Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict

Untitled

I think there is a problem using the name Damansky Island in the title of this article. The Chinese have another name for it, and this title therefore appears to take the Soviet side in who owns the island. Perhaps Soviet-Chinese Border Conflict, 1969 would be better. Also the article should note the Chinese name of the island (which I have forgotten). Adam 01:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I was using the Russian name because the island belongs to Russia. If it had been a Chinese island, I would have used corresponding Chinese name (which I also have forgotten). I do agree, however, that this name should be mentioned in the article. In any case, feel free to make appropriate changes to make the article less POV or move it under the new name altogether.--Ezhiki 01:47, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Does China now recognise Russian sovereignty over Damansky Island? If that is so, then that is the name we should use, though not in the title. The Chinese name was Chen-Bao Island. Adam 02:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The island was transferred to China per May 19, 1991 border demarcation, so, it turns out that I should really be checking the facts before engaging in an argument, eh? Oh well, happens to the best of us, I guess... Anyway, the demarcation addressed the fact that the Ussuri River fairway changed over the years in such a way that the island was now on the Chinese part of the river (per previous agreements the border was established along the fairway). If you can move (as opposed to merely cutting and pasting) the article under a new name, which would not include the "Damansky island" part, please, do so. Thanks for the heads up.--Ezhiki 13:42, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

June 2, 2005, related news: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/02/content_3037975.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.47.109 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

nuclear weapons??

Unless i'm wrong but China did not have Nuclear weapons at this point in history, it was only the US and Soviet Russia. In fact it was Soviet Russia's refusal to help it develop nuclear weapons that contributed to Sino-Soviet split. Perhaps whoever wrote this article should cite evidence for this or revise the article before i do as i wuldnt want to step on any1's toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanolinsecam (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Read the history of nuclear weapon programs before posting please. China has it since 1964. By the way, what about Britian and France? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons#States_that_have_tested_a_nuclear_weapon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.238.145 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese had tested fission-only nuclear weapons beginning in 1964. China detonated Test No. 6, a full-scale, deliverable three-stage thermonuclear homb, in 1967. While China didn't have nuclear parity with the Soviets, they did have both fission and thermonuclear weapons in 1968. loupgarous (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

First military laser use

I've heard during that conflict Russians used some kind of laser contraption to "evaporate" Chinese soldiers. It was around 1968 or 1969. Doxent 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That sound pretty out reached. Lasers that evaporate people? Even now the best hardware I have heard of can only blind people. Yongke 04:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Even now the best hardware I have heard of can only blind people." That is currently incorrect. The military has been testing lasers to shoot down missiles, for at least a decade now. These lasers do this by heating the missile until the casing, usually a metal, melts, causing them to either fall apart, or more usually explode when the missile's burning propellant is released from confinement within the missile's casing. While these laser can not, and probably will not in my lifetime, "vaporize" people, they could give certainly them a severe and probably lethal burn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlg666666 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Casualty Figures

Well, it look like casualty figures were provided by the Soviet. Consider it was in the 60th, it is reasonable to say the numbers were stretched at the least, after all Soviet was pretty big on Propaganda at that time. Does anyone have a more neutral source at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongke (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

AFAIK, the only choices in the Zhengbao Island affair are the Soviets or the Chinese. The one time I saw a Chinese claim with numbers, it was 250 Soviets to 150 Chinese IIRC. Kazuaki Shimazaki 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The numbers of Soviet casualties are probably from Krivosheev (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter6.html#6_11) - or at least Krivosheev claims the same numbers. Krivosheev's work was released in early 1990s. Since the USSR was no more at that time, it's doubtful that those numbers are propaganda. On a side note, while the Damanskiy affair claimed 58 killed and 94 wounded, there was another incident, of a much smaller scale, at lake Zhalanashkol (Жаланашколь) in Kazakhstan, which claimed the lives of 2 Soviet border guards (further 10 were wounded). This incident happened August 13, 1969. With respect, Ko Soi IX 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For the Chinese casualties, the Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetory, built in March 1969, has 68 tombs of PLA members killed in the conflict. I think this figure can be used 222.131.24.246 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I found two rather detailed Chinese sources both giving much different figures: 71 killed and 88 wounded on China's side vs. 80 killed and 170 wounded on Soviet's side. Although one of them is a personal blog and some text of them seem identical, the number of Chinese soldiers killed matches exactly the number of tombs found in the cemetories: MS1337 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Move to "Russian-Sino border conflicts" page?

Shouldn't the name of the page be the "Russian-Sino border conflicts" or "China-Russia border conflicts" instead? Slleong (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiftieth Anniversary

Given China's seemingly unstoppable rise in economics, technology, population, and other components of national power; combined with Russia's seemingly irreversible decline on the global stage (most projections place the Russian Federation's population as only 110 - 115 million for the year 2050); I think it is time to consider the possibility of China acting upon Mao Zedong's claims against Russian territory referred to in this article. In 1969 the U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. could field comparable numbers of troops to their border (with the Soviets possesing clear advantages in technology, training, and military leadership (the Cultural Revolution having weakened China's "experts" on all matters)); However by 2019 the advantage is likely to be overwhelmingly Chinese in any potential CONVENTIONAL conflict. Could we eventually see a case where China uses it's 10:1 numerical advantage to "take back" eastern Siberia (there have been Chinatowns in most Siberian cities since the early 1990's).JeepAssembler (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Clancy used the hypothetical situation you describe in his novel The Bear and the Dragon. While it's a compelling idea, you'd have to locate good secondary sources to lend verifiability to it - and even then, you'd have to write a new article, because future hypothetical Chinese revanchism in Siberia isn't directly relevant to the Sino-Soviet border conflict until it actually happens - even then, only if enough reliable secondary sources can be quoted in context to say it is.

Don't get me wrong - China might be tempted to make land grabs along its periphery using the One Belt/One Road system. Construction of that road has already touched off a military standoff between China on one side and Bhutan and India on the other over land the Chinese claim in or near Bhutan and the Indian state of Sikkim. The large disparity in nuclear arsenals between China and Russia might deter Chinese adventurism in Siberian Russia. But if you can find an authoritative source stating what you've said, please share it here, I'd really like to see it. loupgarous (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate WP:FORUM violation. Discuss improvements to the article, not wild speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.23 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Border

what is the purpose of the map that does not even show the border?--dunnhaupt (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

both sides claimed victory?

How China could claim victory if they were unable to take control of the islands? Or did they stated that they did not intend to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.133.79 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that both sides claimed the island was under their control at the time of the agreement. There was no clear winner about the conflict.--207.112.90.79 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the article neutral and have a good faith. Not explicitly mentioning who really controlled the area (which is disputed) won't hurt any side or anyone.--67.230.128.140 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I recalled some pieces of information I read in the past, that the island had no permanent population before the conflict. The only human actvity on the island was some Chinese fisher/hunters and the like who occasionally visited it. Later Soviet Union set up patrol on the island. After the conflict, the island remained uninhabited, and both Chinese fisher/hunters and Soviet border patrols ceased their operation due to the feral artillery fire from the other side. I will see if I can find some clear reference to prove this123.123.202.233 (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese controlled the territory after the conflict and the Chinese did some serious damage to Soviet mechanized units. The Soviets were clearly outperformed judging by the references I provided. They hid the truth about this conflict for many years.Don Brunett (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Don Brunett

65.112.214.6's questioning?

editor 65.112.214.6 deleted the following contents:

"The Chinese claim to have suffered only a few casualties, far less than Soviet losses. The Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetery, which was built in March, 1969, located southeast to Baoqing county, hosts tombs of 68 PLA members who died in the conflict, including 5 who were credited as "battle heros" by the Central Military Committee of China, see reference <1>. "

And his reason given is "Deleted due to bias, poor writing, and lack of proper supporting citation to an authoritative and trustworthy source; inconsistent with quality standards of Wikipedia."

---

1st. The deleted contents were written by at least two editors, while I wrote the contents starting from the second sentence.

2nd. I expect editor 65.112.214.6 to explicitly explain which part of the deleted article can be considered as bias. It merely said what the situasion in the Zhenbao Island maytyr's cemetory is, and the part I wrote was based on contents in the reference, see comparison:

烈士陵园始建于1969年3月 The Zhenbao Island martyrs' cemetery, which was built in March, 1969

位于宝清县城东南部 located southeast to Baoqing county,

有被中央军委命名为"战斗英雄称号"的孙征民、杨林、陈绍光、王庆荣、于庆阳烈士的墓碑，还有在珍宝岛战斗中牺牲的其他63位烈士的墓碑。 hosts tombs of 68 PLA members who died in the conflict, including 5 who were credited as "battle heros" by the Central Military Committee of China

3rd. About poor writing, if editor 65.112.214.6 meant the grammar, I would welcome you to correct the mistakes, but not delete the entire section because of grammar.

4th. I agree that the reference is not fully in accordance to the Wikipedia standards, but it is acceptable due to the following reasons:

No.1, no official figure regarding the casualties in the conflict has ever been released, much like the Sino-Vietnamese border war; that means, PEOPLE WILL NEVER FIND A REFERENCE THAT TOTALLY MEETS THE WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. If you insist that only such a reference can be used, then I am afraid we have to leave a blank here.

