Talk:Sino-African relations/Archive 1

former text to delete ?

 * Western approach and critics

New deal: temper Chinese appetite and African oligarchies
No matter with who, the need is to rebuild the country.

Modern-day China is engaging in Africa to secure the oil and minerals it needs for its economic boom, offering in return Chinese finance and expertise.

Countries directly affected by wars, internal ethnic or political conflicts, and refugee displacements in 2005 included Angola, Burundi, Central Africa Republic, Chad, Congo (Kinshasa), Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, and Uganda. The Government of Mauritania was overthrown in August.


 * Conlusion : Toward a new western-like China ?

Conclusion.

political means to achieve China’s objective of establishing a world order that is peaceful and conducive to continued economic growth and stability at home.
 * History
 * Self interest

China ongoing amazing development still face key obstacles. China quest of wealth have lead coastal provinces to quickly enrich themselves, while inner provinces stay relatively poor. This lead to high social tensions, with millions poors and jobless, who keep silent only because of the promise of a close better future. This point is the key one which does not allow China to slow down its economic growth. Other than this social stability risk, long term factors threatening are the limited supplies of energy and raw materials, questions over its innovation capability, corruption and inefficiency, and environmental risks.

Zheng He missing ? (✅→Archives)
It doesn't make sense, with a title like this, to leave out earlier examples of China in Africa, such as Zheng He's voyage, in the lead. Also, the English in this article is poor and needs to be fixed. Badagnani (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Badagnani,
 * I talk a little about Zheng He (here), but yes: he is not the first Chinese in East Africa, and should not have a such big place like he have in popular culture.
 * I'm French, I did my best for English, I know it's still with many mistakes, but I know by my wiki-experience that my English it's still understandable and correctable by native speakers. I had read about 1200 pages of sources, and linked all facts to their respective source. I trust that this article, when corrected and with 3 more sections (#Weapons ; #Trade ; #New approach), will be nice ! For sure, help is welcome for my medium English ! Yug  (talk)  20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I copyedited a lot. Badagnani (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeap ! I just noticed it : Wonderful ! ^0^ ;) Big thanks ! Yug (talk)  20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Badagnani notice that the article didn't talk about Zheng He and notice "English in this article is poor and needs to be fixed". Yug correct his 1st point : this article did talk about Zheng He, but he is not, actually, that important. Yug (French) request English support. => issue closed. Yug (talk)  22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To add (to keep)

 * Hostage/Limits : Backlash against Chinese in Africa, as the recent hostage situation in Ethiopia.
 * Agriculture : Chinese buying large areas of land in Africa, for future agriculture or waste dumping?
 * Cultural : Chinese cultural contacts with Africa (for example, musical and dance groups being exchanged between China and Africa)--more common in the past 5 years. Badagnani (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can include some sentences about these stories, especially if you have sources. That's welcome ! Yug (talk)  20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Article rename (1) (✅→Archives)
Is the article name a well-known or common term? Unless it is, it doesn't sound like a very encyclopedic article name. Maybe "Chinese involvement in Africa" or something similar would be better? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Badagnani (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree too. The current name makes it sound that China is literally in Africa. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

✅ Yug (talk)  16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit (1) (to summarize)
This page is in desperate need of a copy edit, if not a complete rewrite. It is incredibly difficult to read, as many of the sentences do not make sense. I will start the monumental task of copy editing it section by section. Several of the sections will need to be renamed to reflect a NPOV, and it may need to be cut down significantly, as it seems overly bloated, as if someone tried to cram all possible information about the topic on the page. Since this is an encyclopedia, we need to cover the important stuff, while moving the more important info (that should be covered lightly on this, the main page) to independent pages, and having a "see main article" at the top of the relevant sections. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Onopearls for your good will ! (I do my best with English. >.<)
 * The subject is, yes, quite large. I found and had read cautiously about 1000 pages within le last 15 days. I tried to display all aspects of current China involvement in Africa, thus, a brief history of the Chinese Diaspora and China diplomatic missions in Africa is display first, to put the background.
 * I tried to make one big section about 'Visible facts', the following about 'Suspected strategies' (many studies on this available on line), then one last about 'Know limits'.
 * 1. Copyedit/Corrections: The first need for me seems to launch the large copyedit/English improvement.
 * 2. Neutrality/POV: I don't understand clearly, I think this subject is a matter of facts, I have no interest to favor one POV, I simply reported opinions from my sources. The copyedit, or style improvement, may improve a lot the NPOV situation.
 * 3. Split: Eventually, splits may be welcome. I'm not sure for that. Since it will produce really specific and short length articles. I would prefer rewording-rewriting shorter. But splitting stay a possibility.
 * First, the copyedit is welcome ! Yug (talk)  12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We should also try to define the scope of the article, which currently is quite vague. It looks like it's about the history of the involvement of China in Africa, but that's not what the title say, and there are also sections about the involvement of the PRC and Taiwan today. Also we should try not to treat both countries as if it was a single entity, as it would be a major neutrality issue.


