Talk:China–United States relations/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cardwats. Peer reviewers: Cardwats.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aravedis. Peer reviewers: Aravedis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Energy
The 'World Energy Outlook for 2004' is published by the OECD's International Energy Agency.

It looks from the report that Sino-American good relations should include energy. While nowhere near America's demand for energy, China's consumption is exploding. One concern is the need for security of trade in the sea-lanes of the world. Perhaps more importantly though, both China and America should be worried about trade in energy with Russia. The Russian Federation is a major supplier of energy: the Energy Charter Treaty has been plugging away in vain for years to get the Federation to agree a safe transit discipline - largely for the assurance of investors. However recent developments there concerning the treatment of oil and gas as assets that should be sold strategically, and with Yukos, put further question marks on investing there. No doubt these problems will be solved soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.90.7 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

war on terror
How has it created a common enemy? As far as I know Taliban had a presence in the Xinjiang seccessionist movement, but it's a nuisance to say the most and definitely not a threat. I think whoever wrote that played too much C&C Generals... :) -Hmib 04:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not created a common threat per se, but caught in its own anti-terrorism language, Washington had to essentially turn a blind eye when China stepped up its crackdown on the Xinjiang "terrorists". The two powers are both concerned about the radicalization of Islam in Central Asia, although their cooperation on this has been made rockier by the perceived U.S.-supported revolution in Kyrgyzstan.   &mdash;thames 13:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PRC Propaganda?
This entry really seems to be written by someone more interested in running cover for the People's Republic than in telling a balanced story.

For example, there is no mention at all of the inconvenient Korean War, started with PRC complicity and waged cruely and unnecessarily for two years after lines became stabilized. Scott Adler 06:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I find that the POV is going the other way, but, be that as it may, POV is POV. This needs some serious reworking. - Yossarian [[Image:Soviet Canuckistan Flag.png|30px|]] 10:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed that there's POV issues here, regardless of one way or another. To my eye there's the typical Wikipedacaricaturization of the Ugly American.  But where's the mention of the Cultural Revolution?  China-towns in the US?  American-born Chinese attitudes toward the PRC?  Huge H1B populations in many major US metropolitan areas?  --M a s 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * PRC did not start the Korean War, the US entered the Korean War and it generals threaten to bomb PRC, that is what triggered PRC entrance to the war. it was stupid and unnecessarily war but PRC didn't cause it, it was drag into the war much like the US. 218.186.8.234 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The US generals threatened to bomb PRC after their entry in the Korean War and the strides they were making against the UN forces. But other than that, everything else about your comment seems fine. Sauuce (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many, many, many scholarly sources meticulously document Red China's instigation of the Korean War (along with the Soviets). This is beyond question.50.111.1.254 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It seem to me you feel like everything that is not "PRC bashing" is "PRC Propaganda", is it not possible to have some positive attitudes toward the issue that you require every article to describe PRC as a horrible entity? You must think I work for the communist government or something, don't forget your tinfoil hat. Yongke 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And in any case, the Korean War is covered elsewhere, where China and Japan's roles are hashed over quite thoroughly to both of their detriment. WiccaWeb 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

US Propaganda?
(Yes, this is a play on the section above.) I don't think there is anything too outwardly biased about the article, but it does seem to be written almost entirely from an American perspective in that it discusses only or mainly the American side of issues. For example, in the discussion on trade, it talks about the trade "deficit" (which is only a deficit on the American side), and does not examine the issue from the Chinese perspective, i.e. the reasons for the trade surplus, and answering questions like why should they, or don't they, invest more into US trade? 24.6.99.30 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are free to put your own opinions on the article, so quit the "American-centricism" whining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.215.27 (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually no. He should not put his opinions in the article.  But he should provide the Chinese perspective as backed up by facts and reliable sources. Readin (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Without digging in to politics, not sure how to incorporate the fact that the US prints all that money, in a way devaluing Chinese assets? (more US dollars = each USD 1.00 buys less goods). That way, Chinese "manipulation" is more a counter-balance. Probably worth mentioning somewhere although cannot find a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macculu500 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Printing money" does not devalue the U.S. currency. That is based on purchasing power - determined by the markets.

Flipped Map
Why is it that on the design of the map in this article, the flags are above their opposite countries, and the labels on the bottom are directly underneath these flags, but not underneath their corresponding countries on the map? Why isn't the American flag on the left side, with the Yellow "United States" label on the left as well, and the Chinese flag and label on the right side? Is it because of the Sino-American name? If so, I think that it would be better to have the flags and labels on their correct sides, despite the the order they come in the name. It would be easier to understand. BirdValiant 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering the same. If someone can provide the source for that template so it can be changed. YCCHAN 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I unflipped the map, so it's better now. The template is Template:Infobox Bilateral relations, but I couldn't figure out how to get it to work with the "map= " parameter like it says in the template, so I just redid the map that it points to by renaming it and reversing the colors. All done! Hires an editor (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This appears to be broken again. I attempted to fix it but the template is protected and only an administrator can edit it. --Laternerdz (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I second this point. (man your infoboxes are complex on this site :D ) -86.130.118.20 (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I second this point as well, the listings below the map should be unflipped. Rustyfence (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Where is Hawaii? Hcobb (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Pacific Ocean. 65.60.139.164 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes
I made a number of changes to the article for the following reasons:


 * 1) Grammar, syntax, or spelling mistakes and/or better flow to the wording.
 * 2) More accurate internal links.
 * 3) Provide a little more historical background in the context of Cold War relations, particularly after the Nixon period.
 * 4) Reword some passages to make it sound a little more neutral.

Please let me know if you have any comments. BlizzardGhost 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Theories about future war
This article is generally upbeat about Sino-American relations, but there have been many speculations over the possibiliy of future conflicts fuelled by America's and China's competing demand for oil, and China's friendship with Iran. See this article, for example:, and all these books. I am not competent to write anything about this, but it seems someone with some expertise should write something. The Singing Badger 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Name
POV? I think the title of this article is either POV or at least inaccurately vague, as there are two "Chinas," and this one arbitrarily chooses the People's Republic of China. The relations with the Republic of China (or lack thereof, or unofficial via the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) have just as much a right to be under the name "Sino-American relations." Thoughts? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article can have a section dedicated to US-ROC relations. AFAIK, that is not covered elsewhere. Material on this topic might be sparse though. I only know that the US considers the ROC an "ally," albeit one with an ambiguous status that is not formally recognized. Ngchen 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The notion that there are two Chinas is a common misconception. In fact, the PRC is sovereign and the ROC is not. This is because there are no international legal documents which show that the territorial sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" has ever been transferred to the ROC. In the truth of the matter, the ROC is a government in exile. See http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rocexile.htm  and there is no legal basis to consider native Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens, see http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rcitizen6.htm    Hmortar 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are describing a POV yourself :-) I'll leave it to the readers to learn the various de jure theories and the situation as it currently exists ''de facto. Ngchen 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues in Sino-American relations today
Why do all the issues in these relations listed here only concern China itself? China obviously has many issues concerning the US as well. Also, should we rank the issues in order of importance? e.g. Taiwan is the #1 issue/concern today. Jsw663 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can provide two reasons, one is that this page, like many pages in wikipedia, suffers from US centric view. Second, let's face it, while the USA can afford to lash out on other countries, China cannot, especially against the USA.  So I think this is fine as it is.  24.89.245.62 06:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you're right, en.Wikipedia.com is in general American-centric, it's a product of and for (the most part) American editors and viewers. But there are other versions... WiccaWeb 01:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above (now permanently blocked user) Wic was soapboxing - English Wiki has major non-U.S. contributions from England, Canada, and Australia, just for starters. Secondly, the article is based on Reliable Sources - if they point a certain way, and it goes against one's personal values, one way to gripe is "U.S. centric view" canards. By the way, China "lashes out" all the time - not sure what that comment was about, IP. - Chilly