No.2 the original reference is an online news service, who can not benefit at all from frabricating a "fakke" fatality figure. The report was written in July 3rd, 2005, and it was merely a piece of news article telling background stories. There is no motivation for it to make fake.

Given these, I have reinstalled the deleted contents. We can discuss this if you still do not agree.

221.218.71.162 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And I want to say that I am trying to improve Wikipedia's China-related topics as best as I can. With no official figure available, I have made every effort to select the most trust-worthy information that can be found. For the good of Wikipedia, I do hope that editor 65.112.214.6 can understand the situasion and get rid of your own bias. My English may be poor, but I have done the best to deliver information. I do not expect you to understand even a single Chinese word, but at least you can use online translation server to generally go through the reference. However, if you continue to accuse me of writing "bias" without giving me explaination, then I will have to report your vandalism.

221.218.71.162 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

mistakes in numbers?

As far as I know soviet casualties are right but chinese look somewhat too small. They still have a lot of propoganda-for example take their "museum of warriors glory", or how they call it. The real number of chinese casualties is near/more than a 1000 given their poor equipment and tactics. Also when the reinforcements came russians used reactive artillery-soviet "grads" which eliminated nearly all of the chinese forces. I understand that an article must be neutral but why there is no mentioning of russian/soviet heroism as there were only 100+ soviet board guards fighting one batallion and two companys of PLA until the reinforcements arrival?

I ll state the sources later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.236.4 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor tactics? The Chinese have always been masters of guerrilla warfare. This is a known fact and their infantry dealt the Soviets some heavy losses despite being at a technological and firepower disadvantage. Read the book Formidable Enemies and you will learn that they outperformed American infantry in the Korea war. They are masters of ambushes and especially raids. Their human wave tactics have been overstated. They use what is called triangle tactics.Don Brunett (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

The military strengths given are excessive. There were not hundreds of thousands involved, but rather hundreds.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Russian casualties

Hey guys how can there be 105-200 russian casualties when ther were only 64 border guards fighting?Heres the list of all russian casualties:

List of soldiers killed in action on 2 March 1969. 1 frontier of 57-th border detachment

Sergeant Ермолюк Виктор Михайлович. 
 -- Private Коржуков Виктор Харитонович. 
 -- Private Ветрич Иван Романович. 
 -- Private Гаврилов Виктор Илларионович. 
 -- Private Змеев Алексей Петрович. 
 -- Private Изотов Владимир Алексеевич. 
 -- Private Ионин Александр Филимонович. 
 -- Private Сырцев Алексей Николаевич. 
 -- Private Насретдинов Исламгали Султангалеевич (died on 15 of March). 
  

2 frontier of 57-th border detachment Senior lieutenant Стрельников Иван Иванович.

 -- Sergeant Дергач Николай Тимофеевич. 
 -- Corporal Давыденко Геннадий Михайлович. 
 -- Private Денисенко Анатолий Григорьевич. 
 -- Private Данилин Владимир Николаевич. 
 -- Private Егупов Виктор Иванович. 
 -- Private Золотарев Валентин Григорьевич. 
 -- Private Исаков Вячеслав Петрович. 
 -- Junior lieutenant Колодкин Николай Иванович. 
 -- Private Каменчук Григорий Александрович. 
 -- Private Киселев Гавриил Георгиевич. 
 -- Private Кузнецев Алексей Нифантьевич. 
 -- Junior sergeant Лобода Михаил Андреевич. 
 -- Corporal Михайлов Евгений Константинович. 
 -- Private Нечай Сергей Алексеевич. 
 -- Private Овчинников Геннадий Сергеевич. 
 -- Private Пасюта Александр Иванович. 
 -- Private Петров Николай Николаевич. 
 -- Sergeant Рабович Владимир Никитич. 
 -- Private Шестаков Александр Федорович. 
 -- Private Шушарин Владимир Михайлович. 
 -- Corporal Акулов Павел Андреевич. 
 -- Senior lieutenant Буйневич Николай Михайлович. 
 -- Colonel Демократ Владимирович Леонов 
 -- senior lieutenant Лев Маньковский 

List of soldiers of MSD DVO killed in action on March 15

 -- Junior sergeant Владимир Викторович Орехов 
 -- Private Александр Васильевич Бедарев 
 -- Private Алексей Алексеевич Кузьмин 
 -- Junior sergeant Анатолий Власов 
 -- Private Александр Гельвих 
 -- Sergeant Виктор Карамзин 
 -- Private Сергей Колтаков 
 -- Private Владимир Потапов 
 -- Private Владимир Штойко   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.108.205 (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC) 

chinese victory

Clearly chinese win because chinese be able to take control land an recovered t-62 tank--Alibaba445 (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the Soviets controlled the territory. How were the Chinese able to prevent the Soviets from recovering their damaged tank and then claim it for themselves? The Soviets took losses trying to recover the T-62 tank. Chinese SEALs are the ones who recovered the tank. So there was still some Chinese presence there. There are a lot of holes in the details of this conflict.Don Brunett (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

China indeed won this conflict.

China retains control of the island, see the reference below from Oxford.

Sino–Soviet border dispute - Oxford Reference

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100508460 144.172.12.14 (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Soviet support for East Turkestan Separatists and border clashes in Xinjiang

The article needs to mention the soviet KGB support for East Turkestan Independence Movement, both military and propaganda.

The soviet formation of uyghur nationalism and history

http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=dM9BAAAAYAAJ&q=inauthor:%22Rais+Abdulkhakovich+Tuzmukhamedov%22&dq=inauthor:%22Rais+Abdulkhakovich+Tuzmukhamedov%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_VrFULiZE6uz0QHHvoH4Cg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ

Clashes in Xinjiang

http://books.google.com/books?id=mXXnd81uoMoC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false

KGB Agent Victor Louis (journalist) wrote a book about his support for Uyghur, Mongol and Tibetan separatists, he encouraged the Soviet Union to try to wage war against China to allegedly "free" those nationalities from China's rule

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZavAkGUNdSkC&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cEdQ1IuJFH4C&pg=PA172#v=onepage&q&f=false

During the Ili Rebellion

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false russian participation in the rebellion

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA185#v=onepage&q&f=false Ishaq Beg commanded GPU against Ma zhongying along with white russian polinov

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA188#v=onepage&q&f=false cyrillic writing soviet admission of support for east turkestan republic

Rajmaan (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Soviet deaths - inconsistent

There is an inconsistency between the sidebar and the article on the number of Soviet deaths. On the sidebar it claims 59 deaths, while in the article it claims that 59 Soviets were killed initially and later the tank commander was killed. Tweisbach (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a discrepancy there. Unfortunately the linked source seems to be dead, giving me a 404 not found error. An additional source needs to be found to clarify this data. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

More than a year later this issue has not been fixed. It is why I came to the talk page. Guess I will put tags on it. Also it says Soviet troops tried to recover the T62 tank on March 17 and 21 but were repelled, but also that the Chinese left the island on March 15. How did they repel the Soviets if they left a week earlier? Very confusing. Memento Morty (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been just more than 1 year. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct. More than a year. Memento Morty (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"珍宝岛自卫反击战" Translation

Based on the dictionary meanings, I'm not certain that this has the meaning of 'Zhenbao Island incident'. The meaning appears to be roughly 'Zhenbao Island self-defence counterattack war'. Also, perhaps an inclusion of the Russian name for the conflict would be useful?

--Korikisulda (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The source you provided did not mention Soviet won a tatical victory at all ! No where in the source mentioned that. However, it does mentioned that Russia later on ceded half of the island to China, and the border agreement resulted in China's favor !

The source you provided did not mention Soviet won a tactical victory at all ! No where in the source mentioned that. However, it does mentioned that Russia later on ceded half of the island to China, and the border agreement resulted in China's favor ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.71.30 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

the answer

there were a lot of wrongs about that battle back at soviet times after the chinese ambushed the soviet border guards at march 15 1969 the soviets retaliated with artillery fire which resulted 1000 chinese dead and the chinese withdrew and they came back at september but soviet border guards received the order not to open fire against them so it was a soviet victory i hope this site wont be biased or whatever just because some retarded chinese made some illusions this was the example of how wrong it was this is what the wikipedia said On March 2, 1969, a group of Chinese troops ambushed Soviet border guards on Zhenbao Island. The Soviets suffered 59*dead, including a senior colonel, and 94*wounded. They retaliated on March 15 by bombarding Chinese troop concentrations on the Chinese bank of the Ussuri and by storming Zhenbao Island. The Soviets sent four then-secret T-62 tanks to attack the Chinese patrols on the island from the other side of the river. One of the leading tanks was hit and the tank commander was killed. On March 16, 1969, the Soviets entered the island to collect their dead, the Chinese held their fire. On March 17, 1969, the Soviets tried to recover the disabled tank, but their effort was repelled by the Chinese artillery. On March 21, the Soviets sent a demolition team attempting to destroy the tank. The Chinese opened fire and thwarted the Soviets. With the help of divers of the Chinese navy, the PLA pulled the T-62 tank onshore. The tank was later given to the Chinese Military Museum. but the missing piece is this On March 15, 1969, the Chinese troops were repelled from Zhenbao Island (Damansky Island) with significant losses and did not return until September of that year, when Soviet border guards received the order to not open fire against them. so it was a soviet military victory— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis767 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Need sources, your statements are not documented facts.