 * With POV/neutrality, you rarely notice it. However, as you named the article under the broad subject of "Chinese" involvement in Africa, you must equally mention Both the PRC and the RoC's involvement. However, you mainly focused on the PRC, which gives the impression of a POV editor, who favors the PRC. I am not accusing you of this, I am just using it as a example. On splitting into separate articles: This article, before I started editing it, was over 100,000 characters long. It is about 98,000 right now, which is still really long. I believe that splitting the more broadly addressed topics into separate articles, and having a basic overview on this page, we can significantly cut this page down, while addressing the more important topics on a larger scale in their own articles. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 18:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that if you mention ROC, you then have issues of taking the POV that Taiwan is part of China. Better to just have the ROC and PRC in separate articles because they each conduct their relations separately. Readin (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ROC-Taiwan is largely accepted as part of 'China', conflict are about : does Taiwan is part of PRC. Thus, 'Chinese' was a soft acceptable blur title Yug (talk)  10:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to go through the article, but I would suggest rather radical changes - i.e. we could boldly remove sections that are unsourced or too biased. That way we would bring back the article to a reasonable size from which it can be expanded. Just a suggestion though, as I don't have time to do it now. Laurent (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Split ? (1) (✅→Archives)
This article should be split into separate articles. One for the involvement of the PRC (and previous governments of its territory) in Africa, and one for the ROC in Africa. Readin (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is almost nothing about ROC involvement. There is only talk about ROC-PRC competition. Thus, the ROC article will only contain some few lines. Yug (talk)  10:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename (2): →PRC in Africa (✅→Archives)
Taiwan being only expose in some few cases as an opponent to PRC, I made the move. For me, the ideal would be to have Involvement of the Chineses/China in Africa, since Chinese people from RoC, HK, PRC are know to do business together without worrying about PRC, RoC, and diplomatic fights. Use 'PRC' is uselessly reductive. I will make some sentence corrections accordingly. Yug (talk)  11:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal canceled. Yug (talk)  18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References system (to summarize)

 * After several days looking carefully at the Ref section and system in other articles, I understood what Cybercobra was actually doing, and that it's indeed a commonly use and also efficient ref system. (see my mid-apologizes on talk). Accordingly, the system of ref should be rework in this way. So, need to :
 * － replace, by the more academic (Cambridge style) ;
 * － sources uses just some few time : include the {source|} template in the first balise.

Yug (talk)  21:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
I think I might like to help improve this article. My plan would be as follows:

1. Rearrange and combine the different sections, removing any redunant content (for example # 6.2.5 Corruption friendlyness could be combined with # 7 Limits)

2. Copyedit for spelling and grammar

3. Work on the references

I'll try to retain as much content as possible and work through it step by step.

What does everyone else think? Should I be bold and start with editing immediately? Rtdixon86 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfectly welcome :]
 * Futher more, I note that some user added a "merge" template. My believe is the opposite: Sino-African relations and Involvement of the People's Republic of China in Africa are over lapping, and this should be undo. Sino-African relations should focus on diplomatic history, while Involvement[...] in Africa should keep the trade & today-focus relate issues. Yug (talk)  12:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. We could cut section 4 History of Sino-African relations to a summary and link to the other article we have on that subject. This would reduce the size of this article and make it easier to work with.
 * 2. The first three sections could be combined into an Introduction section.
 * 3. We could probably reduce the size of the Conclusion.
 * What do you think? Rtdixon86 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What horrible writing
Judging by the quality of the English in this article, I think it's safe to say that it was a Sino-African collaboration. --75.155.166.155 (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, French-English collaboration, by people who are strong enough to want improve things, not just make random attacks (which seems to be your level of contribution). Not yet perfect. Help still welcome :) --Yug (talk)  07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the quality of English in this. It's a superb article, but was clearly written by somebody with a poor grasp on the language. I'd edit it, but I don't want to muck up the article as I know nothing but Sino-African relations! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.189.205 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WTO China section: recent cuts