Chinese translation in title
Is the Chinese translation of "Sino-American translations" in the lead really necessary? I'm an avowed proponent of multilingualism and the use of original-language sources, but at the same time the case can be made the original-language terms should only be used in an article title for proper nouns/place/personal names. --Dpr 15:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) stop posting meaning less words!

proper move
Apparently, somebody decided to move the Sino-American relations here, found out that they're actually different things, and simply decided to delete half the article. Well, here's the problem. The original article was about Sino-American relations, meaning the relations between China and America as a whole, i.e. any government which was in power in China. That creates a little problem, of course: the PRC was formed at 1949, so does that mean everything else before 1949 is to be deleted? If it was deleted, how would the reader comprehend the article? Or, if it was not deleted, then how much would be included, and how much would be left to other articles like Sino-American relations before 1949 and ROC-American relations? These are pretty hard questions to solve, and I could not quite understand how a person could be so absurdly short sighted as to make the move.

But those issues are only trivial compared to what the article is facing now. I'll put it frank - this article makes no sense. Read from 2.1 to 2.4 - For two and a half sub-sections it talked about matters with no relevancy to the article at all, then all of a sudden this Communist Party led by Mao came out and created the People's Republic of China, which just happened to be the topic of this article. So very sad. And then there's this lovely little sub-section, title "People's Republic of China," cleverly summing up 30 years of relations between the PRC and the US in two sentences:

"For 30 years after its founding, the United States did not formally recognize the People's Republic of China (PRC). Instead, it maintained diplomatic relations with the Republic of China government on Taiwan, and recognized the ROC as the sole legitimate government of all China."

So it would only be logical, if logic has any value in this article, that the next sub-section would be titled "United States" and how for 30 years nobody in PRC cared about her. Right? Wrong. It's "Korean War." And the next two? "Relations frozen" and, all of a sudden, "Reapproachment." Damn, I know something's missing. Aran|heru|nar 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sino-American relations" is correct. Obviously, someone has an ax to grind. I don't think it's a big deal, it can be reverted when they change it, and if they are persistent, an admin can be brought in to make some decision. WiccaWeb 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercy-merging "Potential military conflict between the United States and China"
I have recommended that the tediously titled article Potential military conflict between the United States and China be merged here. It’s a very weak article that barely survived RfD, and has basically been ignored in the intervening year by those who insisted it was a hot topic. It mostly talks about the Vietnam War, and until four months after I mentioned it, totally ignored the Korean War (which actually saw the highest prospect for a real "hot war"); furthermore, other than citing Jeffrey Record (and listing references he mentions), it offers tremendously little info on modern "prospects". It also has no mention of past actual American conflicts with China that might provide some useful historical context. I believe the editors here could make something useful out of this haphazard work which doesn’t seem able to stand on its own at this time. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Unitedchinarelief.jpg
Image:Unitedchinarelief.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?
Regarding the edit by Pauly04... I'm not a wiki editor, but that really doesn't look right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.72.5 (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The United States Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 is missing from this article
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law passed on May 6, 1882, following revisions made in 1880 to the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. Those revisions allowed the U.S. to suspend immigration, and Congress subsequently acted quickly to implement the suspension of Chinese immigration, a ban that lasted well over 60 years. BillyTFried (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Boxer Rebellion of 1899 and Western domination of China is missing from this article
As well as the unequal treaty, the Boxer Protocol China was forced to sign in 1901. This event had a lasting effect on Chinese relations with the members of the Eight-Nation Alliance, including the United States. Seems like a pretty big detail to have skipped over to me. BillyTFried (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest city in China
Is Chongqing not the largest city in China? I was told this was the case on my recent visit there, and the page here seems to imply that, but I'm wondering if there's a reason for it not to be considered the largest or something (too big of a metro, that sort of thing). Baseballbaker23 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Chongqing isn't a city per se. It's a provincial-level administrative region with the same name as its central city. Strictly as a city, Shanghai is more populous Xsterx (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
} move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC) People& → Sino-American relations — WikiProject International relations — Liangent (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , 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 - If we make the move, then we'll have Chinese imperialists trying to confuse matters by putting Taiwan - United States relations into the article. Readin (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - In keeping with both common usage and naming guidelines. The article also covers events that took place long before the creation of the PRC. - SimonP (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Move would certainly be in conformance to common usage, but would result in a POV-ish title. I'd rather opt for the current one. Hús  ö  nd  18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Which part is POV, Sino, American, or relations? 199.125.109.126 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The part that is POV that will be pushed, is attempting to include the current ROC (Taiwan)'s relations with America into an article that is about Chinese-American relations, not Taiwanese-American relations. Despite the fact that, as both you and Husond have noted, it clearly falls within guidelines to refer to the PRC as simply "China" (or to use "Sino" as appropriate) and to similarly refer to the ROC as simply "Taiwan", the disputes it generates cause us to instead use "People's Republic of China" when describing the politics and other state activities of China and "Republic of China" when describing the politics and other state activities of Taiwan.  You'll see this repeated throughout many major articles. Readin (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it becomes an issue, you can just add a header "This article is about relations between the People's Republic of China and the United States, for relations between the Republic of China and the United States, see ...". If the article is moved I don't see it coming up at all, because I don't recall relations between the ROC and the U.S. ever being called Sino-American. How about Sino-Soviet? Anyone ever confuse those with the ROC? We have 16 of those articles. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Noting that the article's scope is actually greater than the PRC government, the proposed name is both in accordance with guideline and more accurately represents the subject. I see there is objection that this title will extend the topic to Taiwan; frankly, I don't understand necessarily why that is a problem. The article's body of text can distinguish as necessary, and it also seems somewhat remiss not to discuss Taiwan, since it is one of the major points of discussion. In fact I would recommend merging Republic of China – United States relations (a short article) and this article under the proposed title. You can't discuss PRC-US relations without discussing Taiwan, and you can't discuss Taiwan-US relations without discussing the PRC. To me it makes sense to put them in one place, so it is a non-issue. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We also cannot discuss US-China relations without mentioning US-Japan relations. Should we combine US-Japan and US-China relations in one article? Should we combine US-Israel and US-Egypt relations into a single article for similar reasons?  The US, when making deals with ROC, deals with the government of ROC completely independently of the government of PRC.  Similarly, when making deals with PRC, the US government deals with the government of PRC completely independently of the ROC.  While the topic of the other government will often come up, the relations are kept separate, and they should have separate articles.  Combining them would push a POV. Readin (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sino-American should be an overview article covering all periods of US-China relations, not just that between USA and PROC. Further PRC, ROC and USA all subscribe to the One-China policy, meaning that "Sino-American" as a term in the current era refers to both PROC and ROC, so this title is inaccurate if it treats only US-PRC side. And there are also US-HK relations... 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sino-American" refers to U.S.-ROC relations only if you agree with the opinion that the ROC is still part of China. That the current KMT government agrees with that opinion is interesting but not determinant.  An POV that was placed in a constitution by a one-party state represents the POV of that party, but it does not necessarily reflect reality nor does it reflect NPOV.  If we are going to move this article, we need to find a way to do it that doesn't violate NPOV by pushing the particular POV that Taiwan is part of China.  Readin (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the view of several international organizations, of the USofA (part of this particular article), of the PRC and of the ROC (concerned with this article), of the way that embassies are handed out around the globe (they recognized Taipei or Beijing, not both, so if one has embassies, the other doesn't). So does that mean international practice is POV pushing? If so, then *EVERYTHING* is POV pushing. I would say that Somaliland, having declared independence that no one recognizes, has about the same amount of independence as Taiwan, which hasn't declared independence but is functionally independent. International convention does not recognize Somaliland. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - This article actually includes pre-PRC periods of relations between China and the U.S., so yes, "Sino-American relations" would not only be the more common name, it would also be the correct name. However, if the article were ever to be re-worked so that it excludes pre-PRC periods, then yes, the current name would be better.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support with disambig line at the top, as "Sino" in this sense refers to China both before and after 1949. --Joowwww (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Ethnicity list in China
Is there a logic behind the ordering of the ethnicities in the Chinese column? "Tibetan" isn't a significant minority in China in terms of population. I will make a modification to list the most few populous minorities in China. Please alert me if this isn't the proper protocol. I am new to this Xsterx (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro Chinese claims
This article has pro Chinese claims throughout. Some have been flagged since 2008. For instance the article says that human rights issues are improved in China. Yet in the Beijing Olympics, student from my university traveled abroad to see the Olympics as a part of a 4 credit course. They said that brand new walls were built throughout the city which hid the endless shanty towns and slums that would otherwise dominate the televised street race events. So China believes that human rights progress is made by being ashamed of it's citizens and hiding them? How about when they didn't let one girl sing their national anthem because she wasn't attractive enough. I would love to see that claim cited by any reputable source that China has made great improvements to human rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.133.111 (talk • contribs) 2009-08-09T21:55:18
 * What about all the pro American claims? For example, under the military spending section.  It only talk about how China is a "threat" as seem by the US; yet doesn't talk about how America is a direct threat that is trying to contain China?  America have military hardware right up on China's borders, that's pretty threatening, no?  Then it goes on to show that increasing military spending by China is a cause for concern, yet America's military spending go up every year, how come the article doesn't discuss that?  There are many examples like this, I say this article have many many Pro America claims.  76.11.69.150 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Two wrong don't make one right... it's pointless to flame on each other like this. Um, actually, when preparing for an important upcoming event, gov'ts(state or local) routinely do things like re-painting the outer walls of old houses to make them look better, or build new walls to hide them...