50.111.48.23 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet border conflict was a strategic victory for China. Because Russia later regonized the border and granted those area to China. Adding source.

China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.71.30 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You are only producing OR and POV that china won tactical and strategic victory while the two given sources "Kuisong p.29" "The Chinese People's Liberation Army since 1949 by Benjamin Lai" doesn't say that or anything about who won the conflict, while a did added a wp:rs [1] clearly saying soviets won the border conflict (one more source [2]), you removed the source on spurious ground, which is not acceptable. Soviet controlled the island [3] [4] till both coutry's leaders held meeting in late 1969, agreeing to maintain status quo. [5]. Spartacus! (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. The Soviet controlled these islands and area only later ceded them to China !!

This means that in the long run China got what it wanted and achieved its strategic goals: 1. Stopping Soviet/Russians in the border. 2. Maintain border control. 3. Gain those islands and area back!!

The later Sino-Russian border agreement resulted hugely in China's favor, which China gained more than 700Km^2 of area including those islands you listed !

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus, the source you provided has merely 1 page of a blurry picture !! Do you use this as your "reliable" source?

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RrKYBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Sino%20Soviet%20border%20conflict%20victorious%20Soviet%20Union%20defeated%20china&f=false

No where in your source mentioned any details about the conflicts !!

I have already notified the admins and I suggest you stop your nonsense !

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@IP, I have replied to your above comment about sources here [6]. And about your comment "That is exactly the point..." IP, here we're talking about who won the border conflict of 1969 militiary? It was soviet union as the source says. I agree after the fall of USSR, border agrement was signed on 2004 which resolved the dispute, and have added it in infobox. Spartacus! (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus, since you were already debunked in the Sino-Vietnamese talk page; therefore, your source was also unreliable in this article. You use the exact same source !

I will quote from Rajmaan a well respected editor.

" Spartacus! has zero concept of what reliable source means. A source is not reliable if it includes a table or if it cites from other reliable sources. A source is reliable if the author has credentials in the field he is writing in, such as a military historian writing about war. An economist's field is in economy. The main topic of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics is mainly about economy where the war is briefly mentioned and the main topic is not about war. It can be cited in an article about economy but not war in contentious cases. Just like a person with a degree in pottery and writing a book on pottery where he briefly mentions a war where soldiers destroyed pottery, is not a qualified source on that war even if that pottery book is published by Springer. A journal on medical injuries by a doctor describing injuries soldiers suffered during the war, is not a RS on the outcome of that war. Its only an RS on injuries and casualties but not who an RS on who won the war. Doesn't matter if it was published in a scientific medical journal, its not about military science. Its an RS on medicine, the work on economics Spartacus! cites is an RS on economics, neither of them are RS on war. An RS would be a military historian writing in a military journal. The author of the source Spartacus! uses has zero credentials in the field- modern warfare in Southeast Asia. If citing from reliable sources made a source RS, then any random person can start writing blogs by citing reliable sources and get considered a reliable source.Rajmaan (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 (talk)

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

China indeed won this engagement; it retained control of the island. Please see the reference below from Oxford.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100508460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.172.12.14 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

References

"four then-secret T-62 tanks"?

Under the section "Border conflict of 1969" and sub-section "Eastern border", the text read "The Soviets sent four then-secret T-62 tanks to attack the Chinese patrols on the island from the other side of the river.".

The sole reference cited for the paragraph in which this sentence occurs is in Chinese and I cannot read it to confirm the source said the T-62 was secret in 1969. Our article T-62 makes no allusion to the tank being secret (although it had advanced features unknown to the West until T-62s were captured during the Yom Kippur War). This tank was produced from 1961 to 1975, so it would have been available not only to Soviet troops but to numerous foreign countries such as Egypt, and even Israel (which had captured hundreds of T-62s and deployed them as the "Tiran-3" and "Tiran-6"). The whole idea of T-62s being secret weapons in 1969 is questionable and requires better sourcing.

Under WP:BOLD I deleted the words "then-secret" as that description of T-62 tanks in the year 1969 requires better source material (preferably, a secondary source in English). loupgarous (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Cut-and-Pasted Block of Text from "Exploring Chinese History" in This Article, With a Problematic Citation

The text in this article under the heading "Border negotiations in the 1990s and beyond":

"Border Negotiations in the 1990s

Serious border demarcation negotiations did not occur until shortly before the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. In particular, both sides agree that Damansky/ Zhenbao Island belongs to China. (Both sides claimed the island was under their control at the time of the agreement.) On October 17, 1995 an agreement over the last 54 km stretch of the border was reached, but the question of control over three islands in the Amur and Argun rivers was left to be settled. In a border agreement between Russia and China, signed on 14 October 2004, that dispute was finally resolved. In the agreement, China was granted control over Tarabarov Island (Yinlong Island) and approximately 50% of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (Heixiazi Island) near Khabarovsk. China's Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ratified this agreement on April 27, 2005 with the Russian Duma following suit on May 20, 2005. The transfer was finalized on June 2, 2005, when the agreement was signed by Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov.

cited as its source a Chinese-language article in xinhuanet according to our article's reflist. That citation doesn't direct the reader to a particular article, but to a page shwwing more recent articles in a magazine-like format. Searching the English-language portion of that xinhuanet did not yield any matches for the article name given in our article's reference list.

In short, xinhuanet appears to be a primarily foreign-language periodical web site in which the article cited for this text is not easy to find for non-Chinese speakers. In short, it has many of the same issues as sputnik.ru that reduce its value as a reliable and verifiable source for statements in wikipedia articles.

The text in question is also a word-for-word copy of a block of text from "Exploring Chinese History - Soviet Aggression - Border negotiation in the 1990s This is a copyrighted Web site ("Copyright 1998-2016 Richard R. Wertz" is at the bottom of the page).

We have to

(a) decide whether this article by the late Richard R. Wertz, whose name comes up several times in Google as the author of scholarly articles about China, and at least once as author of a reference in our own article "Record of Xuan He Era Tribute Tea in Bei Yuan District" on a topic in Chinese historical research, is a better source for this material that the current citation (despite the appearance of possible plagiarism), and

(b) consider whether to paraphrase the material to avoid the possibility of exceeding fair use of copyrighted material.

If I was able, just surfing, to discover this, another reader might, as well. This is our chance to fix this before the next reader finds it. loupgarous (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent vandalism - expert needed

I recently removed a lot of seeming vandalism from this article, but this is really not my area and I'm not sure I got it all, or that the remaining content is legit. I reverted nearly every change made since August 31, 2021. I'd appreciate it if an expert in this topic could take a look. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

after 1969 china retreat but soviet is losing,soviet don't reclaim back soviet failed to make t62 gone.soviet lost to control zhenbao island again after 1969.clearly chinese victory over military and diplomatic

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sino-Soviet_Border_Agreement#Relation_to_Taiwanese_mainland_claim After 1969 china control zhenbao island de facto Russia History classes (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That is debatable. There are sources that mention that both sides had no forces on the island immediately after the armed confrontation and it effectively became a no man's land. There are different opinions on when it became de facto Chinese either - some sources mention September 1969 talks, some talk about 1991 agreement. The point is that there are no definite proofs that Chinese took it as a result of the actual combat. That's why it says "Indecisive; both sides claim victory" and not "Chinese victory" or "Soviet victory". DestructibleTimes (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Youtube is not an RS

References to videos from YT must be replaced with Reliable Sources.50.111.48.23 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

error in citations for Lüthe

when reading this on wikipedia app on Android, all citations pointing to Lüthe come up with an error message "sfn error: no target: CITEREFLüthi2012". All others seem to function. I have no idea what that means but thought giving a heads-up is in order so someone can fix it. 84.215.194.30 (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and losses mistake

In the infobox section titled Casualties and losses it states Soviet sources: 58 killed 95 wounded and then later says Soviet sources: 800 killed. Also the Chinese and Soviet sources are switched to the wrong column. Dream Focus 11:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I think I have fixed here now. Editorkamran (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Question

Was the us a supporter of china in this conflict? i remember that as the cold war went on, china became more and more pro US so there is a chance the us supported china in this conflict. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac: Supported only after 1971. Editorkamran (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

kk Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Result

"Result" is obviously the most contested line in the whole article. I still think "Indecisive" is most appropriate here as it is strange to see one "victors" to surrender their claims on land but in the same time there is little evidence that other "victors" have taken the aforementioned land as a direct result of actual combat and not as a result of the later diplomatic resolution. The Damansky (Zhenbao) island case is especially notorious because the island is very small and close enough to both river's banks for both sides to easily thwart other side's attempts to land on it, thus effectively turning the island into no man's land until it was effectively transferred to China. The problem is that I don't know sources that state it directly but I have no doubts that that is exactly what happened because I see no other way to reconcile Chinese and Soviet versions. DestructibleTimes (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes the sources support "victory" in favor of USSR. Editorkamran (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Crows Yang, it would be very nice if you leave some constructive input on this issue here. DestructibleTimes (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Screw u, like a said, I've provided reliable sources and you treat them as "unneutral" cuz they were against your personal preference. I'll keep an eye on the edition, don't even think about putting me out of the game with your silly actions. You changed it, I change it back... Crows Yang (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Neville Maxwell article citations

