Talk:Amur Annexation

Merger proposal
I propose merging Amur Annexation into Treaty of Beijing. I think the content in Amur Annexation can easily be explained in the context of Treaty of Beijing, and the terminology 'Amur Annexation' is not a common academic term. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge – I propose this merge because the term 'Amur Annexation' is rare. While this term is better cited than Outer Manchuria, I think the whole topic could be dealt with in an academic and professional way on the Convention of Peking/Treaty of Beijing page. (See also my comment: Talk:Outer_Manchuria). Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We generally have a separate article for each major treaty with its terms and details. The wars/history that led up to the treaty are usually given in separate articles. Amur annexation describes a general process that covers many things other than the treaty. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Common name
I think "Amur Annexation" is the more common name. For example, according to Google Search "Amur Annexation" returns 8100 results, whereas "Amur annexations" only returns 366 results. --Wengier (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hum, I suppose that's pretty good reasoning. I suppose it just bugs me to group the two into one event because they happened several years apart and in different circumstances. Remsense (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is understandable of course. But the 1858 Treaty of Aigun forced by the Russians upon the Qing official Yishan was simply not recognized or ratified by the Qing dynasty government, which actually punished Yishan for signing the treaty. The Russian gains under the Treaty of Aigun was only recognized as part of the 1860 Sino-Russian Convention of Peking which also ceded Primorye. So from the Qing government's respective it was a single event (happening in 1860) rather than two. --Wengier (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, upon further reflection it makes sense. Remsense (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Evans (1999)
So, while formatting the bibliography, I realized that Russian expansion on the Amur, 1848–1860: the push to the Pacific. was published by Edwin Mellen Press, and Wikipedia actually helpfully shouted at me that it's essentially a vanity press. Does anyone have a copy, or know with more certainty whether we should use this source? I'd also appreciate more sources for the "aftermath" period in general. Remsense  聊  12:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)