We people are kinda upset indeed about the gov't doing all this decorative works instead of some real improvements to our living standard, but what I don't quite understand is, what does it have to do with human rights? For the girl & the anthem, citation please. Blodance (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Add a section on "Military Surveillance"
Basically the US Navy routinely perform flights or patrols in the South China Sea region. This has caused the fatal Hainan Incident and other cases of near-contact-incidents (ie USNS Impeccable).

On one side, the US claims that it is operating within international waters/airspace and in accordance with international laws, and described the Chinese actions as "harassment" and "aggressive". On the other side, PRC views that the US, deploying its warships half way across the world to conduct surveillance of its shorelines as "illegal" and have been perceived negatively by PRC citizen.

I think the surveillance issue has caused quite a bit of heat in the recent China-US relations and is worthy to be mentioned.


 * If you do then add some refs that show that American intelligence gathering efforts against the PRC are much less than they used against the USSR, but the Chinese simply don't have the experience at playing the game so their responses are clumsier.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20000526b1.html "Chinese spy ship traverses Tsugaru Strait" Hcobb (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

MacArthur
Someone recently inserted an assertion that China entered the Korean War after MacAuthur threated to nuke China. I believe I've heard that MacAuthur wanted to use nukes during the war, and that he wanted to cross the river into China, but I don't know about the timing nor was a source provided, nor was I able to find a source. Does anyone know the details of this and where a source might be found? If this was one of the reasons for China entering the war it deserves mention. Readin (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only heard of this from official Chinese sources. I don't know how reliable it is. Mao started a huge ruckus about McArthur and branded him a villain to 'rally his troops'. Truman was not happy with McArthur's aggression towards China, and that was apparently one of the reasons he got pulled. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

China's Civil-Military Gap
“Is There a Civil-Military Gap in China’s Peaceful Rise?” by Andrew Scobell http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/09summer/contents.htm

I'm looking at the best place to add this in.

Perhaps by renaming the "Chinese military spending" section? Hcobb (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

wtf??
Someone got the map colours and the legend wrong?? That's pretty epic 67.204.53.11 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed. Colipon+ (Talk) 01:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

China's flag too small
Why is china's flag smaller than the us'flag ?? --Zhonghuo (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had to look carefully to see what you were referring to. It's not really that noticeable, and I very much doubt it's intentional. It could even be correct -- do countries specify the aspect ratio of their flags? 140.177.205.91 (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the PRC flag is just like this size.... Oh well, but when placed together, they do look a bit strange. :P Blodance (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just the way both flags are proportioned. the Chinese flag is 2:3, and the US flag is 10:19. That means the US flag is, in real life, longer than the Chinese flag when given the same width. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * HongQiGong is correct. 218.186.8.234 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And now some Chinese ultra nationalist decides to enlarge the Chinese flag >.> can someone fix that? and also replace the flags on the right areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.165.52 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Information needs adding
User:SilkTork has decreed that the following information should be considered for inclusion, not necessarily all of it, but at least some of it.

U.S. President Barack Obama's first visit to the People's Republic of China began on November 15, 2009 as part of a 4-day trip from November 15 to 18. It is part of a 9-day tour to Asian countries which includes Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea.Chinese president Hu Jintao and US President Obama is scheduled to discuss bilateral ties and major international and regional issues of common concern. Prior to the trip, Obama billed himself as America's first "Pacific president".

Day one
President Obama arrived in Shanghai late in the evening coming from Singapore after the 2009 APEC conference.

Day two
On November 16, President Obama's arrival in Shanghai and Beijing faced questions that has vexed US presidents since Richard Nixon's 1972 visit. He began his day arriving at Shanghai to meet mayor Han Zheng. He held an open town hall meeting with 400 students from 8 universities at the Shanghai Science and Technology Museum. In the meeting Obama called himself a "a big supporter of non-censorship." His talk with students was not broadcasted to the national CCTV. The session was live and shown locally on Shanghai Phoenix TV. The sina.com site ran a story under the headline: "Obama: The Internet is a tool for becoming stronger and citizens can participate." The link then became unreachable with the message, "Cannot find the page." NetEase's web frontpage also carried Obama's answers for 27 minutes before being deleted by censors. The students who posed questions were pre-selected, and most appeared to be members of the Chinese Communist Party Youth League. The Obama administration also supports the One China policy on the Cross-strait relations. Barack Obama's brother Mark Ndesandjo flew to Beijing from his residence place Shenzhen for a 5 minute meeting. In Beijing, Barack Obama then attended a state dinner with President Hu Jintao.