Some citations of the Neville Maxwell article contain incorrect page specification. The article spans from page 229 to page 253 and it doesn't contain page 66. @Crows Yang, please correct the citations. DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw your latest edition and it tells me that you're apparently accessible to the article (Maxwell) I cited, and you must be familiar with the right page numbers, then why wouldn't you just directly revise on it instead of posting a "verification failed" mark? I have a PDF file of this article which only contained page numbers from 47 to 72, that's why I was mistaken about page number of the original document. Now I've made revisions per your request again, let me know if these numbers are still incorrect. About the words I added to the edition, I didn't BS abt them, they were quoted directly from the article. But, per your last edition, I didn't find the term "unquestionably" on Page 249. Crows Yang (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, check page 249 again, it definitely contains word "unquestionably". I'm still not convinced that this is enough to change the Result field: the author himself directly admits that he is among minority. Other sources (the "majority") think differently and the field should be left as it was. DestructibleTimes (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

ok, fine, I didn't find that word probably because my file was only part of the article which only contained 27 pages. But for Maxwell, he also explained why the "majorities" believed the Soviet victory on whichever page in his article, cuz I'm not sure if I've got the right page number verifiable to you guys. Crows Yang (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with his explanation regarding the "majority" being in the article, but this is just his own personal opinion and interpretation of the events. It actually sounds a bit like conspiracy theory to me, but fine. DestructibleTimes (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Basic rule for logic, being "minority" doesn't mean "none" or "just one", Maxwell is apparently not the only one scholar who concluded China's victory, and their arguments sound logical and reasonable instead of being like conspiracy theory. Acutally, based on my own study, nearly all the western sources in favor of Soviet's victory prefer to using statements from Soviet's sources as evidences or references, which was far from being objective. Crows Yang (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a good reason for that and Maxwell mentions it as well: the Chinese version of events was much less detailed at the time than the Soviet version. Basic rule for justice: what you tell immediately after the event is more important than what you say after (i.e. in the court), especially after you had enough time to devise a version you like. DestructibleTimes (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What you're saying is a straight up lie cuz Maxwell never said Chinese versions was much less detailed than Soviet version, not at least in this article. And there's no such a rule for justice, cuz what's being told immediately after the event could have missed more details and precise assessments than the latter ones. China, on ther other hand, has already published far more detailed documents about the event than the Soviet and Russian side, but very few of you took them into account. Crows Yang (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Maxwell has said: "For its part Beijing did not rub in its victory by boasting of it, that restraint being taken of course as tacit admission of defeat.". I interpret it as that Beijing hasn't provided any details at the time because of... reasons.

Robinson put it plainly: "Further, only the Soviets have given a detailed view of the events, gleaned from testimony of survivors and from a special investigative team. Because almost no factual reports are available from the Chinese, this analysis is likely

to be slanted toward the Soviet side. Despite these limitations, it is possible to reconstruct what probably went on."

He does cite some Chinese sources he worked with, though, so he did tried to find them.

Regarding the "rule" - you are taking my statement too literally. I just find it very interesting that a lot of details from Chinese had only appeared after so many years after the actual combat happened when it is hard to verify anything. Somebody else would call it "an attempt at historical revisionism".

Regarding your claims about "far more detailed documents" from Chinese - where are neutral sources that cite them? DestructibleTimes (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

【 I interpret it as that Beijing hasn't provided any details at the time because of... reasons】, this is a stright up lie again, China did provide details about what was going on throughout the event at the time, China simply did not boast of the Victory like Soviet did.

Those CHinese sources had been sitting there and ready for use just fine, he could cite them, he should get access to them. It was Robinson's own claim too, and looks a bit paradoxical to me. Maxwell never said that and used Chinese sources as references just fine.

One more basic rule of logic, "Many years after" doesn't mean it's not reliable or "revisionism" BS. Any statements against your standpoint or beyond your understanding are classified as "revisionism" or "conspiracy theory", while the statements in favor of you guys are said to be "neutral" or "reliable".

【Regarding your claims about "far more detailed documents" from Chinese - where are neutral sources that cite them?】, your question is very ridiculous, you know why? cuz all those sources have automatically been recognized as "revisionism", "conspiracy theory" or "someone's own opinion" by you! Many "neutral" sources do cite China's reports as references, and they end up judging Soviet as the victor, these sources are seen as NEUTRAL by you guys.... Anyways, just a perfect game of Double Standard I've seen here Crows Yang (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

And you keep repeating yourself. You continue your ad hominem attacks instead of polite discussion of the article and ignore everything I say because it doesn't fit into your Double Standards Theory. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. DestructibleTimes (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I keep repeating justice for logic! Moreover, you're the one who keeps ignoring all I say cuz you've completely neglected your double standard actions! You think I'm impolite? Fine, you are defining everything on this page, and I'm telling you that person like U does not deserve any polite from me! Okay? just cut the nonsense then Crows Yang (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, last one...

>while the statements in favor of you guys are said to be "neutral" or "reliable".

There are plenty of statements in the article in favor of "your guys" that neither me nor anyone else have deleted. Some of them were added by you. Your statement is not grounded on anything.

Look, you are just bitter that there is no "Chinese victory". That's understandable but sometimes you have to accept the unpleasant reality instead of behaving like a little child.

>cuz all those sources have automatically been recognized as "revisionism", "conspiracy theory" or "someone's own opinion" by you!

That's my personal opinion that doesn't appear anywhere on the article page and I explicitly do not edit the article to remove sources because of my opinion on them. More than that, I explicitly told you about it every time I expressed my opinion. I still can and will express my opinion where I find it suitable (such as the talk pages). DestructibleTimes (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I bitter there's no Logic, no neutrality and full of BS coming out of your mind! I've added lots of sources from Russian, CHinese and Western sides, and you keep picking holes into my edition and ignored everything I say about my criticism against your "double standard" as well as your ridiculous claim of "revisionism...conspiracy theory" crap.... there's no logic in your mind but a belief of "Soviet victory", You're not only behaving like a child, you're a child based on your level of logic and intelligence....lol Crows Yang (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I will keep expressing myself too, and I'll keep an eye on the page, I'm not gonna give up this land like Soviet did in 1960s. I will never let this place run by morons like you guys! Crows Yang (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion about "revisionism" and "conspiracy theory" clearly exposed your tendentiousness toward this event, which was far from neutral! That's why you kept seeking problems with my edition by using your own standard while completely ignoured unneutral contents somewhere else on the page, like I said, the "Soviet Victory" in the top infobox. You said you didn't like the Soviet victory cuz it was based on someone's liking, but eventually, you didn't do anything about it. The funny part is, as soon as I added something into that box, you showed up with ridiculous problems... Therefore you are the one who pretends to be fair and neutral, but behaves with obvious biased standpoint. So, screw U! I'll keep adding things to the page no matter what say and what you do Crows Yang (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, you'd bettle make a clearer definition of the "established fact". I saw some previous edition made by other editors, this editor marked the result of "Sino Soviet border conflict" as "Indecisive in the estern sector, Soviet's victory in the western sector", which was exactly matching the fact of the conflict, but your man changed it back to "Soviet victory" by claiming that the sources viewed it as one conflict!

In fact, the conclusion of "Soviet Victory" is far from an established fact, cuz some sources (even if more) were in favor of the Soviet, but some others were in favor of China. How could you unilaterally claim that the things written by the source in favor of China were not "established fact"? The result of this conflict has been so controversial considering the fact that China took actual control of all the disputed territories afterward. The established fact regarding to the conflict is-----"indecisive" Crows Yang (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think "Indecisive in the eastern sector, Soviet's victory in the western sector" is an acceptable alternative to what we have now. I will not rollback this change if you do it again. Talk to @Editorkamran why they have undid it. DestructibleTimes (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine. But with the "unquestionably" thing, I triple checked Maxwell's article which contained only 27 pages, I still didn't find a single word as "unquestionably" on page 249. What was the full text of the paragraph in which this word was inserted? Crows Yang (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the footnote 34 on page 249: "Much academic writing about the Zhenbao incident still argues that it resulted from an unprovoked aggressive action by China and that the USSR was unquestionably the victor. The argument is sustained by downplaying the significance of the boundary dispute, the political factor that alone makes the clashes comprehensible, even sometimes ignoring it."

He doesn't claim that USSR was unquestionably the victor, he just admits that much academic writing doesn't agree with what he says, so there is no contradiction in his words but I find the fact that he admits it important. Maybe I shouldn't have said that he is among minority because "much academic writing" doesn't necessarily means "majority", however, it doesn't matter: both sides claim they won the May 1969 battles, there are neutral sources that support Soviet POV and there are neutral sources that support Chinese POV - so these statements constitute the only established facts that we really have here and everything else is just speculations and opinions that we can't accept without unjustifiably ignoring some of the neutral sources. DestructibleTimes (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

First, about the full text of the footnote 34 on page 249, I still didn't find such a thing as you listed. Could you give me the link for the file that you can see? I'll go check it out. The full article I downloaded doesn't mention this footnote.

