Talk:Foreign policy of China

"Further reading" section indiscriminate?
The further reading section seems lengthy and not particularly discriminate, adding bulk to the article without meaningful discussion.

Are there any strong opinions about the section generally or the sources in it?

I can see us continuing to list the Odd Arne Westad text as Westad as most will agree Westad is obviously a major figure in this area. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It's definitely out of line with MOS:FURTHER and should be substantially trimmed. Amigao (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good of you to add the policy link, thanks. I have now removed some of the works focused on specific areas of the broader topics. We could probably remove more here too. I think the Westad text is the only one I specifically would want to keep but I think there could be a number of valid views, and I'm not familiar with all the authors. So I'm open to different approaches here if you or others have specific preferences. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

POV Bias Tag is Extremely Necessary
I will have to look at edit history, but this entire article reads like a propaganda piece. I am going to tag it with POV bias and might report it to mods.

&#45; AH (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Major Missing Sections
FoPo article on China should contain sections detailing India Policy, Statements by Leadership on United States, Russia, Espionage Efforts

&#45; AH (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * These might be appropriate, but they’re not at all a POV issue or warranting a POV tag. I’m not convinced they’re necessary either as we have the Foreign relations of China or the individual China-X relations page, or American espionage in China or so forth. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)