 * Some content deletions

To Onopearls: I understand the motivation, but I find it too harsh. Process are lost. Such the important association of diaspora, ambassy, low cost goods for the fast 90's turn toward market integration. But, I guess, you are not wrong neither, the section was too specific and long. I will just add back some general ideas/concepts, not specific case. ;) --Yug (talk)  07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is very biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.161.222 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion-comments: What a beautiful argumentation and research! => Thanks to don't wast my time. Yug (talk)  06:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Article length & coherence
Once improved, this will be a superb article. It has the information and sources, however it is obviously too long - there is such as thing as being too in-depth - and any person with even a passing fluency of English can tell that this article was not written by a native speaker. It is in need of several editors with a literate understanding of the English language to re-write it, as I did with the opening paragraph and several of the following ones. I will attempt to work on it, but it will be a massive undertaking for a single editor to get done in any short period of time. Anyone who can help, I urge them to do so! Wikipedia is made by editors working together to make articles great. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Covered the first six sections (level 2s), up to but not including 7. Macroeconomic and political strategy. Tons of relevant material to work with. I didn't look here first, so I might have duplicated someone else's section... Ocaasi (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Major cleanup
The article looks better through the first 6 sections. The last 3 (macroeconomic and political strategy, criticism, and conclusion) is where length really becomes an issue. It might be necessary to fork off part of that, incorporate it into the Sino-African relations article, or whittle it down to more of a single section summary of strategy/criticism.69.142.154.10 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will manage the fork this summer. :] Yug (talk)  18:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Finished remaining parts of clean-up, including the last three sections. It reads more easily now, thanks to a bunch of copy-editing and the excellent underlying research. I recommend double-checking the article for spelling errors, accidental bias, and general flow.  It might be close to good-article status and worth another peer review.  I no longer think the latter sections require forking, although it could be considered. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Africa Wikiproject Assesment
After reviewing per request, I'm moving this up from C-class to B-class. I think this could get through GA. Some issues that would need to be addressed in order to get it up to A-class:


 * The section "Effects of the global economic downturn (2007 to the present)" needs to be rewritten to remove the run-on sentences.
 * There a couple of citation needed tags on sections that need to be either sourced or removed. The one that bothers me the most is in "Role of Chinese embassies".
 * The "Conclusion" section need to be removed in my opinion. Why would an encyclopedia article have a conclusion? I think most of the information in this section needs to be rewritten to be NPOV, and should go in the Sino-African relations article.
 * I found the references confusing. Are the works listed under further reading the same works that are in the footnotes? If so, further reading should be renamed to Bibliography, as the books and articles are being cited.
 * I would tweak some of the formatting on the tables, so not to have two tables on one line.

I don't know very much about the article's subject, but it is obvious a lot of good work has recently been put into this article. Again, I think this could be a GA even without the above issues being addressed. All of the above is just my opinion, and keep up the good work! :)--Banana (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename 2010

 * 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. I cannot discern consensus for any particular move. The intended scope of the article and whether it needs splitting or merging with Sino-African relations needs to be decided before a consensus for the title will emerge. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Involvement of the People& → Economic relations between China and Africa — I'd like to re-name this article. The new name is grammatically more clear and also more accurate. | Relisted billinghurst  sDrewth  16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | Ocaasi (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The name is not more accurate.  The article only discusses the economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Africa.  There is no mention of economic relations between the Republic of China and Africa.  Perhaps a move to Economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Africa would be acceptable.  Skinsmoke (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue is to delimit the scope of the title to economics, since that is the predominant focus of the article. The geo-political semantics are important but were not the impetus for the move.
 * There is a fairly extensive history section which addresses relations of China's dynasties as well as of pre-PRC governments. So, I'm not sure the name you suggested is an overall improvement, because while it accomplishes avoiding the suggestion that the ROC is somehow not China, it gives the impression that the article's focus is only on the PRC as opposed to the economic history of the region up through the PRC but not including Taiwan.
 * What about using the suggested name but including a hatnote linking to Economic relations between Taiwan and Africa? I don't want to exclude or mistreat Taiwan, but the ROC has a completely different economic scope that for purposes of this article has almost nothing to do with mainland China.
 * There are other options: People's Republic of China, China, China (excluding Taiwan), China (excluding the Republic of China), Mainland China, or some other configuration.
 * It's also worth mentioning that the name should fit the article, but the article can also grow/shrink/change to better suit whatever name is chosen. Ocaasi (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support More accurate than current title, and as Ocaasi points out, the history section goes back to the Tang dynasty. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Barely Oppose -- I would support economic involvement of the PRC in Africa or something like that, but I don't think economic relations is the right title. I do agree that the new title is too vague for Wikipedia.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 07:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Economic relations is the general, academic term to describe economic activity that goes on between two political entities, regardless of which one is the primary investor/importer or consumer/exporter. I guess I'm not seeing the difference in emphasis between involvement and relations?  Does involvement emphasize the uni-directionality (China to Africa) of the relationship, since Africa isn't doing much investing inside of China?
 * What would it take for the broader term to fit--added sections about African migration and investment on the mainland? I'm just guessing there's not too much of it or that it wouldn't be hard to incorporate if the broader title was chosen.
 * Also, Economic involvement of the People's Republic of China in Africa seems a bit ungainly if it can be avoided.Ocaasi (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The current title is needlessly vague.  —   AjaxSmack   04:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)\