Second, about both side claim victory thing, I'm fine with that. But my argument is, if the "established fact" here is that some sources are in favor of Soviet while some others are in favor of China, then the result of the whole conflict listed in the top infobox looks just paradoxical to your logic here. There is apparently an issue of "Double Standard" which has been confusing everyone who visits this page. If I apply the same logic of the top infobox to "Zhenbao Island"'s infobox, I can definitely mark the result of Zhenbao conflict as "Chinese victory", can't I? Crows Yang (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

First, excuse me but that would constitute a copyright infringement, so, no, I can't do that.

Second, the article is what it is due to the fact that it is a collaborative product of work of many unrelated users such as you and me, so it easily can be in some sort of "paradoxical" state due to the reason that all these users have different opinions on what is what. Again, I have already stated my opinion on "Soviet Victory" in the top infobox, I'm not going to repeat it again. DestructibleTimes (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"you can't do that" means you can't provide the proof of its existence.There's no such footnote on Page 249 Crows Yang (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are totally wrong. I have provided the precise link to the exact article and specified the exact page where it is located (see the source link that I have added to the article to accompany this sentence). That is all that I can do within the US copyright law framework. Many scientific articles are not available freely, unfortunately, due to how academic publishing happens.

You seem to be very well aware of what the article contains, however, your citing is a bit different (e.g. Evtushenko instead of Yevtushenko). Are you sure we are talking about the same article? The one I'm talking about is this DestructibleTimes (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking about exactly the same article, and I've downloaded the full text of this article in PDF file. I looked throught the entire article, neither the "footnote 34" you mentioned nor the claim that "China's files were less detailed blabla" existed. Even if the footnote might exist in your version, it might be added by other editors of the publisher, definitely not the author's opinion, so the the footnote can't be taken as a reference. Not to mention you can't verify its existence Crows Yang (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, where is your article then?

You have used wrong page numbers (the link I posted has the exact range of pages article is located in and there is no page 66), so I doubt you have really read this article at all instead of quoting some other resource that merely cites it. Even now your citations are still mentioning wrong page. That's why I doubt you are playing fair.

You can easily find the original article with just a bit of googling, but I'm pretty sure you don't care about it because that is not why you keep arguing slowly losing your temper.. DestructibleTimes (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Aha, so the article in question is here. As I thought it is not the same article as the one that was printed in the peer-reviewed Critical Asian Studies journal, even though they are pretty close, and they indeed do have different footnotes and page numeration. The one you have used doesn't even specify sources that the author used. It seems to be a draft of the one that was printed in the journal because the journal issue dates to July 2007 and this PDF dates to June 2007. It also doesn't have the footnote I cited. I guess the author had to tone his — let's put it this way — Sinophilia down a bit to get through the peer review.

"Double Standards", "LIE", "your guys", huh... Gosh, instead of tantrums you could just pointed me to this PDF. DestructibleTimes (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, whatever you say, you still can't prove the existence of the footnote, but it doesn't matter anymore. cuz even if it does exist, it't not the author's own opinion. Like I said, you can't use his article to prove the "indecisive" status, that BS... yes I am pointing to you, a perfect gamer of double standard Crows Yang (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate: USSR could win the battles and still agree to cede the territory due to very simple reason - USSR had already invested a lot in keeping parity with the US in Europe. Soviet-Chinese border was enormous and Soviet side of the border was sparsely populated, so protecting it would require a lot of resources. That would kill Soviet economy much earlier. Soviets were not interested in continuing hostilities and a couple of little islands just didn't worth the effort. The final deal was signed exactly when the USSR was already collapsing economically. So, the paradox isn't really a paradox. DestructibleTimes (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This argument leans solely on Soviet's standpoint. "Soviet-Chinese border was enormous and Soviet side of the border was sparsely populated, so protecting it would require a lot of resources. That would kill Soviet economy much earlier", that's Soviet's own claim, but for China, whose economy was a lot weaker than Soviet, could not stand for a long conflict either. So the worries over economy can never logically explain Soviet's giveup of these disputed lands. Soviet and Russia were known for the desire for territories in history. So, the paradox is the paradox.

And, the paradox I said above is not the paradox you discussed here. The paradox I mentioned was that, the logic that you guys used to determine the result of the entire conflict as "Soviet Victory" is not the same one for "Zhenbao Island", that's where the paradox is, and that's where the double standard issue rises. Crows Yang (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

1) No, the problem is that there was a possibility that USSR would have to deal with both NATO and China at the same time. That would be a huge problem for Soviets.

2) Then I don't understand what you are talking about. DestructibleTimes (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Dealing with whom and whom does not have a direct logical connection with the losses of lands. China were dealing with Soviet, India, Natinalists (Guoming Dang) in Taiwan at the time, it was an extremely tough time for China too. Crows Yang (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. As you have probably noticed in the top infobox of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". My remark was supposed to be a one-off comment to help you understand that there is no paradox, however since you claim something else is a paradox (that just seem to be "everything I don't like are Double Standards" to me), it was of no use. DestructibleTimes (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

【 not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject】...【My remark was supposed to be a one-off comment to help you understand that there is no paradox】... what a joke... I don't need your help with the paradox thing, you said already you didn'y understand what I said, so I'll cut it up, cuz there is paradox, the only problem is you are too illogical to find it...lol Crows Yang (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

One more logical problem in your statement, yes the final deal was signed in 1991, but the inital deal in which Soviet "gave up" the island to China was made in Sep 1969, when China actually controlled the island according to Russian sources, but at that time, Soviet's economy was far from collapsing, China's economy was a lot a lot weaker than Soviet at the time. So the economic excuse of explaining Soviet's losses of the lands is just RIDICULOUS! Crows Yang (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Some Russian sources (i.e. Ryabushkin) claim this, yes. Not all. Absolutely not all of them. We don't know how it was in reality. At least, official Soviet/Russian version of events doesn't agree with him. DestructibleTimes (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Many if not all, many other Russian source agree with Ryabushkin's claim and cite it directly as reference. Not only Russian sources, Chinese sources also said the Chinese troops began to control the island since Aug 1969 by building barracks on it, the date was very close to Ryabushkin's claim, it's not a coincidence. 【We don't know how it was in reality】——Right! So the economic worry is one of the ridiculous excuses for the land losses... Crows Yang (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

There aren't many Russian sources that are cited in the article at all except Ryabushkin, so you can't claim anything about "Russian sources". At the very least official Soviet/Russian version doesn't agree with him. DestructibleTimes (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

There are Russian sources that cited his article, and his claim actually matched Chinese sources which have been completely ignored by someone like you. Official Soviet verson does not even specify the ownership of the island, but Chinese official version confirmed Ryabushkin's claim. The only reason you don't like his source is that his claim is not favor of your standpoint. Anyways, Crows Yang (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Two reliable sources of great quality very clearly state this was USSR victory thus we should be doing the same. Don't engage in WP:OR. Editorkamran (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

China was able to deter the Soviet Union

"On the other hand, China was able to deter the Soviet Union due to China's non-nuclear military capabilities, yet it was the Soviets nuclear advantage that caused Mao to fear full-scale conflict."

This statement obviously doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.". Deterring somebody from something implies that one wanted to do something in first place which is not really a proven fact. Please rewrite this statement to make it satisfy these criterias. DestructibleTimes (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I have moved this statement to the Aftermath section. I also rewrote it to make it look like an opinion (which it is). Please, let me know if you have any questions about it. DestructibleTimes (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The conflict resulted in a Soviet victory

"The conflict resulted in a Soviet victory. A ceasefire was declared and led to a return to the status quo."

This statement fails to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criterias. "Victory" is never clearly defined on this page, it could refer to favorable situations resulted from battles, or achieving strategic goals such as controlling the disputed territories, gaining national prestige, winning support from the international and so on). However in this case, the definition of Victory is never precisely confirmed. Sino-Soviet's border conflict contains not only the hot clashes occurred between the military personnel of these two nations, but also a series of political and diplomatic confrontations. The result for this type of even is usually controversial because there are too many elements that need to be considered. Sources from the West, Russia, China and other areas in the world severely differ from each other regarding to the result of this event. Some said the Soviet won the battles, some others said China won the battles in the eastern sector and lost in the western sector, some also said China won its strategic goals by building up its connection with the West and gaining actual controls of the disputed territories. Therefore, unilaterally claiming victory on either side will result in a biased judgment. Being victor of Sino-Soviet conflict has never been a proven fact. Crows Yang (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, in general, I agree with this. At the moment there are two sources that are used to confirm the "Soviet Victory".

I haven't been able to verify "Territorial Disputes and Resource Management: A Global Handbook" - it is outside my reach - so I'm not sure how it actually formulates the "Soviet Victory" statement.

