Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Neville Maxwell article citations

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)

:::The claim about the use of lasers during the Sino-Soviet border conflict might not be as far-fetched as it initially seems,

:::My grandfather, who was in the region (from the Russian side) on a business trip in the 1970s, spoke with some people with ties to the Soviet military. These individuals hinted that some laser like weapon, might have been tested there during this period.

:::Additionally, declassified documents from the CIA suggest Use of Laser weapons against Chinese

:::https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80M01048A000800160004-5.pdf

:::If others have more information about this i would love to hear it! Panpiskotka (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/03pol/c04s05.html#1969%20Border%20Conflict — 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 [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] clearly saying soviets won the border conflict (one more source [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vzgLAQAAIAAJ&dq=battle+of+Damansky+Island+soviet+victory&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22to+have+encouraged+widespread+rumors+that+circulated+after+the+Soviet+victory+in+the+second+battle+of+Damansky+island%22]), you removed the source on spurious ground, which is not acceptable. Soviet controlled the island [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=JsxQAQAAIAAJ&dq=Soviet+occupied+Damansky+Island+victory&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Soviet+version+of%22] [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=PLLuAAAAMAAJ&dq=Soviet+occupied+Damansky+Island+victory&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22+Soviet+occupation+of+Damansky+Island+%22+] till both coutry's leaders held meeting in late 1969, agreeing to maintain status quo. [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=BpGXBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA578&dq=battle+of+Damansky+Island+soviet+victory&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0ipqE3YjOAhXKrI8KHTAhBx84ChDoAQhKMAk#v=onepage&q=battle%20of%20Damansky%20Island%20soviet%20victory&f=false]. 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_War&diff=prev&oldid=731170971].

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)

{{reflist-talk}}

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 "{{tq|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)

{{anchor|Belligerents flags|reason=More concise link target; has incoming links.}}

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: {{tq|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: {{tq|... 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)

::::::::{{U|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)

:With regard to the above material, I have to concur entirely with Cinderella157. Skylisan did not understand MOS:FLAGS clearly at all, and in general English usage "China" (in the pertinent time period) universally means the PRC, while the ROC is conventionally called "Taiwan" (except in an international sporting context, where "Chinese Taipei" is used for complicated reasons, but that doesn't have any implications for this context).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• They're just decorations. Dump them, according to MOS. Tony (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)