I read around the debates on China/Taiwain/PRC/ROC and I think I was a little underinformed. China is rarely used by itself to refer to the PRC, and it would be contentious to do so in this title. Mainland China as a term has its own history, and it is less contentious but also commonly used in articles as a redirect to a PRC-titled page. Which seems to leave two options, that I'll recommend a quick vote on:


 * PRC. Economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Africa
 * mainland. Economic relations between mainland China and Africa


 * Ocaasi (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The connotation that 'mainland' gives me is as contrasted to Hong Kong and Macao, and not necessarily just Taiwan. It's not in common use for this purpose (PRC as opposed to ROC) except in the Chinese political class. Excluding the Hong Kong and Macao as an oversight may be acceptable in some articles, but definitely not in economics related articles. Splittist (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is obviously not the case. Hong Kong and Macao are separate economies. The customs territory of the PRC, e.g., does not cover Hong Kong and Macao. 112.118.162.227 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Vote PRC Would support a move to Economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Africa.  Skinsmoke (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. 112.118.162.227 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. There has been counter-proposals, and comments and move to confirm a consensus opinion would be appreciated.  At this stage there is no evidence of a consensus position. billinghurst  sDrewth  16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick vote for consensus. I believe there's reasonable consensus for the following: Economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Africa. Briefly, it is more specific ('economic relations' over ' involvement'), and it does not take a POV on regional geopolitics ('P.R.C.' over 'China'); also, it is in line with naming conventions about Chinese issues, which generally support using the names of actual governments when dealing with issues not merely geographical or cultural, and avoiding terms which might seem like taking sides in a political maelstrom. While the shorter 'China' was tempting, it has been discussed before, and given the scope of the article, which mainly focuses on the P.R.C., would not be worth the ambiguity or potential for controversy.

Not only economic: The Oil issue is, by example, more strategic, energetic, than economic. Same for arms sales, such in the case of the Chad's coup, and for the section #Macroeconomic and political strategy, which is mainly diplomatic/ideologic. Not only PRC: I don't like PRC because PRC softly lock to 1949-today (90% of the article), to PRC's gov, and PRC citizens, while a large part of this story is wrote down by Africans born Chinese, or Taiwaneses. But let's be ok for this one. In Africa (involvement >> relations): There is almost nothing about 'Africa in China'. Accordingly, we are not talking about relations (the both places), but about involvement of the first (China) in the second (Africa)'s land. As it is now: I think : Involvement_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China_in_Africa, or :Involvement_of_the_China_in_Africa are suitable names. A renaming likely means a split. Yug (talk)  02:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Ocaasi (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Skinsmoke (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's better than the current title but I still prefer the move as proposed since it is more succinct and reflects the pre-1949 material in the article. —   AjaxSmack   03:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Then I suggest that you expand the article to include the Republic of China's involvement in Africa as well.  Unless you do (or split the pre-1949 into another article) China is simply unacceptable under the terms of the agreement Wikipedia reached on the China naming dispute.  Skinsmoke (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Expanding this article to include Taiwan could make it much longer. It's already very long.  I'd prefer instead to create a new page called Economic relations between Taiwan (ROC) and Africa, or something like that, and deal with the topic separately.  Perhaps they could be merged later once the articles are more refined. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I still don't think that the proposed name is the right one for this article, mainly because the article talks mainly about the PRC's overall involvement in Africa, not about economic relations. See Sino-African relations.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's ridiculous that we're worrying about the name of the article when it is in such terrible shape. We should be discussing how to best go about fixing it instead of quarreling over the name, which can be decided at any point. Thanks,  Ono pearls  (t/c) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sceptical: this article is about "Chinese... involvement... in Africa", including economic (mainly), friendship/ideologic, and diplomatic.