Day three
Obama is expected to raise the issue of the Renminbi in his talks with Hu Jintao. Due to the levels of US debt to China, it is however arguable that Barack Obama has limited negotiating power, where the economic recovery of the United States is reliant on Chinese holding of US debt; each year the United States pays US$56 billion in interest to China on its US$860 billion debt. China spoke against US protectionism, while US denies it.

Obama stated that the U.S. Government recognizes Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China, but hopes that dialogue will resume between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama soon. Wu Bangguo, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress also met Obama at the Great Hall of the People. The Forbidden City was closed for Obama, Chang'an Avenue was half-closed.

Day four
In the morning Obama accepted an interview with the more liberal Southern Weekly at the Beijing St Regis hotel (国际俱乐部饭店). A Southern Weekly editorial staff member said the questions were sent to the Foreign Ministry top censorship department for screening before the interview. After the meeting Obama met with Premier Wen Jiabao and toured the Great Wall of China before flying to South Korea, the last leg of his Asia trip.

The state visit was closely followed by journalists and political commentators. The Boston Globe criticised Obama's decision to postpone a meeting with the Dalai Lama until after the visit to China. In an editorial, the newspaper suggested that the United States should be able to maintain good relations both with Beijing and the Dalai Lama, and that the president "should be using his persuasive powers to convince China's leaders that their interest would be best served if they granted cultural autonomy and religious freedom to Tibetans." Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, wrote that the Obama administration was "taking a strategic view that developing strong relationships with [China] will yield long-term benefits." At the same time he expressed a concern that the administration was failing in nurturing similar ties with India. He described India as "a natural ally of the United States", particularly in the context of the war in Afghanistan.

For the Chinese, the official visit from the United States' first black president presented an opportunity to confront the issue of racial prejudice in their own country. The number of Africans living in China is growing rapidly, creating a more racially diverse society, but the immigrants are often faced with racism and prejudice.

Direct telecast of Obama's arrival in Shanghai showing the President walking down from Air Force One had sparked many curious comments from Chinese netizens, one of the comment had even became the 2009 internet catch phrase:A black man, wearing a black coat, in a dark night, holding a black umbrella, walks into a black country.

Xiang Xi, a top editor of the Southern weekly newspaper, who interviewed Obama was demoted by the Communist Party in December 2009.

Chinese people were quick to cash in on the hot topic of the Obama visit, and one of the items being offered in Beijing roadside stalls is a T-shirt named "Obamao", featuring Obama's wearing Chinese PLA's green uniform. The word "Obamao" is a portmanteau of Obama and Mao Zedong.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * where is the article about obama's trip to china ??? Polylepsis (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * wow ok, it was deleted ! Polylepsis (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me the entire section of Obama's China visit should be deleted because this isn't the first visit by a US perident and it won't be the last and it has little or no historical importence in US China relations there are many more visits back and fort to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved references
Washingtonpost.com. "Washingtonpost.com." Obama embarks on Asia trip, highlighted by China stops. Retrieved on 2009-11-16.

Obama in Singapore to strengthen Southeast Asia ties‎

China.globaltimes.cn. "China.globaltimes.cn." US President Obama to visit China Nov.15-18. Retrieved on 2009-11-16.

Abs-cbnnews.com. "Abs-cbnnews.com." Obama says he's first 'Pacific President' of US. Retrieved on 2009-11-16.

The Standard HK. "The Standard.com." Town hall soft talk. Retrieved on 2009-11-16.

Washingtonpost.com. "Washingtonpost.com." Obama backs non-censorship; Beijing, apparently, does not. Retrieved on 2009-11-16.

CNN.com. "CNN.com." Obama, Hu to talk economy, North Korea. Retrieved on 2009-11-16.

Reuters.com. "Reuters.com." Obama visit arouses mistrust in China's Internet populace. Retrieved on 2009-11-17.

Chinadaily.com. "Chinadaily.com." Obama: US fully supports one-China policy. Retrieved on 2009-11-16.

Washingtonpost.com. "Washingtonpost.com." Obama says he met with half brother while in China. Retrieved on 2009-11-20.

John Shovelan, 17 November 2009, Obama visit to China overshadowed by trade tensions, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Businessweek.com. "Businessweek.com." Obama's China Visit Yields Little Progress. Retrieved on 2009-11-20.

Sina.com. "Sina.com." Obama says U.S. recognizes Tibet as part of China. Retrieved on 2009-11-16.

English.people.com.cn. "English.people.com.cn." Obama says U.S. recognizes Tibet as part of China. Retrieved on 2009-11-17.

Xinhuanet.com. "Xinhuanet.com." Wen: China disagrees to so-called G2, calling for effort to fight protectionism. Retrieved on 2009-11-20.

Shanghaidaily.com. "Shanghaidaily.com." Forbidden City closes for Obama. Retrieved on 2009-11-20.

Chinarewviewnews.com. "Chinareviewnews.com." 奧巴馬接受專訪：中美將有廣泛戰略關係. Retrieved on 2009-11-20.

South China Morning Post. Censor suspected in missing Obama exclusive . Retrieved on 2009-11-20.

Yahoo.com. "Yahoo.com." China demotes editor after Obama interview - sources. Retrieved on 2009-12-13.

Dark Liberty (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Map makes a political statement
but the alternative would make an even bigger controversy!

The map in the infobox shows China in green. However, the territory controlled by the Republic of China on Taiwan is not in green. There was once a postage stamp with the same thing. The designer of the PRC stamp lost his job for the mistake!

However, if the island of Formosa is green, that is also making a political statement. Maybe make it blue? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * you can't even see taiwan ! Polylepsis (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

needs re-writing
Some major changes in the Sino-USA relations under President Obama has been trade protectionism, such as the tariff on tires. Nothing on trade is mentioned.

Here's what is mentioned that should be kept. Some more esoteric details have been removed.

Also, the April 2001 incident is listed before the section on the Bush administration; I see what happened (as the previous section covers multiple administrations), but it's confusingly laid out; and quite honestly, paints an inaccurately rosy picture of Sino-American relations throughout his administration that wasn't necessarily accurate, at least pre-9/11 (this was a major int'l incident, really the first of his presidency and should probably be bumped down, even if it means changing the previous subject headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.163.169 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Obama administration
The 2008 U.S. presidential election centered on issues of war and economic decline, but candidates Barack Obama and John McCain also spoke extensively regarding U.S. policy toward China. Both favored cooperation with China on major issues, but they differed with regard to trade policy. Obama expressed concern that the value of China's currency was being deliberately set low to benefit China's exporters. McCain argued that free trade was crucial and was having a transformative effect in China. McCain, though, noted that while China might have shared interests with the U.S., it did not share American values.