Dayan Jayatilleka citation points to a wrong page (it should be p. 115): "The 1969 border clashes and the Soviet victory in the third such on 15 March would have been a powerful catalyst of this perception.". On p. 108 he states: "The year 1969 witnessed the worst of the border clashes between the USSR and PRC. These dated from 1960, increased in 1964 and climaxed in March 1969 with three battles, the final one of which involved the use of short-range surface-to-surface missiles by the Soviet side and resulted in heavy casualties among the Chinese (who had won the first two rounds). These clashes occurred on the eve of the Ninth Congress of the CCP." He cites Harrison Salisbury, The Coming War between Russia and China, London, Pan, 1969, p. 189. as his source for this statement. He doesn't seem to mention Zhalanashkol/Xinjiang incident at all. I haven't found anything else about the Soviet victory in this particular conflict in Jayatilleka's book.

I think these sources are not enough to state the "Soviet Victory" as a result of the whole conflict because the second source touches the subject only tangentially. @Editorkamran, do you know some other sources that state "Soviet Victory" directly? DestructibleTimes (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This is also added as source which say: "On 2 March 1969, Chinese and Soviet forces clashed on Obscure Demansky Island in the Ussuri River and the Soviets suffered thirty-four killed. These Chinese claimed victory, but the evidence indicates that the Soviets brought up reinforcements and reoccupied the island. Then, in a note delivered to the Soviet embassy and published in Beijing on 13 March, the Chinese charged new Soviet aggressions in the disputed sector. On 15 March, there was a new and much bigger, armed clash on that battle ground. But what appears to have happened was that the Chinese had again attacked the Soviet position on Demansky Island. The Soviets effected a withdrawal, thus leading the Chinese to mass in the Demansky sector, whereupon the Soviets, who had anticipated the attack, opened up on the Chinese along a front several km in length with artillery, missiles, tanks and air power. Chinese lost 800 men as compared with about 60 Soviet dead."

More sources:

• "evidence points to the conclusion that the second clash on March 15 on the island , which was more serious than the first , was initiated by the Soviets and resulted in a clear - cut Soviet victory."[7]
• "In March 1969, particularly, the Soviets employed far greater strength than the Chinese, including heavy use of artillery and rockets; and thus produced the anticipated bloody Chinese defeat."[8]

So any claim that China was the victor is simply baseless. This was Soviet victory. Editorkamran (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for finding additional sources, Editorkamran! Looks like "Territorial Disputes and Resource Management: A Global Handbook" was right in front of me, wasn't it? I'll think about how to integrate these sources into the article. DestructibleTimes (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The claims of Chinese victory are not baseless, you guys ignored everything these sources say cuz what they're saying is different from the sources you provide.

【Chinese lost 800 men as compared with about 60 Soviet dead】, this is an extremely biased claim, cuz China only put its own casualties as 69 dead (42 of them actually died after March 17th when attemping to capture the T62 tank, 29 died during the battle between March 2 to March 17) and 88 wounded. The 800 figure was claimed by Soviet Union and quoted by some scholars from the West. But the Goldern rule to determine casualties on each side is that each side's own casualties reported by themselves should enjoy the top priority to be respected! And the fact is, Soviet could barely provide one single picture to show the hundreds of Chinese bodies.

Second, some sources directly denied Soviet's claim of their victory on March 15. In the last wave of artillery and rockets attack, Soviet did not make any significant losses on Chinese side, Chinese opened fire shortly after Soviet's BM-21 rocket's attack. Moreover, Maxwell directly claimed that the island remained under Chinese control after the battle of March 15. He said it was clearly China's victory in the battle, but the Soviet's propaganda was more successful to convince the West that Soviet won the victory.

So, I can find dozens of sources that back up Chinese Victory. Crows Yang (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't really care about the sources anymore. The sources say what they want to say. Like I said above, the result for a conflict as complex as this one is hard to determine. So any unilateral claim of victory on either side is biased. I've noticed that you and Editorkamran attempted to make final conclusion on Soviet's victory sorely based on the existences of the sources. But at the same time, the claim of "China's success in deterring Soviet Union" is based on sources too! So here's the logic, if the neutrality of the "deterrence" claim is disputed, then so is the "Soviet Victory". If the "deterrence" claim is not a proven fact, nor is "Soviet victory". Therefore, I am currently fine with the "neutrality is disputed" mark added on both claims in the infobox, and no more debate is needed. Our mission here is to show the readers the whole story of the conflict including some details, not to judge the ownership of the victory. Do not remove my editions anywhere else by imposing false and biased charges on them, I will never sit by if you guys keep imposing false charges on other editors' editions based on your personal preference, let's just leave it as it is and let the readers generate their own judgment! Crows Yang (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Crows Yang I'm sorry if you'll find it rude, but I think you do not yet completely understand where are you and what are you supposed to (not) do here.

1) "I don't really care about the sources anymore." This is Big No. Read WP:FOLLOWSOURCE

2) "So, I can find dozens of sources that back up Chinese Victory." Sources are not created equal. Read WP:OLDSOURCES. Let me cite the related paragraph:

"With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt."

Robinson wrote his analysis in 1972 when the events were not a "breaking news" already. He specifies the primary sources from Soviets and Chinese he worked with. He also mentions that there wasn't much details from Chinese. There are no reasons to assume that Robinson is some kind of "Soviet guy", because e.g. he doubts that the March 15 battle wasn't started by Soviets despite their claims. The Maxwell's article (from 2007) text you worked with is basically WP:PREPRINT that doesn't contain some important things from the final, peer-reviewed version (e.g. the footnote 34). Since you have fixed the page numbers in your citations, I assume that you have found the final version of the article. Check out the sources Maxwell lists in the final version. I haven't found that Maxwell worked with any new primary sources. His article is basically a summary of some other secondary sources (e.g. already mentioned in the article Kuisong) with very noticeable pro-Chinese bias and questionable (i.e. nonscientific) theories of "everything that doesn't agree with me is Soviet propaganda". What does it add to the Wiki article that other sources don't say already?

3) 'Therefore, I am currently fine with the "neutrality is disputed" mark added on both claims in the infobox, and no more debate is needed. ' The templates are there to be eventually removed by fixing the underlying issues, so, no, they will not remain there. DestructibleTimes (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the other sources you mentioned here (ng.ru, 163.com): those are not academic peer-reviewed articles, those are basically newspaper articles with the opinion disclaimers and without list of sources they worked with (no, pointing to the abstract "Журнал боевых действий в районе о. Даманский 15 марта 1969 г." that I can't find in Russian archives' declassified documents registry doesn't count), so I find them not very good as well. Let me cite WP:NEWSORG:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." (I see no reason why interviews should be treated differently)

and

WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. "

In the ng.ru interview Gorodinsky has claimed that he was writing the book about events and I don't know whether it was published. If it was published, then may be there would be something to work with. DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

1, regarding to my saying【I don't really care about the sources anymore】, you're seriously distorting my primary meaning. What I actually meant there, was that letting the sources decide on which side's victory on this event is not rational and even ridiculous. I can find sources in favor of China, the result is disputed, and that's the fact. Any other "facts" claimed by whichever source for this complex event is not the real fact!

2, 【The Maxwell's article (from 2007) text you worked with is basically WP:PREPRINT that doesn't contain some important things from the final, peer-reviewed version (e.g. the footnote 34). 】 So what? Like I said already, Maxwell does not agree with what those "important things" actually said, he simply listed them up there in his paper, but he definitely disagreed with those points, he was a "Chinese victory" believer. 【His article is basically a summary of some other secondary sources (e.g. already mentioned in the article Kuisong) with very noticeable pro-Chinese bias and questionable (i.e. nonscientific) theories of "everything that doesn't agree with me is Soviet propaganda"】， this is an extremely biased judgment against him, and this judgment is too subjective. You can't prove him wrong simply with the sources in favor of Soviet Union. On the contrary, your claims and false charges against him look pretty "everything that doesn't agree with me is Chinese propaganda" to me! The fact is, nearly all academic articles existing today are based on information quoted from somewhere else. About the real facts for the battle in 1969, the most reliable sources should be the combat logs or solders' diaries or official reports from the combat units, so they'd be the "57th border troops combat log and so on" from the Soviet side, and "PLA 23th army combat report in 1969" from the Chinese side. All academic papers quote the most original information from these sources. But looks like you never get a chance to find those sources. So upon here, using Maxwell's article is just fine.