'''No consensus. Just leave it.''' Ok, I started this just to give polish to the recent article cleanup. It doesn't matter much in practice and clearly steps on complicated issues. So, just leave it as was, if that's ok (seems the likely outcome now anyway). More work on the article will bring the content in line with the title (or vice/versa). Ocaasi (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  Oppose. This article is not just about economy.., but also political influences. 112.118.162.227 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (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.

3 Questions
I recently split the conclusion and combined it into the 'Political Background' section as an 'Incentives for Cooperation' subsection and the other half into the 'Macroeconomic and Political Strategy' section.

1) Does that work? Does it need further integration?

2) Should the 'Political Background' section be merged into the 'Overview of Trade'? They're currently sections 1 and 3, with the history section inbetween.  It seems like they should be grouped together and come after the History section. Thoughts?

3) Assuming all of these recent changes, is the article ready for a formal peer review or GA review?

Ocaasi (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cooling of Ango-Chinese relations
Really interesting. Many informations. I encourage you to read it. Yug (talk)  18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hostility Toward Workers Cools Angola-China Relationship
 * Thanks for the link. This is good, and a very realistic view, whereas even with the criticism this article paints a generally very positive picture of trade.  Can we integrate it? Ocaasi (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks cables reveal U.S. attitudes towards Chinese involvement in Africa
Haven't had a chance to look through these yet:


 * WikiLeaks cables: China's aid to Africa has strings attached Leaked US embassy cables show African governments like dealing with China. But they shouldn't forget that China's interest in Africa is driven by foreign policy and commercial objectives http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-cables-china-aid-africa


 * US diplomats suspect China's growing role in Africa is not altruistic but economic, according to secret memos published on Wikileaks. The cables from a senior American official in Nigeria describe China as "aggressive and pernicious", and that "China is in Africa primarily for China". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11955697


 * Newly leaked U.S. diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks show senior U.S. officials in Africa were highly critical of China's economic policies on the continent and made sometimes embarrassing comments about African leaders and crises. The revelations have angered U.S. officials who say they are illegal and dangerous. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/US-Diplomat-China-Displays-No-Morals-in-Africa--111594489.html

More from google news Ocaasi (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Article
This looks like it may be useful. It's in JSTOR: Red Star, Black Gold http://www.jstor.org/pss/4007084 Ocaasi c 08:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference system: upgrate to harvard style
Hello, the reference system need a serious upgrade. Currently, the cite a code (ex: ABD), which itself refer to a source (ex: Africa’s Business and Development, 2007, ....). It need a more serious reference system. Yug (talk)  13:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC) I have to go, help welcome. Yug (talk)  14:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FIRST STEP: #Reference / #Sources sections largely upgraded to {citation} ✅
 * 2 citations incomplete : EXIM, + APG.
 * Bugs: The parameter "date=" where I putted the month and day seems to override "year="
 * Explanation: Should be either just |year=YYYY, either |date=YYYY, Month day, and the template extract automatically the year YYYY from the date.

