Talk:Foreign relations of China

Talk 1
Added lots of stuff. In doing so I realized how totally unenlightening and unuseful the information from the CIA factbook is.

--User:Roadrunner

Name of article
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. &mdash;Lowellian (talk)  22:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont agree with the move. We would have to purge Foreign_relations_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China from the article. Perhaps write an overview article detailing the entire history from whenever? Until that is done, I don't think this should be moved. --Jiang 22:27, 20 Nov 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? &mdash;Lowellian (talk)  00:23, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * It should be at Foreign relations of China where each era would have a summary. The material we have so far is very general and not worth its own article. --Jiang 00:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Chapter 12 of the LOC Country study has not been incorported yet. --Jiang 03:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, I think it's premature to be turning foreign relations of China into a disambiguation page. Major changes like this should at least receive warning and concensus on the talk page. Foreign relations of China should be orphaned if we are to keep the current setup. If Foreign relations of imperial China doesnt improve significantly I will merge it into [Foreign relations of China] as part of an overview. --Jiang 19:36, 21 Nov 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.

&mdash;Lowellian (talk)  04:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan's inclusion
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 opposing political envolvement
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)


 * chats to move on the problematic nature of the informal economy is +/¥=a! 2A02:8084:D00:2D00:916F:AF53:A88F:8F95 (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Overquoting
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)


 * I think it is a good idea to reduce this to the essential points and avoid the unnecessary and long exact quotation. As you say, it should align with paragraph style. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will do.  Path2space (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Weird quote/sentence/citation
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)


 * Thank you. You’re right. I deleted it. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)