Both U.S. and Chinese governments have addressed the economic downturn with massive stimulus initiatives. The Chinese have expressed concern that "Buy American" components of the U.S. plan are discriminate against foreign, including Chinese, producers.

The Strategic Economic Dialogue initiated by then U.S. President Bush and Chinese President Hu and led by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi in 2006 has been broadened by the Obama administration. Now called the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue and led by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner for the United States and Vice Premier Wang Qishan and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo for the Chinese side, the focus of the first set of meetings in July 2009 was in responding to the economic crisis, finding ways to cooperate to stem global warming, and addressing issues such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons and humanitarian crises.

US President Barack Obama visited China on November 15-18, 2009, to discuss of economic worries, concerns over nuclear weapons proliferation, and the need to act to stem climate change.>>>Insert that the trip was part of a wider trip to Singapore for the multinational summit.

>>>Insert trade tensions paragraph, example tires.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved references
Details of the Summit

Video: Obama on China

McCain on China

http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=1329

http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=1557

http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=1902

USC US-China Institute: Analysis on Summit

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States Encyclopaedia Britannica

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

Dark Liberty (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

US arms sale to Taiwan
Do we need to talk about this issue ? Polylepsis (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Country comparaison table
I think that this table is very useful so i've reverted the edits made by PNA record. Iamverublue (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this table is useful. Look at Russia-United States relations. When I put up a similar comparison table, it was removed. This table should be removed from here. PNA record (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the land areas listed. If you look at the square km, China is larger than the US, but if you look at the square miles, the US is larger than China. I don't know which is right, but they can't both be. Someone more expert than I could maybe fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.51.184 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Movie
Considering the stink put up about Red Dawn that I read about, do you think that this should be added on this page? 74.75.248.107 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

 * 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. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sino-American relations → China-United States relations — Per naming conventions for relations pages. America refers to the content, and the terms Sino/Indo/Euro/Anglo/Afro/etc are not used in title names. Lihaas (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Sino-American relations" is not ambiguous in any real sense, as it is quite clear that the relations between the PRC and the USA are meant (at least at this point in time). The current title is orders of magnitude more common in sources (Google Books, Google Scholar) and I think we should prefer the natural adjectival form currently used over the more awkward noun combination proposed. Ucucha 15:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no such naming convention, see WP:WPFR.  This was discussed in an RfC and no consensus was reached as to a naming convention although plenty of editors seem to ignore the result of this RfC and suggest there is a convention.  In the absence of such a convention this article should stay at it's stable name. Dpmuk (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is, I created an article entitle "indo-XXX" and it was promptly moved citing the name convention, i forget where. At any rate, IR article are condensed to such official terms not lexical differences. Furthermore, the term American would then need a globalize tag because it is NOT the same as the United States, see the disambiguation page on the link above.
 * The cited guideline then also says "Country names are to be placed in alphabetical order." And the "consensus" page also did not have very many replies to set it as precedence to refer to.Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say many editors think there is a naming convention - largely because some editors boldly moved a lot of articles a year or so back and also boldly change the convention page. Some editors (myself included) disagreed and so I started an RfC.  Yes I know there wasn't much discussion but it's the best we've got - the RfC run for an appropriate length of time so there wasn't much else we could do.  Many editors at that project also agree with the naming convention you mention but when wider input was sought with the RfC it was clear there was no consensus in the wider community.  Although I assume good faith I do wonder if some of those editors deliberately ignore the result of the RfC.  If you point me at the article that was moved I will quite happily revert it (or ask for it to be reverted if need be) as part of WP:BRD.  Dpmuk (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point about America has some merit and I'd agree is worth discussing - however I'd point to WP:COMMONNAME and so personally I'd leave things as they are. Dpmuk (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is the common name for the subject. - SimonP (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair on Sino, (although in the itnerest of consistency the other articels say "Peoples Republic of China") though it is not the common name. The disambiguation page as well as other US foreign relations pages mention "United States" (see the template on the page"Lihaas (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.

Landmark Trade Agreement
There should be a section on here about the landmark trade agreement between the United States and the People's Replubic of China. This document that was signed by both countries in the year 2000 may be one of the causes the Unites States are in a recession as of right now. It's revalnce is very important because it explains the relationship with China as a country and from an economic standpoint.SMITH BRENT (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Added PNTR to See Also. Work it in to the text if you like. Hcobb (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

worldwide view of the subject
What the fnord? This article should represent the bilateral view of the subject. What it needs are more notes from China, but they'd need to have freedom of speech first. Perhaps Wikileaks shall suffice? Hcobb (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the section above, the reason this tag was added was the use of the adjective "American" for the United States. Make of that what you will. Ucucha 15:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we need an article on The difference between America and the Americas? Hcobb (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The US owes money
China is one of the US biggest creditors. China hold something like 900 billion dollars of US treasury bonds and 1.6 trillion dollars of US assets overall. Inlight of the international financial crisis this issue is now more importend than ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. Dark Liberty (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion...
This is overall a very balanced article, however, there is one omission I find glaring, which is the U.S. external debt to China. While the issue does not need to be covered in more than a paragraph, but its absence detracts from the quality of the article. I believe this should be added to the section on economic relations. What do my fellow editors think? Mythbuster2010 (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. It is rarely spoken of in the U.S., but the financing for all of the U.S. bailouts and welfare programs is nearly totally dependent on China's backing $2 trillion worth of U.S. treasury bonds.--  Novus    Orator     05:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Although a case can be made that debt to China is quite frequently spoken of in the U.S., and it is an issue that weighs on the public consciousness. All the more that it deserves some mention in the article. Mythbuster2010 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is one of the most importent aspect of the US China relations that's not only is importent to the US and China but to the whole world. I think this issue deserves a promenent place in this article as well as the fact that anyone who is interested or involved in US China diplomacy and all the analyst are constantly talking about this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unocal part 1 take 2
China's Hauwei drops it plans to buy 3leaf systems because of US concerns about security.

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/chinas-huawei-drops-us-tech-firm-deal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

resource?
Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade; Study Sees Americans Bearing High Economic Cost of Imports as Labor Market Struggles to Adapt September 27, 2011 by Justin Lahart in WSJ. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Obama's China Syndrome by Michael T. Klare November 22, 2011. This article appeared in the December 12, 2011 edition of The Nation, excerpt ... 99.56.122.24 (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a POV look at the situation. China has used its economic growth to build up its military when it was not being threatened by the Western alliance, which makes the Western alliance - especially Oz and the Phillipines and Japan - very nervous. Hence, a countering build-up. Truman started the "Cold War"? Might want to look to Stalin's aggressive and dictatorial policies on that score, accurately described on many Wiki articles on the subject. The RS's from other articles apply to the above quote.50.111.1.254 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

potential Bloomberg BusinessWeek resource
''China vs. the U.S.: The Case for Second Place; China will soon overtake the U.S. as the world's biggest economy. Should Americans be concerned?'' October 13, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Charles Kenny. 99.19.45.160 (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource
Lawmakers Urge Action on Hacking December 22, 2011 by Siobhan Gorman,