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: moved. There is also consensus that Sino-African relations should be merged into this article, but that does not require an admin. If merging, please follow the instructions at WP:MERGE. Jenks24 (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Involvement of the People's Republic of China in Africa → Africa–China relations – This being a more standard title for Wikipeida relations articles. As per Wikipedia consensus "China" has replaced the "People's Republic of China". The current title is POV by only assuming a one-sided relationship. There is also the Sino-African relations article but that article should properly handle issues such as the history before the creation of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China.Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk already occured. The two topics are differents.
 * Africa⇔China relations
 * China IN Africa (China⇒Africa) : see Involvement_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_in_Africa
 * Africa IN China (Africa⇒China)
 * Yug (talk)  12:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The usual practice for relations articles to is deal with both relationships in the same article. See for example Africa–India relations, United States–European Union relations, India–United States relations, China–India relations, and so on. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. The common name main title is at China, so descriptive titles should correspond. Kauffner (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Having both Africa–China relations and Sino-African relations articles is ridiculous especially since 60+% of the two articles' coverage is duplicate. Get rid of this POV fork and merge the articles.  —  AjaxSmack  04:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We simply have nothing about Africa in China. Merge them will equal to have an unbalanced coverage of 90% of China IN Africa, under the uncorrectly equalitarian title of China-Africa relations. Yug (talk)  09:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Africa is exporting many commodities to China and there has been an increasing number of African emigrants to China. Anyway, it is not the aim of Wikipedia relations articles to be the judge of who is the dominant partner and state that in the title.Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to match title and content. We don't have content on Africa IN China. If the content is about China IN Africa, we need a such specific title. Simply. Yug (talk)  22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not split relations articles into one for each side of the relationship. Obviously bilateral agreements and so on involve two parts. Exports go between two nations. For commodities the relationship is usually Africa⇒China and rarely China⇒Africa. Emigration goes in both directions. Academica Orientalis (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have enough content on a subpart, we do split articles. A merging will produce an article with 90% of its content IN African, except major content deletion. My 2 cents. Yug (talk)  20:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AO, merging IS possible. But the result will be hard to manage and balance. Yug (talk)  20:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote this articles, I did the academic researches, reading +1000 pages of academic papers with a hand of key authors, that's an emerging field. On the other hand, resources on Africa IN China simply doesn't exist yet. In a merged article, insert "Africa IN China" facts/sources in these sections will be confusing for maintaining it ; while create parallels sections (History of Africa in China#Middle Age, XIX ; XXeme) will be hard or quite short since sources are really scarce, and unbalanced. If you think its manageable, just move on. (I recommand to merge into Involvement of the PRC in Africa since most of the content is here, then move with the history) Yug (talk)  20:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See Ownership of articles. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * hahaha !!! hey, I'am a retired editor, if you want to run and do the merge without the author opinion just go ahead. Do this merge well is a complex work I planed but never had time to do. If you want to merge the big into the small, it's ok too. Yug (talk)  21:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves Yug (talk)  21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Skeptical Support: I just flied slowly over the article. It's mainly from the China IN Africa viewpoint, but still "bilateral". Merge ok. Yug (talk)  20:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose obviously. Again, all Wikipedia relations articles are symmetrical, including all other China and Africa relations articles. No reason to make Africa a special exception and claim that Africa has no influence on China. Bilateral agreements involve two partners. Not just China imposing demands on Africa. Immigration goes in both directions. And so on... Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources are what they are, the field is not mature yet. If you have a way to do a good merge, move ahead, it's a wiki. Yug (talk)  21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do the merge. Am I correct in thinking that you no longer oppose a merge to the Sino-African article? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not really active on that field now. But I rather support your former proposal "Involvement_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_in_Africa => China-Africa relations + There is also the Sino-African relations article but that article should properly handle issues such as the history before the creation of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China." This can be done by some sections moves both way. Yug (talk)  13:22, 30 May 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.

Merger proposal
I propose that the Sino-African article should be merged with this article. See the results of the above requested move. The two names obviously seem to refer to the same relations. A reason for having a separate Sino-African article may be to handle issues such as the history before the creation of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. However, the China article currently mentions all of the history of China and not just that of the People's Republic of China. Academica Orientalis (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right it is quite the same. We can change the title of the Africa China relations article to a more relevant one. That article is more about the economic involvement of the PROC in Africa, for example; Economic relations between China and Africa or Chinese economic involvement in Africa, just some suggestions. But I don't think it is necessary to merge those two articles. They have actually the same title but different subjects. Runehelmet (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sino–African relations" should as a minimum be "African–Sino relations" instead. But "Africa–China relations" is IMO better. There may be enough space for a separate subarticle for economic relations which in that case should be called "Africa–China economic relations". Such a subarticle is easily created after a merge in order to get rid of one of the two article with very similar names so I suggest we proceed with the merge and then create a new subarticle called "Africa–China economic relations". Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