3, The source of 163.com I cited here is just to show you guys the the figures claimed by China, the article was published by WangYi, one of the mainstream news platforms in China just like CNN, ABCnews, Yahoo and so on in America. I don't find anything improper to cite this article as reference here. For the Chinese casualties figure, I do have a lot more academic articles downloaded from Zhiwang, the top academic platform to upload and download acdemic articles. I can display another one source right here And I have many many more just to let u know. 【I see no reason why interviews should be treated differently】 ， I don't see any policies here that prohibit the citation of interviewing contents as a primary source that has been properly published by a Russian news platform. In addition, according to the policy here, here's what it says, 【Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.】, the policy doesn't say we can't cite someone's own opinion, the sources are all composed with people's own opinions, but the policy does mention that, to make the citation reliable, editors should be aware of the context by putting "According to XX's opinion","based on XX's research" and so force. The policy directly says【biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid】. But, Bias or Non-bias is still judged by editors themselves, you don't like this source, you claimed it unneutral or biased (like your accusation against my latest edition) So, you're not the one to judge! The policies are sitting there visible to every editor, but you're not the only one to interpret the policies! Crows Yang (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Either the "neutrality is disputed" sign remain or not, I won't be frustrated with that. Your accusation against my latest source is just ridiculous. I'll wait and see what's going to happen, the article as well as the top infobox is not your private property, I won't let you two "Soviet Victory" believers rule over it. BTW, I noticed your happiness by seeing additional sources favoring "Soviet Union" provided by Editorkamran, so now you can stop acting like a neutralist. But there're problems with the contents from Editorkamran's additional two sources, their statements about the process of the battle are significantly overlapping with the contents in the article right now! So anything you try to add in there, I have ways to "prove" them wrong....lol

By another way, neither Editorkamran nor you seem to be experienced in studying the history of war...lol Crows Yang (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

" look pretty "everything that doesn't agree with me is Chinese propaganda" to me"

That's not true, I have no problems with Kuisong article being used there despite it being much less "sympathetic" to Soviets. His article contains references to both secondary and primary sources and I don't remember strange conclusions about other authors' works a-la Maxwell.

"About the real facts for the battle in 1969, the most reliable sources should be the combat logs or solders' diaries or official reports from the combat units, so they'd be the "57th border troops combat log and so on" from the Soviet side, and "PLA 23th army combat report in 1969" from the Chinese side."

OK, let me repeat again this citation from WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.". Or WP:PST: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The things that you mention are primary sources, they can be used in the article under certain conditions, but they couldn't be used to make strong assertions and state facts. It isn't me who wrote those guidelines, they are there for a good reason: unlike primary sources that are open for wikieditors' interpretations that shouldn't be in Wikipedia (WP:NOR), they already have interpretations and opinions that could be used in the articles. As WP:PST says it: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

"But, Bias or Non-bias is still judged by editors themselves, you don't like this source, you claimed it unneutral or biased (like your accusation against my latest edition). So, you're not the one to judge! The policies are sitting there visible to every editor, but you're not the only one to interpret the policies!"

We are still supposed to reach the consensus, though (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS). You haven't offered anything resembling "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.", though it is you who strongly claim that there is a problem. You just talk about bias this, bias that. Please state your proposal at last!

"I'll wait and see what's going to happen, the article as well as the top infobox is not your private property, I won't let you two "Soviet Victory" believers rule over it. BTW, I noticed your happiness by seeing additional sources favoring "Soviet Union" provided by Editorkamran, so now you can stop acting like a neutralist."

I'm not sure where you have found my claims about me being neutralist. Should I point to WP:NOOBJECTIVITY again?

"By another way, neither Editorkamran nor you seem to be experienced in studying the history of war...lol"

Ad hominem attacks definitely make consensus building easier (no). DestructibleTimes (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

Comment This article is about the Sino-Soviet border conflict as a whole. It is not specifically about just the incidents (plural) at Zhenbao (Damansky) Island or any one particular incident. The sources generally describe either two or three incidents over the island, with the last of these on 15 March being a Soviet artillery barrage, which is alleged to have killed 800 Chinese. The number of Chinese casualties appears to be the metric by which sources ascribe a Soviet victory in this instance since they did not hold the ground.

All of the sources cited above, referring to a Soviet victory are referring to a victory for this incident. They are not asserting that the Soviets won the border conflict as a whole. The island remained contested and when the ceasefire was declared, the Chinese withdrew their presence from the island. In terms of territory, the outcome was the status quo ante bellum. I am not seeing sources that say anybody won the border conflict as a whole. The immediate military result at the end of the conflict (11 September 1969) was without a conclusion. Per MOS:MIL, there are three alternatives where there is no victor: declare it inconclusive, direct the reader to the assessment section (See Assessment section) or leave the result parameter blank. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I like your edits, they look good to me. Unless we will have better sources pointing to the overall victory of one of the sides I see no reasons to change anything. Thanks! DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Extorc, you recently made changes to the lead/infobox here with the comment: rv censorship; results are reliably sourced. I would ask that you read my comment immediately above. I would suggest that the result described in the sources is being misrepresented as the result of the broader conflict. Please contribute to the discussion here. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I just looked over at this book which has list of number of wars and its results. It terms Soviet Union as "victorious" in this entire conflict.

The Strategic Triangle and Sino-Soviet Crises states that "Moscow had finally pressured the Chinese to reopen the talks suspended since 1964." Under the chapter "A Pyrrhic Victory , October - December 1969", it concludes that "The Soviet victory was a pyrrhic one."

If this all looks biased then there is this Communist publication which said "China's great - power expansionism has suffered a series of defeats over the past ten years too . Take the defeat of Chinese reactionaries in the military provocation on the Soviet - Chinese border in 1969 or the abortive attempts to destroy the gains of a national - democratic revolution in Kampuchea and the defeat in the aggressive war against socialist Vietnam."

All of this is clearly enough to state the result as Soviet victory. Editorkamran (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your first link is to a world map with one of several boxes, one of which is captioned: Sino-Soviet Border Conflict (1969-1969) Victorious: Soviet Union / Defeated: China. This source can be downloaded fully here. A text search for "border conflict" gives that map as the only hit for the term. Quite clearly, this source is making only a very passing reference to the conflict. It is certainly not dealing with the conflict or its result in any depth whatsoever. It is quite reasonably not fit for purpose. The second source (Weiss) is only available in snippet view but searching for "pyrrhic victory" shows a section dealing with the conflict as a pyrrhic Soviet victory - not an unqualified victory. It does not support reporting "Soviet victory" in the infobox as an unqualified victory. MOS:MIL does not support adding qualifiers. The third link is to a communist tract, Party Life. Given the factional nature of global communism following the Sino-soviet split, I cannot see how this can ipso facto be characterised as an unbiased source. The link is in snippet view but it is clear from the limited context that can be seen, the article is not primarily about the Sino-Soviet border conflict, and not reasonably fit for purpose.

I did do a search of JSTOR for the explicit search string "sino soviet border conflict" (74 results), within which, I added the term victory (25 results) or defeat (18 results). Searching with all 43 results for victory or defeat respectively, none of these academic sources used these simplistic terms to describe the outcome of the conflict - the terms were used in other contexts in those sources. Since good quality sources do not generally characterise the outcome in such terms, we really shouldn't be either.

In the course of this I did find this review of Ellerman where Ellerman has referred to the success of the Chinese countering the Soviet army. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Every source agree that all of the battles were won by USSR. "As to the Soviet border troops, they only defended their own territory from invasion and occupation. And every time, the Chinese were defeated."[9]

Full preview of Kenneth G. Weiss's book is here. MOS:MIL said "In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes". It merely means "You have to state 'victory' directly". Pyrrhic victory is still victory.

Now since the first source is also saying that "victory" took place in favor of the USSR, then it is fairly established that USSR was the victor in the war. The requirement of having "multiple sources" has been clearly fulfilled. Editorkamran (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Your first source immediately above is a collected work and your quote of Dmitri Ryabushkin (p 83) is accurate; however, Neville Maxwell (p 67) states: For its part, Beijing did not rub in its victory by boasting of it, this restraint being taken of course as admission of defeat. He also observes: So every effort was made to convince the Soviet people—and the international community as well—that the battle ended in a crushing Soviet victory - with the assertion that it wasn't. So no, every source does not agree and then, 2 March is a clear contradiction of "all the battles". It is not a case of some sources support a Soviet victory but the consensus of sources and the context of the overall conflict, which is ostensibly a political conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to note that the Maxwell's explanation is quite bad: he basically states that Chinese won but decided to be silent about it for many years without specifying any reason why they were doing that.

Imagine we were talking about some really ancient event that happened many years ago and the result of which we can't verify through e.g. excavations and all we can rely on are some chronicles that state that side A won the battle.

There were no chronicles that state the different POV and then some guy barges in and states that it was side B that won but the chronicles just haven't documented that because of reasons (he might or might not specify them, e.g. contemporary historians hated side B, the side B's chronicles were all destroyed, etc., doesn't matter).

Even if he was right, this claim simply isn't scientific because it can't be falsified. The guy basically just believes that side B has won and all other research is the result of the side A's propaganda being better.

That's exactly what Maxwell states. There is a very important footnote 34 that exists in the peer-reviewed version of the article: "Much academic writing about the Zhenbao incident still argues that it resulted from an unprovoked aggressive action by China and that the USSR was unquestionably the victor. The argument is sustained by downplaying the significance of the boundary dispute, the political factor that alone makes the clashes comprehensible, even sometimes ignoring it.". The preprint that was used in the wiki article doesn't contain it, but I find this footnote extremely important because the author is aware that his position is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. DestructibleTimes (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: What DestructibleTimes is saying is correct. Neville Maxwell is not a reliable source for the results because he is known for providing revisionist accounts with regard to China-related wars.

