Talk:History of Sino-Russian relations

Mongols and Yuan Dynasty?

What about the Mongol control of Russia during the 12th-13th cents and the Yuan Dynasty of Kublai Khan? 69.251.176.72 02:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, they never controlled it in the 12th century and were nowhere close to it. The invasion began in 1237, and even that only established indirect control through taxes over Muscovy and a number of other Russian principalities. Even then Russia only dealt with the Golden Horde.--194.72.81.141 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits by user:Alanmak

Re: [1] [2] [3] [4] - User:Alanmak advocates the use of infobox style to replace the inline style, and has applied the infobox style to many articles across Wikipedia despite many users have demonstrated their reservations. Anyhow, such testings should be conducted within personal namespace or at the sandbox. Even if he wants community feedback by applying his preference on articles in the main namespace, it should be done in a limited scale, discussion should have taken place - with his participation. — Instantnood 20:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: " Again, revert unilateral deletion of the material that is already in the article. " (user:Alanmak's edit summary for [5]) - It was actually user:Alanmak who replaced inline-style with his preference, the infobox-style [6], unilaterally without any discussion, despite he already knew some users have shown their reservations towards the box-style. The information first appeared in the inline style [7], contrary to his claim that box-style was how the article was like ([8] [9] edit summaries). He has also disregarded edits unrelated to what he disagrees, and reverted everything [10] [11]. — Instantnood 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I announce my support for Alanmak. The box is useful.--Fox Mccloud 22:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The infobox- and inline-style are conveying the same useful information. It's just a matter of layout. Meanwhile, is the title in foreign languages necessary for topical articles? — Instantnood 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In truth the various translations of "Sino-Russian" relations shouldn't exist in either inline or infobox styles. This isn't a dictionary. It's one thing to offer the translation of official names like "European Union" or "Shanghai Cooperation Organization", and it's another thing entirely to offer translation of commonplace words that we use to describe concepts. This crosses the boundary between encyclopedia and dictionary, and should be removed. Aris Katsaris 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd concur. This is a topical article, instead of an article on a person or an organisation. Nevertheless it doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia MOS suggests inline- to infobox-style. — Instantnood 11:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ties between Taipei and Moscow

How is the tie between the ROC and the Soviet Union like, after relocation of the government of the former to Taipei? — Instantnood 11:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A Lot of Information Missing

What about the Sino-Soviet Split and the boder skirmishes during the Cold War?

The present day migration from China into bordering Russian area are also conspicously absent.

The article here is biased toward the positive aspect of the relationship, instead of a disinterested review of the relationship.

Name

I have restored this article to the long-standing "Sino-Russian relations" after an undiscussed pagemove by Superzohar in November. Compareing Google Scholar hits for the phrase "Sino-Russian relations" (714) with "Russia-China relations" (164) is just one way to demonstrate how the current name is more widely accepted. Picaroon (t) 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess

This article states that it refers to bilateral relations between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, to specific political entities, and then discusses relations long before these state forms exist. Having seen the arguments about using Sino-Russian relations, and indeed even Sino-Soviet relations, and the mass of material not included (i.e. the role of the defeat of the Chinese Communist Party on the evolution of the Soviet Union and the consolidation of Stalin's power). What I would suggest is a page on contemporary relations between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation (as it says on the packet), and another page dealing with the mutable relations between the Chinese (with all the variations in meaning that has had) and the Russians - which might be called the History of Sino-Russian relations?Harrypotter (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above tumbleweed. Move the current article to History of and start off a new article with current relations. Any disagreements? BillMasen (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Qing and Russian Empire

http://books.google.com/books?id=a30_AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=PhKIykeMI-wC&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ckUQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IRY3TXp84isC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZqRFAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=J4L-_cjmSqoC&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=z2japTNPRNAC&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1MLXfhCFDAC&pg=PA215#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ZjnRS1g6zkC&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=foS-y-ShWJ0C&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=YOAOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nq18znjAE5YC&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=CaoXrIqxsJ4C&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=CaoXrIqxsJ4C&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=CaoXrIqxsJ4C&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oDHVfFIaK-0C&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fvqYSoRvAI4C&pg=PA358#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment among Sarikoli (Tajiks of Xinjiang) in 1900

In response to increased Tsarist Russian activity in Sarikol around 1900, the local Sarikoli begs and Sarikoli people feared that Russia was going to annex the region and take it away from China, fearing molestation at the hands of the Russians, they wanted to flee to Yarkand. They did not believe the official explanation that Russia was only concerned with the postal service in the area.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lTn-AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&dq=100+petty+Sarikol+protested+against+Russians+molest&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2BFHU4umB6rNsQTVqYDADQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=100%20petty%20Sarikol%20protested%20against%20Russians%20molest&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0DgIAQAAIAAJ&q=100+petty+Sarikol+protested+against+Russians+molest&dq=100+petty+Sarikol+protested+against+Russians+molest&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2BFHU4umB6rNsQTVqYDADQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=lTn-AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&dq=On+8+February+a+deputation+from+Sarikol+arrived+at+Yarkand+and+presented+to+the+Amban+three+petitions+which+bore+the+seals+of+six+headmen+and+the+thumb-marks+of+about+100+petty+Sarikol+officials.+They+protested+against+the+arrival+of+the+Russians+and+asked+to+be+given+land+near+Yarkand+as+they+were+certain+that+the+Russians+would+molest+them.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QRJHU76nJ-qwsAT144CoBg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=On%208%20February%20a%20deputation%20from%20Sarikol%20arrived%20at%20Yarkand%20and%20presented%20to%20the%20Amban%20three%20petitions%20which%20bore%20the%20seals%20of%20six%20headmen%20and%20the%20thumb-marks%20of%20about%20100%20petty%20Sarikol%20officials.%20They%20protested%20against%20the%20arrival%20of%20the%20Russians%20and%20asked%20to%20be%20given%20land%20near%20Yarkand%20as%20they%20were%20certain%20that%20the%20Russians%20would%20molest%20them.&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0DgIAQAAIAAJ&q=On+8+February+a+deputation+from+Sarikol+arrived+at+Yarkand+and+presented+to+the+Amban+three+petitions+which+bore+the+seals+of+six+headmen+and+the+thumb-marks+of+about+100+petty+Sarikol+officials.+They+protested+against+the+arrival+of+the+Russians+and+asked+to+be+given+land+near+Yarkand+as+they+were+certain+that+the+Russians+would+molest+them.&dq=On+8+February+a+deputation+from+Sarikol+arrived+at+Yarkand+and+presented+to+the+Amban+three+petitions+which+bore+the+seals+of+six+headmen+and+the+thumb-marks+of+about+100+petty+Sarikol+officials.+They+protested+against+the+arrival+of+the+Russians+and+asked+to+be+given+land+near+Yarkand+as+they+were+certain+that+the+Russians+would+molest+them.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QRJHU76nJ-qwsAT144CoBg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ

Rajmaan (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian incident with Uyghur prostitutes in Kashgar in January of 1900

An anti-Russian riot occured in Kashgar in January of 1900 when Russians consorted with Turki (Uyghur) prostitutes.

On page 124

http://books.google.com/books?id=lTn-AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0DgIAQAAIAAJ&q=Russian+couriers+three+Cossacks+Russian+customs+native+prostitutes+Kashgar&dq=Russian+couriers+three+Cossacks+Russian+customs+native+prostitutes+Kashgar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3BRHU5mhAYnJsQSQ9IGQCA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bbr5AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT126&dq=Russian+couriers+three+Cossacks+Russian+customs+native+prostitutes+Kashgar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3BRHU5mhAYnJsQSQ9IGQCA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Russian%20couriers%20three%20Cossacks%20Russian%20customs%20native%20prostitutes%20Kashgar&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Article states Stalin supported Chiang. I don't think that's correct.

I don't think this article is correct in stating Stalin supported Chiang. I will look at the sources again, but from what I recall for the most part Stalin supported Mao overthrowing Chiang. That would make sense logically because Stalin and his country, the USSR, were Communist, and Mao was also Communist. Chiang was not Communist, he was Nationalist and was Anti-Communist, so obviously Mao, not Chiang, is who Stalin would want in power. Stalin only supported Chiang briefly during the 1930s in the context of supporting an alliance between Chiang and Mao against the Japanese. But Chiang actually did not have his heart in fighting the Japanese for the most part, his main focus was on preparing for conflict with the Communists, so in practice for the most part Stalin's interests did not align with Chiang's. After 1945 Stalin gave Mao millions of dollars, and also gave him lots of weapons and most importantly gave Mao Manchuria, and this was decisive for Mao's victory against Chiang. So I don't think its correct to say Stalin supported Chiang. RandomScholar30 (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

let's not assume what Stalin should have thought. He never controlled Mao & that bothered Stalin. 1) see in April 1945 "Stalin referred to the corruption of some Chinese officials, but spoke favorably of Chiang whom he called "selfless," "trustworthy," and China's "greatest leader," and he stated "unequivocably," Hurley reported, that he would support Chiang." 2) look at Khnrushchev's statement "Stalin supported Chiang Kaishek, seeing in him a progressive force" 3) "Foreign Minister Molotov reiterated Soviet support for Chiang Kai-shek and promised that Soviet and American aims were the same “on the issue of support for China's central government.” Perhaps the best brief coverage is at Helen Rappaport (1999). Joseph Stalin: A Biographical Companion. ABC-CLIO. pp. 36–. -- Stalin distrusted Mao-- who would be a rival for world Communist leadership if he controlled China. Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Stalin gave Mao Manchuria after World War II ended, that was the whole reason Mao was able to overthrow Chiang. So Stalin certainly did not support Chiang if we are talking about after 1945. This is in wikipedia's own article on the Civil War in China,'Yang Kuisong, a Chinese historian, said that in 1945–46, during the Soviet Red Army Manchurian campaign, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin commanded Marshal Rodion Malinovsky to give Mao Zedong most Imperial Japanese Army weapons that were captured' 'In March 1946, despite repeated requests from Chiang, the Soviet Red Army under the command of Marshal Malinovsky continued to delay pulling out of Manchuria while Malinovsky secretly told the CPC forces to move in behind them, which led to full-scale war for the control of the Northeast. These favorable conditions also facilitated many changes inside the Communist leadership: the more hard-line faction finally gained the upper hand and defeated the opportunists.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War#cite_ref-50 RandomScholar30 (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

re "Stalin gave Mao Manchuria after World War II ended" -- Stalin was trying to broker a compromise power sharing agreement. He explicitly told Mao to stay in Manchuria and not cross the Yangtse river. Mao rejected that advice in April 1949 and moved South. Instead of reading the Wikipedia article, which is based on very dubious, highly censored textbooks that do not have access to the scholarly material, it's best to read a recent scholarly article on this exact topic: Donggil Kim, "Stalin and the Chinese Civil War." Cold War History 10.2 (2010): 185-202. Rjensen (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sino-Russian relations since 1991 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

CCP or CPC?

This article predominately refers to the "CCP" - which is the parlance of the western media - but the official party parlance is "CPC," which is reflected in the article on the party itself on Wikipedia. Should we change the usage here to reflect the party parlance and the other article on the party itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanpedersen (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

They're kind of interchangeable at this point, but for the sake of clarity I think it'd be fine to add in a note about the issue. I'll do that now. --Apathetizer (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)