New sections
I was interested in greatly expanding this article by going into the relations between each country and China. Economic,political,cultural and so on. I've already amassed 25 articles about China and Nigeria relations so I'd like to start there. When I'm finished can I add it to this article or link it in some way, which would be better? I'm looking for people to collaborate with so if anyone is interested get in touch with me and/or click on the google drive link on my talk page to see the collection of articles I have on this topic. Thanks Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Great work Notgoingtotellyou. A great place to start with Sino-Nigerian relations would be the article page on China–Nigeria relations so I would suggest start with updating that with your amassed sources and then add a one paragraph section summarising it in this article.--Discott (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the page for Nigeria china relations and it sure is short!! I already have enough sources to expand it 20 fold :-) I will do south Africa next so maybe we can collaborate on that one if you'd like. I found a good website that includes all of africa's academic journals if you'd be interested and you can search for any article you'd like.  It's at www.ajol.info.  Another association that has many Africa articles is http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/.  Nellco.org is also a great site to search for academic journal articles.  I posted my offer to collaborate 5 days ago on the Wiki China page and you are the first person to respond.  Is there not much traffic on the Wiki China page or are people just not interested in collaborating with me? Thanks Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Would you like to collaborate on the Nigeria article? This is my first time writing in 2 years and I've never written such a long detailed article before.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Africa–China 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/20090303164611/http://www.bangorschools.net:80/hs/SR/IbnBattutta.html to http://www.bangorschools.net/hs/SR/IbnBattutta.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090624051028/http://www.csmonitor.com:80/centennial/timeline/2008/07/china-boosts-african-economies-offering-a-second-opportunity/ to http://www.csmonitor.com/centennial/timeline/2008/07/china-boosts-african-economies-offering-a-second-opportunity/

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 02:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Africa–China 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/20130508162350/http://ke.china-embassy.org/eng/sbgx/t202741.htm to http://ke.china-embassy.org/eng/sbgx/t202741.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228140945/https://www.globalpost.com:80/dispatch/china-and-its-neighbors/090219/chinas-little-africa-under-pressure to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/china-and-its-neighbors/090219/chinas-little-africa-under-pressure

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) 06:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Africa–China 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/ibn_battuta/Battuta%27s_Trip_Nine.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bangorschools.net/hs/SR/IbnBattutta.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311160010/http://media.ft.com/cms/e13530f4-c9df-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.pdf to http://media.ft.com/cms/e13530f4-c9df-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120721210713/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/china/if08ad02.html to http://www.atimes.com/atimes/china/if08ad02.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/china-and-its-neighbors/090219/chinas-little-africa-under-pressure
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218232815/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87306/andrew-s-natsios/beyond-darfur.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87306/andrew-s-natsios/beyond-darfur.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311160010/http://media.ft.com/cms/e13530f4-c9df-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.pdf to http://media.ft.com/cms/e13530f4-c9df-11dc-b5dc-000077b07658.pdf

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) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for Merger
The Africa–China economic relations page has considered being merged into here due to it being poorer by comparison. What are y'all's thoughts? Bgrus22 (talk) 30 April 2019
 * Both pages have their purposes. The topic of Africa-China economic relations is sufficiently broad to have its own page. - Amigao (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Military
If you trying to challenge the longterm stable version you should use the talk page instead of disruptively reverting.PailSimon (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you wish to include disputed text, the burden is on you to establish consensus for its inclusion per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. - Amigao (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:BRD, your edits are disruptive and edit warring.PailSimon (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, PRC sources describe the base in Djibouti as simply a logistics facility. It's non-PRC sources that ascribe other geopolitical intentions to the base. That distinction should be clearly reflected here. - Amigao (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You would need reliable sources saying such a thing. You also deleted sourced information which needs to be returned.PailSimon (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would also recommend that you give the bullet points in WP:BRD-NOT a look because they continue to apply here. - Amigao (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Either way you need to gain a consensus instead of being disruptive.PailSimon (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If longterm stable version means low quality content that sneaked in some time ago and was not promptly removed, I see nothing wrong with removing it right now. Normchou   💬 22:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A consensus is needed first. PailSimon (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Help
Does this article still need copy-editing? Many edits have already been made, apparently, but I believe that this article still needs a lot of work, since it is barely legible in many cases (to me, at least). If yes, please help, Yug! As I have already said, I can hardly understand some sections, and I don't want to change what you had wanted to say, since I understand nothing about the subject. KingOfFruit (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know enough about this topic to do so, but, attempting to read it, much of the "English" is barely even understandable (and some of it just plain isn't understandable). I've tried to take remove uncited statements that seem randomly inserted, but someone keeps putting them back.118.71.10.95 (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncited statements don't have to be remove. False statements have to be remove.
 * Some time, I just lost the source of some statements.
 * Wow... I didn't knew my English was that's bad XD I guess it's link to the level of complexity of this article. It's, indeed, my first 'expert article' write in English. Issues, concepts are complex, this vocabulary is specific and pretty fresh for me. That make the full harder to write down clearly. ... *sad* Yug (talk)  03:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It says "Little is known about ancient relations between China and the African continent, though there is some evidence of early trade connections."

