Talk:Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island

Russia: History / Politics and law / Physical geography Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island → Heixiazi — According to WP:NCON, "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name.". A simple search engine test (which test for both "Popularity" and "Usage") show that Heixiazi is the more common name. —Voidvector (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose move, as it is based on a search-engine test alone, and the proposed variant returns only marginally more hits than the current one. Might support in the future when/if more serious proof is presented.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ezhiki. What do English works of genersl reference call it? I also like to see results of alleged search engine tests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The island is inhabited. There is Russian settlement Ussuriysky (Chumka) on the island. --Paukrus (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine test, per request:

Heixiazi (2,100)
Bolshoy Ussuriysky (342)
Bolshoy Ussuriyskiy (675)
Bol'shoy Ussuriyskiy (107)
Bolshoi Ussuriyskiy (71)
Note that getting exact counts is difficult, as many results use a variation of "Bolshoy Ussuriysky" and "Heixiazi" together on the same page.

--Voidvector (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
amended by —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Need to update

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/14/content_10193967.htm --Atitarev (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contamination with “Kanchazu Island”

Please, notice that these speculations had been injected into the article, possibly because some bollocks-historians at a forum concluded that “Kanchazuto” (乾岔子島) means Bolshoy Ussuriysky. As the only source of their new article suggests, that’s a (small) island some 100 km downstream of Blagoveschensk, i.e. definitely not Bolshoy Ussuriysky that is 700+ km downstream. That article, hence, also needs cleanup. I suggest throwing aforementioned edits away of this article immediately. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is WP:WikiProject Russia indeed? I freakingly could fix all myself, but left it on the talk page deliberately to show that Wikipedia’s current content-quality practices are unsatisfactory. Don’t blame me for not using some stuff like {{citation needed}} – in the old good times I made scores of essential fixes yearly, including upon reading such talk-page postings as this. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1904 Map

This 1904 map [archive.org/details/geographyofasia00tennrich/page/n24/] very explicitly shows the island as Russian; I don't know if it was really intentional or what it means, but I thought I would leave this here in case it could be useful for a future edit. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal 28 February 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge, the key conunterargument being that stand-alone articles in other language editions have these separately, and (implicitly) that readers are best served by maintaining them as separate here. Klbrain (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Yinlong Island into Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island. Looking at the article, it is composed of 4 paragraphs. The 1st gives an introduction of Yinlong Island. The middle two talk about the Bolshoy Ussuriysky dispute, and the final one says that Yinlong and nearby islands get the first sunlight in China. The two articles have a lot of overlap. I propose that the first paragraph becomes a section of the Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island article, the middle two paragraphs could be merged into the Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island#History and Bolshoy_Ussuriysky_Island#Agreement_between_Russia_and_People's_Republic_of_China, while the last paragraph could be merged into the beginning. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 04:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yinlong Island has a stand-alone article in several language editions, including Russian and Chinese, which are the languages of the countries involved. So I think it is appropriate to make it a stand-alone article in the English version as well.--Pontevico (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think we can add content about Yinlong Island because the two are related and the article has similarities. Jzhdylb (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge proposal, on the grounds of short text and context. Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island already refers to the 90 islets that surround it, so adding Yinlong Island is consistent with this approach. For reasons are short text, context and overlap; overlap because the terrirorial dispute (half the article) overlaps with the history discussion at Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island. Klbrain (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Pontevico. Kolano123 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per above. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:2450:1FDE:6496:231B (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is this island described as disputed in the article?

This is Western propaganda. Us Chinese do not dispute this island. The matter was settled in the 2004 border treaty and China does not claim the entire island as Chinese land. 216.165.201.110 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was when @Kwamikagami revised it to disputed. When User:Kwamikagami made this edit, they were likely referencing the 2023 map by the Standard Map Service which showed the entirety Heixiazi claimed. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 00:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did previous versions of this map not have that half of the island shown as Chinese land? 216.165.201.110 (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sina Finance,「直到今年，中国的新版地图终于加上了黑瞎子岛地区」(tr. It wasn't until this year that China's new version of the map finally added the Heixiazi Island area). [1]. To my understanding, the Ministry of Natural Resources hasn't made a specific statement about the inclusion of the entire island. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 04:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited is not found. I'm calling it bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.201.110 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about the link. Please backspace %7CSource from the end. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 01:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be false. This map from 2015 does have the entire island included.

[2]https://www.purpleculture.net/map-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-2015-version-p-20414/

66.22.166.191 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reporting sources is Western propaganda. Guilty as charged.

If we have more recent sources that show the island is not disputed, then we should of course update to that Western propaganda. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing it on the map doesn't make it disputed. I can draw the whole planet on the map of my house. It doesn't make it disputed if I don't say anything about it. There are certain thresholds to make something a dispute, including making a demand for it.

216.165.201.110 (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the UK could draw up a new official map showing Hong Kong to be British territory, and the Chinese govt wouldn't have a problem with it.

You're just being silly. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Why not? The British can include the entire China in their official map of the UK. Why would Chinese care about that? 66.22.166.191 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's purely speculation by opinion pieces. Neither Russia nor China's gov have ever announced a dispute. We don't push facts if they are purely speculative and hasn't been confirmed by either governments. 49.186.211.154 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]