goverenment controled the rest of korea? im a big history buff but i never heard of a korean khanate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.50.34 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[Three discussions above forwarded from en:File talk:China map.png by Athaenara (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)]