Other wp locations likely. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See Cyberwarfare in the People's Republic of China. 99.181.132.91 (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

potential NYT resource
Hacked Chamber of Commerce Opposed Cybersecurity Law by NICOLE PERLROTH New York Times December 21, 2011, 6:10 PM, excerpt ... "The Journal reported that the Chamber recently discovered a thermostat in a Chamber-owned apartment was communicating with an Internet address in China and that last March, one of its printers randomly started printing documents containing Chinese characters."
 * China Hackers Hit U.S. Chamber; Attacks Breached Computer System of Business-Lobbying Group; Emails Stolen 21.December.2011 by SIOBHAN GORMAN WSJ

See Good Harbor Consulting 99.190.86.5 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource with internal link
99.181.141.49 (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 U.S. Makers of Towers for Wind Turbines File Complaint Over China’s Steel Subsidies by Matthew L. Wald (Washington, D.C.) and Keith Bradsher (Singapore) published New York Times December 29, 2011; excerpt ...
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/business/global/us-solar-manufacturers-to-ask-for-duties-on-imports.html

potential resource
The New Arms Race; China Takes Aim at U.S. Naval Might JANUARY 4, 2012 (frontpage) Wall Street Journal by JULIAN E. BARNES, NATHAN HODGE, and JEREMY PAGE. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource
See Xinhua News Agency 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chinese News Agency Issues Warning Against U.S. Moves by David Barboza NYT page A4 January 7, 2012 in-print.

WSJ resource
Obama Panel to Watch Beijing 10.January.2012; excerpt ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed title
Changed from globalize to disputed title template. To clarify, other editors have objected to both the word "American" and the word "Sino" in the title. See earlier discussions above. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sino-American relations → People's Republic of China - United States relations – I propose that the article should be moved to People's Republic of China - United States relations. This seems to be the standard title format for relations involving these two nations and other nations. So for consistency we should use the same format here. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article covers the history of Sino-American relations before the founding of the PRC in 1949. Consider spinning off an article entitled "People's Republic of China - United States relations" and using Summary style instead.--Jiang (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea. Although I am unsure of if a separate article for the time period before 1949 should use "American" in the title since this is ambiguous. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The PRC article is now at simply China, so if this is moved it should really be to China–United States relations (also note the en dash, not a hyphen). Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle all national "relations" use "People's Republic of China". I think there should be consistency in this. So I think "People's Republic of China" is better unless it is decided to change the titles of all relations articles from "People's Republic of China" to "China". Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Comment. PRC redirects to China now. So articles like People's Republic of China–European Union relations and Internet in the People's Republic of China represent a holdover from the former nomenclature. The country's U.N. member name is just plain "China". Jenks24 has the right idea here with  China–United States relations. It's France–United States relations, not Franco-American relations. Kauffner (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd say rename to China–United States relations, especially given that the article discusses relations pre-PRC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding for example economy there are separate articles for the Economic history of China before 1911 and the Economic history of modern China until 1949 and then separate articles for Economy of the People's Republic of China and Economy of Taiwan. There really should be some general guidelines for how to handle such articles consistently. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with the arguments that PRC-US doesn't make sense due to this article covering earlier time periods.  As for whether it should be Sino-American or China - United States, well we've covered that before and an RfC reached no consensus on what form is preferred.  Although I agree consistency is nice if we can't agree on what form to use then articles should stay where they are.  Even if the articles were split I'd still oppose a move away from the sort of name we currently have for this reason.  I'd also that the closer consider the fact that, in my opinion, the RfC showed that while regular editors to these sort of articles (and so more likely to post here) support China - United States the view of the wider community was much less clear. Dpmuk (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hate to be a pain, but could you link to the RfC you're talking about? Jenks24 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would normally have posted a link but it was so long ago I'd forgotten where it was. Have now dug it out - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 3.  Not the best attended ever but still it's something.  I also accept it's quite old.  Dpmuk (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting reading. I'd still prefer China–United States, but we probably need a new RfC to decide this for all similar articles, rather than try to do it piecemeal. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Y'all might want to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New article "China–United States relations"
Looking at the above move discussion there seem to be support and no active opposition to creating a separate article for "China–United States relations" while keeping this article for issues such as the history before the creation of the PRC. So I propose creating such an article and moving the appropriate contents there. Thoughts? Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sino-American relations
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sino-American relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Census2010": From Shanghai:  From Washington, D.C.:  From China:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bush section in history of relations
Much of the Bush Administration section of the history of relations section reads in the present tense. It seems to me that it should entirely be in the past tense, and perhaps updated, though I'm not the expert to do it. Kristofferjay (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

POV issue in section 3.2, Official PRC Perspective on US Economy
This statement lacks neutrality: "China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets."

I think it may actually be a quote the author meant to integrate into the paragraph, but the formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the article so I probably misread it. I suggest changing it to read something like "On [date], [official's name] stated that [quotation]".

49.64.219.175 (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yes it's a quote and I fixed it with citation. Rjensen (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool, l figured that was the case. 49.64.219.175 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

china and united states Land area figures changed to Encyclopedia Britannica figures
See the footnote sources before you undo. I deleted the CIA factbook entries due to bias. Namely, CIA is american, it is BAISED in favor of America. Britannica is an unbiased third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc900 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity on "Largest City"?
In the comparison tables, the cell is listed as "largest city". Perhaps change to "largest city proper (by population)"? I am proposing this only because I am interested in the actual specifications regarding the cities involved (Shanghai and Washington), and the cell was a little misleading.

This is only a trivial issue, so please disregard if you consider it unnecessary. Conversely, however, it's also a trivial change.(Although I do note that most articles on "Country X - Country Y relations" would have to be modified accordingly as well.) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.165.221 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

repeated section
The sections "Cold War Relations" and "Communist State of Mainland China" have the same content... Are there any policies in Wikipedia that state that information cannot be repeated? BrandonWu (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for noting that. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> US offers naval security aid to Asian nations>> Obama to host Dalai Lama at White House>> China summons US official in Dalai Lama row(Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)).

Main religions
I added a "Failed verification" ("not in citation given") tag in the "Country comparison" section, in the box for "Main religions" of China. Reasons: Background info: The "Country comparison" section has been added and deleted from the article several times (e.g., 2 Nov 2008, 28-29 Aug 2010, 9-17 Sep 2010, 10 Nov 2010, 3 Apr 2011, 25 Jun 2011, 5 Jul 2011, 29 Aug 2012; see also Talk page section above, "Country comparaison table" [sic]). There was a previous unsourced version of "Main religions" for China (added 2 Nov 2008, deleted 12 Oct 2009). The current text was added by Makecat on 8 Nov 2012.
 * The numbers do not match the numbers in the cited source.
 * The categories do not match the categories in the cited source.
 * Vajrayana and Theravada are inexplicably categorized separately from Buddhism.
 * The cited source identifies itself as being relevant to rural China, not China as a whole, and provides data only on a select number of rural villages that were sampled.

Suggestion: Either delete "Main religions" or use a better source (e.g., the China article cites pewforum.org). -- HLachman (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese propaganda
The article is hardly written by those in the United States, and seems to be written by Chinese who are upset at their own country, and understandably so. Anyways, I've checked the revision history as well as the references. I've made some changes to the syntax to focus on the topic of the article. Dark Liberty (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Government Addendum
Cannot be correctly be stated as Socialism or Marxism. A query on Google for "China authoritarian democracy" yields all top ten search results ranging from scholastic to NGOs on confirming that China is indeed not constrained by old textbook definitions. We can probably use some of these phrases from these sources in the article as well.