China at best "may have won the propaganda battle, they may have stirred up the people against the U.S.S.R., but militarily it was a setback."[10]

Your logic that "some sources support a Soviet victory but the consensus of sources" is incorrect because no sources say that China won this conflict. We clearly have enough sources to mention this was Soviet victory.

Now see this one: "The crisis finally ended on 20 October 1969 when the Chinese finally agreed to sit down for negotiations over the border (Gerson 2010). Most scholars and analysts consider this crisis a Soviet victory, as the crisis was not over what a final border deal between the Soviets and Chinese would look like, but instead whether they would hold talks over the border at all (Kroenig 2018)."

If you still don't agree then we can bring Maxwell to WP:RSN. If Maxwell has been proven unreliable then I hope you will you agree with restoring Soviet victory to infobox with the new sources. Editorkamran (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Information reported in the infobox and the lead should be supported by the article. In respect to assigning a victory, this is not supported by the article. An appropriate section/s of the article should report an analysis of events from the various reliable sources. It should report the various views and the reasons for these views. This is done but not in respect to declaring a result. My reading is that there is probably too much nuance to a simplistic reporting of "X victory". Regardless, the article would need to be substantially improved before such an assertion could be made.

To this one just provided by Editorkamran, it is inconsistent with the date scope of the article (and the immediate result per MOS:MIL), in that the rational for the assessment given extends into October (see also Gerson 2010, pp. 3-4). it also reports "notable exceptions" that this is a stalemate or inconclusive (p 39, fn 37).

Maxwell is inherently a WP:RS in that it is a peer reviewed publication. To assert otherwise demonstrates a misperception of the policy. If anything, it is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. There are four alternatives per MOS:MIL and the template doc for the result parameter in the infobox: victory X (or Y), see section or remaining silent. I am of the view that the article as written supports either of the latter two. DestructibleTimes has already expressed support for remaining silent and I believe this to be the view of Crows Yang. Being silent on this would appear to be the consensus? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no particular objections against both "Soviet Victory" and remaining silent, so I'll accept any of these options. Currently, I'm more interested in the Zhenbao incident on its own rather than the conflict in general. I will restore some of the improvements I have added to this part but that were unfortunately rolled back once the dust settle a bit. DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth G. Weiss's book [11] and this one are enough to state "Soviet victory" in infobox. I will write it on article body soon. Editorkamran (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

DestructibleTimes, the rollback by Editorkamran was made with the edit summary: Given the falsification of sources by Crows Yang ... This rollback captured (constructive) edits made by others and this unilateral decision shows (IMO) a lack of respect for those edits. I have said as much on their TP and strongly suggested that the rolledback material be reinstated and that contested material alone, be removed. As this largely affects your work, your opinion is valued. I think that this should be resolved first before making any other changes. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the corrections by DestructibleTimes have been restored.[12] Editorkamran (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Editorkamran, I appreciate you action; however, it remains that there are a number of uncontested edits which remain unrestored. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I refused to restore those because now Crows Yang was edit warring too much and DestructibleTimes couldn't fix them anymore due to potential violation of WP:3RR. Thus we had lots of misrepresentation of sources left by Crows Yang. Editorkamran (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Uncontested edits not by Crows Yang. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your edits

Hello, @144.172.12.14, I'm pinging you here so I can get an idea of where in this talk page you got the consensus from. Thanks. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I did plenty of research on this. China indeed retains control of the island during this conflict and also captured a T-62 tank from Soviet. Later, Russia ceded more land to China. This further proved that China indeed won.

Please see the references. 144.172.12.14 (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi - again, this does not overrule the need for consensus. This is clearly a pretty hotly debated topic (see the wall of debate above). Please keep WP:NPOV in mind. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Where is the evidence and reliable reference stating that Soviet won? 144.172.12.14 (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would check the cited book within the infobox. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What made the Soviets victorious?

They failed to capture the Zhenbao island which is their initial objective and later Russia under Putin ceded 700 square kilometer of land to China. 144.172.12.14 (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Again - I would check the book within the infobox. I am only here because you've changed the infobox without obtaining consensus or even starting discussion here on the article's talk page. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary, your editing is considered disruptive as you are entirely disregarding the notice in the infobox to obtain consensus before changing information in the infobox. You can read more about disruptive editing here at WP:DIS. In the process of inserting your source, you're also removing another reliable source. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The body text clearly states that it was soviet victory Shadow4dark (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• There is no source that states "They failed to capture the Zhenbao island which is their initial objective". It simply wasn't. Their motive was to put China into table talk which happened. Now your claim that "Russia under Putin ceded 700 square kilometer of land to China" has nothing to do with this conflict that was fought in 1969. It was USSR that won the conflict at that time. Whatever settlements happened later on have nothing to do with the results produced by the leaders and commanders of this 1969 conflict. Azuredivay (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section

The inclusion of the PRC flag is essential in this instance to distinguish between the PRC and ROC.

As per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, the use of flag icons in infoboxes is deemed appropriate for summarizing military conflicts. Skylisan (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

One should read MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS more fully: Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. ... Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include: Summarizing military conflicts ... They serve a useful purpose where there are more than two belligerents and they act as a key for information presented against different parameters of the box. This is not such a case. The ROC is commonly known as Tiawan and there is no reasonable confusion. Furthermore, if there were, it would not be resolved for our vision impaired readers by adding flags. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, a number of conflict-related article: Operation Hailstone, Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991), Project Blue Sword-B and many others only involving two belligerents, while they still have flags added, I don't think this one is different though. Additionally, I am unaware of any established standard mandating infobox flags to exclusively depict conflicts involving 'more than two belligerents'.

Until the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971, Republic of China was widely recognized as the China, and this confict started at 1969, so I do think there is a reasonable confusion out there. Skylisan (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A lot of things change in fifty years. The WP:COMMONNAME of the PRC is China and of the ROC is Taiwan. That is why these articles have these titles. There is no substance in arguing otherwise. Infobox flags must serve a useful purpose and not be ostensibly decorative. I have simply explained how/when they can serve a useful purpose. By the way, the flags used aren't even aesthetically decorative since they render in different sizes. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments are not of themself a justification unless they represent best practice. There are certainly many issues with the infoboxes in the other articles cited, including the use of flags. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a lack of consensus or regulation within the community regarding this flag issue. However, it is observed that the prevailing practice in military-conflict articles is to retain flags within the infoboxes, irrespective of the number of parties involved, as evidenced by numerous articles. As per WP:OTHERCONTENT stated: ... comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case... , The inclusion of flags in military conflict infoboxes, even when only two parties are involved, is deemed appropriate, as are demonstrated by the featured articles Battle for Henderson Field, Battle of Tory Island and Battle of Schliengen.

For the ROC WP:COMMONNAME issue, as I searched "Republic of China" on google, the top result is Republic of China (1912–1949), and the search engine displays the Five-color Flag used by Beiyang government. In fact, in certain countries such as the PRC, the Republic of China (ROC) is considered defunct following 1949. Therefore, the use of flags serves as a rational means to provide clarification in such contexts. The text 'China' in isolation lacks the capacity to comprehensively convey the historical backdrop of the associated events. Consequently, flags are indispensable for elaborating on the historical or geopolitical dimensions of the subject matter. Skylisan (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Searching for Republic of China will lead one to Republic of China (1912–1949) because the WP:COMMONNAME for the contemporary state is Taiwan. There is no border between Taiwan and Russia. There is no reasonable confusion or ambiguity. If there were, it is not resolved by adding a flag to the infobox since, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an article should remain complete without its infobox and a flag does not render in text to voice readers so it serves no function for the vision impaired. The argument is a lame duck. These flags are nothing but eye candy and contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS. To your first, guidance on flags in infoboxes has changed and the inappropriate presence in some articles is a legacy. But there is WP:NODEADLINE. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

In this discourse concerning historical matters, the mere mention of 'China' lacks specificity. As per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes serve the purpose of enabling users "to identify key facts at a glance". In this context, it is imperative that the infobox aids in distinguishing PRC from the historical entities such as the Empire of China, the Republic of China (1912-1949), or the contemporary Republic of China (1949-). It is essential to recognize that not all readers possess the corresponding knowledge to differentiate between these entities and flags here are not just 'eyecandy'.

As per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, it does not deem the usage inappropriate. The utilization here is neither distracting nor leading to unnecessary disputes (in fact, it helps clear some disputes between PRC and ROC), so I see no reason to deem their usage inappropriate or to change the status quo. Skylisan (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that anybody seriously believes that an emperor still ruled the big chunk of Asia to the west of Japan in 1969 and if they did, I doubt that a little red rectangle with a yellow dot in the top left corner (that's all that can be discerned from the icon) would remedy their misperception. But wait. There are two red rectangles with yellow dots in the top left corner. Does that mean this was a civil war? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that the phrase you used in summary of your last comment, "This duck needs a wheelchair", wasn't intended to be personal. I think this discussion needs to be discontinued.

If my actions have appeared stupid to you, I extend my sincerest apologies, as I am new to this community and still acquainting myself with its regulations. Skylisan (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Skylisan, I previously referred to the argument as a lame duck. It is the argument that needs a wheelchair. There is a distinct difference between commenting on the argument and commenting on the person making the argument. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have notified this discussion at WT:MOS. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)