This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foreign relations of China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 500 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added lots of stuff. In doing so I realized how totally unenlightening and unuseful the information from the CIA factbook is.
I moved foreign relations of China to foreign relations of the People's Republic of China to (1) better reflect the content of the article (2) conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy (3) be consistent with Category:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China (4) be consistent with foreign relations of the Republic of China. — Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 22:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Okay. Purging that part would be good. What should the name of the article for that part be named? Foreign relations of imperial China? Foreign relations of Imperial China? Foreign relations of China? — Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 00:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by the word "orphaned". Clarification?
I copied foreign relations of imperial China from the text originally on foreign relations of the People's Republic of China, and then I expanded it. Admittedly, the article's prose and organization could do with further improvement.
— Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 04:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't be listed here, as it is self-governing and makes its own foreign policy (regardless if people think that is legal or not). Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky ( talk • contribs) 13:49, October 22, 2006
current conditions in China creates choices of chinas perfect timing i can changes to the way planned intentionally personalized starts THIS and full information about it tbh and prob better to start personal to personal face to face chat than ever before agreeing a deal to cross calls for civilisations chatting it may choices concerning the cohorts continued efforts.ime i1 2A02:8084:D00:2D00:916F:AF53:A88F:8F95 ( talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Under Subheading 21st century, there is a very long direct quote under the statement about the eight-point diplomatic philosophy. It appears to be excessive under WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:NOFULLTEXT. I propose removing the quote since the citation has the same quote. With the removal of the long quote, the statement about the eight-point diplomatic philosophy would also align with the style of the following paragraphs. Please let me know if there is any objection. Thank you. Path2space ( talk) 02:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Was reading this article and under the section "Relations by region and country", I thought the quote "Unlike many western nations [...], China ignores human rights for Africans in favor of exploiting economic opportunities." looked pretty biased? Who are the western nations? I looked at the source too, and although I was skimming it, it seemed to largely be listing China's donations and support for select countries infrastructure and medical aid. On page 51, "While it may have been hampered by limited resources and outmoded technology, the PRC’s political warfare operations resulted in tangible benefits for target nations as well as gains for itself."
Just wondering how this is an indictment of China's pursuit of "ignoring human rights for Africans in favor of exploiting economic opportunities.
Thats all, thank you! JonathanChilius ( talk) 21:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foreign relations of China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 500 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added lots of stuff. In doing so I realized how totally unenlightening and unuseful the information from the CIA factbook is.
I moved foreign relations of China to foreign relations of the People's Republic of China to (1) better reflect the content of the article (2) conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy (3) be consistent with Category:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China (4) be consistent with foreign relations of the Republic of China. — Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 22:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Okay. Purging that part would be good. What should the name of the article for that part be named? Foreign relations of imperial China? Foreign relations of Imperial China? Foreign relations of China? — Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 00:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by the word "orphaned". Clarification?
I copied foreign relations of imperial China from the text originally on foreign relations of the People's Republic of China, and then I expanded it. Admittedly, the article's prose and organization could do with further improvement.
— Lowellian ( talk)[[]] 04:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't be listed here, as it is self-governing and makes its own foreign policy (regardless if people think that is legal or not). Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky ( talk • contribs) 13:49, October 22, 2006
current conditions in China creates choices of chinas perfect timing i can changes to the way planned intentionally personalized starts THIS and full information about it tbh and prob better to start personal to personal face to face chat than ever before agreeing a deal to cross calls for civilisations chatting it may choices concerning the cohorts continued efforts.ime i1 2A02:8084:D00:2D00:916F:AF53:A88F:8F95 ( talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Under Subheading 21st century, there is a very long direct quote under the statement about the eight-point diplomatic philosophy. It appears to be excessive under WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:NOFULLTEXT. I propose removing the quote since the citation has the same quote. With the removal of the long quote, the statement about the eight-point diplomatic philosophy would also align with the style of the following paragraphs. Please let me know if there is any objection. Thank you. Path2space ( talk) 02:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Was reading this article and under the section "Relations by region and country", I thought the quote "Unlike many western nations [...], China ignores human rights for Africans in favor of exploiting economic opportunities." looked pretty biased? Who are the western nations? I looked at the source too, and although I was skimming it, it seemed to largely be listing China's donations and support for select countries infrastructure and medical aid. On page 51, "While it may have been hampered by limited resources and outmoded technology, the PRC’s political warfare operations resulted in tangible benefits for target nations as well as gains for itself."
Just wondering how this is an indictment of China's pursuit of "ignoring human rights for Africans in favor of exploiting economic opportunities.
Thats all, thank you! JonathanChilius ( talk) 21:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)