China Democratic Supporting an Authoritarian by T. Shi china.praguesummerschools.org/files/china/6china2012.pdf

China at the Tipping Point? Authoritarianism and [Democratic Change] http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/article/china-tipping-point-authoritarianism-and-contestation

Not the End Of History? Democracy vs Authoritarianism http://www.theoligarch.com/democracy-authoritarianism.htm "Warren Buffet... invest in authoritarian China rather than democratic India because..."

Democracy development and authoritarianism by Mark Beeson http://www.academia.edu/542920/Democracy_development_and_authoritarianism "On the contrary, the success of China's economic development may prove an attractive role model for encouraging democratisation."

China and the Authoritarian Model http://www.academia.edu/239800/...

Can China be defined as an Authoritarian State? http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/04/can-china-be-defined-as-an-authoritarian-state/ "Despite all the evidence that China is an authoritarian power [there is] a system of indirect [democratic governance] at work in China."

Authoritarianism the Chinese way - Cato Institute http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/authoritarianism-chinese-way

"Others may think differently, of course. There is an ideological left in China, which opposes much of [privitisation]. Suspicion of America is particularly strong in the military. Washington trying to contain [China] could [lead to military confrontation]. It is [unknown about] Beijing’s future geopolitical ambitions." - Note: we can use this in the article.

Dark Liberty (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Archived Content
This section is for removed content, for reference.


 * The Qing Dynasty opened the first modern diplomatic relations in the late 19th century. After the Xinhai revolution, the newly formed Republic of China maintained relations with the United States until the end of World War II. At the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the United States did not recognize the People's Republic of China, and instead, chose the Republic of China, then in Taiwan, as China's government. In January 1979, the United States normalized relations with the People's Republic of China, while still maintaining its relationship with Taiwan. In the Cold War during the Sino-Soviet split, the United States took advantage of the opportunity to establish ties with China to counter the Soviet Union.


 * The merchants, who served as middlemen between the Chinese and American consumers, became extremely wealthy, eventually giving rise to America's first generation of millionaires. In addition, many Chinese artisans began to notice the American desire for exotic wares and adjusted their practices accordingly, manufacturing goods made specifically for export. These export wares often sported American or European motifs in order to fully capitalize on the consumer demographic.


 * Bombs assembled there were "lacking only the essential nuclear cores."


 * The Chinese space program is expanding at a time when the United States space program has been seen as in retreat. China in a 2007 test shot down a satellite which was quickly followed by the United States in 2008 also using a missile to shoot down a satellite.


 * James Wolfensohn, former World Bank president, stated that by 2030 two-thirds of the world's middle class will live in China.


 * Balance of Power Shift Coming Says Wolfensohn, Former World Bank President, January 2010


 * Top Trading Partners - Total Trade, Exports, Imports, November 2012, U.S. Census.


 * Talking Points, June 24 - July 8, 2009, University of Southern California, Retrieved 2010 December 02.

Economic mergers and bids
In 2005, the state-owned Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation attempted an $18.5 billion takeover of UNOCAL. The deal was rejected by the American government on the grounds that it threatened national security.

China also rejected a $2.4 billion bid from the The Coca-Cola Company for the Huiyuan Juice Group on the grounds that it would be a virtual monopoly, though nationalism was also thought to be a reason for aborting the deal.

Dark Liberty (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

PD diplomatic papers
http://books.google.com/books?id=JHMWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA129#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Qing-US Relations Dark Liberty (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

.
Academic and political views on China-United States relations from a leading experts from Xinhua University, University of Southern California, and Council on Foreign Relations.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJpsYrOji_A&feature=youtu.be&t=14m14s

Dark Liberty (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Move
The name is Chinese–US relations or Sino-American relations. A move to the present name was voted on above and failed. No idea why it's here now, but it needs to go back to the. — Llywelyn II   06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Academicians"
Hasn't anyone noticed the glaring presence of the non-word "academicians" in the very first paragraph of the page?20:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.227.245 (talk)
 * ac·a·de·mi·cian -- noun

noun: academician; plural noun: academicians 1.North American an academic or intellectual. 2.a member of an academy, especially of the Royal Academy of Arts, the Académie Française, or the Russian Academy of Sciences.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on China–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041206021659/http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov:80/uscn/others/2004/060601.htm to http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uscn/others/2004/060601.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202163232/http://china.usc.edu:80/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=586&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 to http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=586&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061129014345/http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html to http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on China–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714204202/http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45180 to http://www.defense.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

GDP
Can someone verify the 15.6 trillion GDP number for China? Seems high. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on China–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331163745/http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=1021&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 to http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=1021&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160913064419/http://www.greendragonsociety.com/Military_History/Taiwan_Formosa_page.htm to http://www.greendragonsociety.com/Military_History/Taiwan_Formosa_page.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403102623/http://www.marshallfoundation.org/library/doc_eca.html to http://www.marshallfoundation.org/library/doc_eca.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on China–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160530152006/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications//the-world-factbook/rankorder/2095rank.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2095rank.html
 * Added tag to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721164349/http://www.enghunan.gov.cn/wwwHome/200811/t20081109_146216.htm to http://www.enghunan.gov.cn/wwwHome/200811/t20081109_146216.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615161849/http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=2540&sec=1 to http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=2540&sec=1
 * Added tag to http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906091608/http://www.shaps.hawaii.edu/fp/us/us-china-jc4.html to http://www.shaps.hawaii.edu/fp/us/us-china-jc4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Eisenhower visits Taiwan (June 1960).jpg

Requested move 30 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   14:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

China–United States relations → Sino-American relations – Above there are already several requested move discussion that FAILED. And this page was somehow moved by someone when the motion was opposed without further discussion, that is not acceptable. Viztor (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The page has been at the current location for over five years and is at the standard from in Category:Bilateral relations of China. The discussions above mainly predate the standards settling down and also the country article name being sorted out. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is consistent with the other titles in the others in the category Timrollpickering mentions above. Interstellarity  T 🌟 10:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is consistent with the other titles in its category. Dimadick (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree to move, as it is a more formal title, with no detraction from other titles used for the same topic.Davidbena (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Question –, would you suggest that other articles about bilateral relations of the US be titled using adjectival forms as well? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


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

Persistant vandalism from the following user.
Utilising 'sock puppetry', a user has vandalised the page on multiple occasions under the following accounts: "99o2kimjongil2000", "99angola1998", "BuffoloBill", "99guineapigsdahyena2000", "Hyperborea88888888". Many of the mentioned accounts have already been blocked by admins. Users please beware of this individual and rectify any potential vandalism from this user. [7 June 2019‎ User:Swazzer30]

Ridiculous error
Spotted an obvious error: the Taiping Rebellion caused millions of lives? Hans van der Meer 13:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvrmeer (talk • contribs)

SARS-2, add?

 * Coronavirus: As pandemic worsens so do U.S.-China relations; Years of distrust and mutual suspicion now threaten the exchange of crucial information between two world powers fighting the same virus. March 18, 2020
 * US-China ties worst in decades after journalist expulsions; War of words over coronavirus pandemic drives relations to new low March 18, 2020 FT.com
 * Americans from three U.S. news organizations, The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal
 * Virus pushes U.S.-Chinese relationship toward fracture March 18, 2020 Politico.com

There are various SARS-2 related topics associated with US-PRC relations:
 * Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (examples)
 * Chinese official suggests U.S. Army to blame for outbreak; "It might be U.S. army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan,” tweeted Zhao Lijian, nbcnews.com March 13, 2020
 * Chinese Foreign Ministry suggests US Army to blame for coronavirus pandemic March 13, 2020 FoxNews.com
 * Chinese foreign ministry spokesman pushes coronavirus conspiracy theory that the US Army 'brought the epidemic to Wuhan' March 14, 2020 businessinsider.com
 * China and the U.S. blame each other for the coronavirus. But both countries made similar mistakes. March 17, 2020 WaPo


 * Tensions between China and Trump administration over coronavirus escalate with expulsion of U.S. reporters March 17, 2020

Trump attempts to blame China for the spread of the coronavirus by calling it the “China Virus,” which, aside from being considered racially offensive and inaccurate, advocacy groups say has put Asian Americans at risk of retaliation. “It’s not racist at all,” Trump told reporters. “No, not at all. It comes from China, that’s why. It comes from China. I want to be accurate.”

After the emergence of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), the World Health Organization (WHO) asked national authorities, scientists, and the media to not name a virus after people, a geographic location, a cultural group or even a species of animal, because that can stigmatize communities. Separately, a Chinese American news reporter said that a White House official referred to coronavirus as the “Kung-Flu” to her face. Also see List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.
 * https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/politics/trump-china-coronavirus/index.html
 * Trump's justification
 * https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/18/trump-pandemic-drumbeat-coronavirus-135392
 * https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/seeking-place-blame-trump-term-covid-19-advocacy/story?id=69662692
 * Trump dubs COVID-19 ‘Chinese virus’ despite hate crime risks
 * https://www.vox.com/2020/3/18/21185478/coronavirus-usa-trump-chinese-virus
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/03/18/coronavirus-latest-news
 * Dan MacGuill Was ‘Coronavirus’ Replaced with ‘Chinese Virus’ in Trump’s Notes? U.S. President Donald Trump has faced criticism for his insistence in referring to COVID-19 as the "Chinese virus." 19 March 2020 Snopes.com

X1\ (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As a political tactic?

The Trump administration blocked a joint statement from G-7 countries on the coronavirus by insisting that the U.N. Security Council refer to the pandemic as “the Wuhan virus.” The U.S. repeatedly tried to insert references to “the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Wuhan, Hubei province in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in November 2019” into the joint statement. China, meanwhile, has consistently vetoed those efforts and accused the U.S. of “irresponsible practices” and of “politicizing the outbreak and blaming China.” X1\ (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Josh Lederman, U.S. insisting that the U.N. call out Chinese origins of coronavirus; Exclusive: A Security Council resolution on the coronavirus stalls over attempts to single out China as the country of origin. NBCNews.com March 25, 2020
 * John Hudson and Souad Mekhennet, G-7 failed to agree on statement after U.S. insisted on calling coronavirus outbreak ‘Wuhan virus’ March 25, 2020 WaPo


 * this all seems like pertinent information, especially the expulsion of journalists. Please do add. Sdkb (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1911-1937
There's a nice repro of the U.S. Marines in China during the Boxer Rebellion but nothing about U.S. Marines presence in China during the Japanese occupation & resulting civil strife, c. 1927-1933. Smedley Butler was the commander of Marine forces sent to China to protect American interests in Beijing, & it was that event, among others, that soured Gen. Butler on a military presence to protect American corporate interests, which paid no U.S. taxes on profits in China & used & misused Chinese laborers.

One of Butler's acolytes in China was future Marine Corps Commandant, David M. Shoup, who shared Butler's dismal attitude toward the misuse of armed forces on behalf of American interests abroad. In fact, Shoup did two tours in China during the 1927-1933 period; he became convinced that one day we would be fighting the Japanese. BubbleDine (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"there has been a shift of low-end assembly industries to mainland China from newly industrialized countries in Asia." Yes. for cheapness but nothing to do with "*US Import Valuation Overcounts". What you should be saying is "Mainland China has increasingly become the last link in a long chain of value-added production. Because US trade data attributes the full value of a product to the final assembler, mainland Chinese value added is overcounted." Also, The US-China trade war is forcing companies to shift their supply chain activities out of China, especially at the stages of final product assembly and finishing. Faced with the threat of high tariffs, those selling to the US are deliberating on the most cost-effective strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmarkkk (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Lacking the PRC viewpoint in the article
At the moment, 'United States criticism of China' seems to be a more fitting title for the whole thing. Because certainly, the relations are not just one-sided fears or condemnation from the US, with China ignoring them or avoiding rebuttals. I know Beijing sometimes likes to argue back with US foreign policy disasters in other places e.g. the Middle East (http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-08/08/c_138293893.htm), & more domestically, possible accusations of CIA meddling and whatnot, although I haven't had the time to look up sources on those fronts. Leo Kinnaman (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Deterioration of US-China relations
There is a need in this article for neutrality of views, based on NPOV. Wherefore, the unneccesary deletion of the political analysis of Stephen Roach, who weighed-in on the deterioration in US-Sino relations, is an important balance in this regard (see following edit):
 * According to Hong Kong economics professor Lawrence J. Lau, a major cause of the deterioration is the growing battle between China and the U.S. for global economic and technological dominance. More generally, he argues, "It is also a reflection of the rise of populism, isolationism, nationalism and protectionism almost everywhere in the world, including in the US." Similarly, Stephen Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, has stated that President Trump, in his dealings with China, has implemented a policy taken directly out of his book, The Art of the Deal, wherein the President believed that "extracting concessions from counterparts by putting enormous pressure on them, squeezing them, using all types of bullying tactics to intimidate, and then to negotiate and to extract concessions" would reap benefits to the ailing US economy. This approach, according to Roach, was not an ideal approach in solving economic worries, but rather mutual respect and compromise.

The argument that "The material does not document the views of the government of the PRC" is a non-sequitur. The above edit is, therefore, being restored. . ---Davidbena (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:Davidbena BRD means that you don't reinstate, your disputed material after you've been reverted ,  without resolving it on the talk page first. PUS and RSP (for analogous cases, see the descriptions for the state run outlets in Iran, PRC and Russia) also mean that your Roach material cannot be used as state run media cannot be used unless they are used to cite the views of the respective government - in this case the views of the government of the PRC. (See also the analogous case in the First round of debate subsection above - First round of debate, point 15.) Is this your first day editing Wikipedia? Flaughtin (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed your Stephen Roach material as the state run outlet that it was sourced to has been deprecated. Flaughtin (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

New Article = History of China–United States relations
This article is much too long and the solution is to break off the history sections into "History of China–United States relations to 1948" which I am doing. Rjensen (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * President Biden Meets with His Excellency Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China screenshot.png

Why has the country comparison been removed?
This should be re edited to show the country comparison since they're the two largest economies and leaving that out is lazy. 174.26.243.116 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)