I read this a day after my spouse said to have read somewhere that in the 1400s or so China did embark on trying to colonize like the coast of India and East Africa. But some beancounter in China said that these endeavours to conquer and then hold these other areas cost more than they are worth. They abandoned the idea of colonizing and influencing other lands. It is, however true, that all Caesars, Napoleons and Hitlers copped quite a whack for trying to colonize. Something for history buffs to study. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:A813:AFF6:6AF4:68E7 (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bl2240.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sweeping reverts of multiple edits
@Fobhouse you mass reverted all my edits. And then claiming in edit description, it's excessive for the intro. Despite most of the information you just removed are not even from the intro but from other chapters. What reason can you have to mass revert more than 3 of my edits and use only a single questionable excuse to remove all of them. If you do that again, I may have to report this to edit warring noticeboard where you are already been blocked for a similar topic. Discuss and give direct reasoning on why each information is not true or need removal. Don't just revert like that again. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg survey: African youths deem China a better partner for Africa than the United States
Article: China Surpasses US in Eyes of Young Africans, Survey Shows - By Antony Sguazzin Date: June 12, 2022, 6:00 PM EDTUpdated onJune 13, 2022, 1:43 AM EDT Source: www.Bloomberg.com - Bloomberg News Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-12/china-surpasses-us-in-the-eyes-of-young-africans-survey-shows

China has overtaken the US as the foreign power seen as having the biggest positive influence in Africa by young people, according to a survey released on Monday.

A survey conducted by the Ichikowitz Family Foundation found that 76% of 4,507 young Africans across 15 countries named China as a foreign power with a positive influence on their lives, compared with 72% for the US. In 2020, when the inaugural study of 18-to-24-year-olds was conducted, 83% of respondents saw the US’s influence as positive while the figure for China was 79%.[. . . ]

The fake news agenda by the US military is failing horribly. CaribDigita (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually added all that information in already like a month ago. But it appears Amigao removed it and said it was "excessive". Even still, these polls and surveys seem quite relevant to the overall relationship between Africa and China. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I also agree that this poll is excessive. FobTown (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg survey
Amigao, the survey was cited by Bloomberg and numerous top media outlets. I don't see Bloomberg giving caution to others to not trust the survey. If it's good enough to be deemed reliable for Bloomberg, it's good enough for here. Plus I specifically even stated the survey size which is no small insignificant figure. And was done by a highly renown respectable group. There should be no issues to state it here. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider adding a Survey section in the article. It shouldn't be in the intro if it's not in the body somewhere per MOS:INTRO. - Amigao (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , to be clear, survey info in a lead could be acceptable if it's elsewhere in the article per MOS:INTRO. At present, it is not. - Amigao (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally acceptable to be included in the article. It is about the subject matter at hand and provides more balance to the article good, bad, or ugly. CaribDigita (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

And you couldn't had just done that in the beginning? Instead of just completely wiping out my edits. As per your suggestion, I now created a section and moved the Bloomberg survey into that section. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Also in regards to BBC surveys, I see many other similar articles like Sino Indonesia relations, also have BBC surveys in public opinion perception. It seems standard. I think I sufficiently followed that rule you call MOS. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I see there is disagreement over whether or not BBC surveys are allowed in the lede, etc. What I think is excessive in the lede is adding outside mostly western opinion about how they are anxious about the unsubstantiated concept of debt trap diplomacy in Africa despite so far, China isn't the primary driver of debt crisis in Africa nor have they even seized any assets and even Bloomberg confirms it.   Such weasel wordings shouldn't be there. And even if you're going to add in weasel words implying China doing such things, you need to also add that currently the evidence doesn't support such concerns as of yet.  Also in regards to the BBC surveys of African perception of China, such surveys are MOS in many other sino relation articles' Ledes. So they should also be in the intro considering other similar articles do the same if you keep using MOS as your rule. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not just a Western opinion as there are plenty of sources about the white elephant projects built with China's loans. There is also evidence that China's debt is perhaps more than 10% and could be as high as 20%. And FobTown (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's an overblown opinion when Western private lenders' loans are three times more than China and double the interest. And refused to restructure their debts in Covid unlike China. and btw 12 percent of African external debt is to china. And even if 20 percent, that is not even a majority stake. That's not the definition of a debt trap. New report discredits popular narrative, reveals how African countries are three times more indebted to Western firms than to Chinese lenders Simpleshooter99 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Western firms are not state-owned, but Chinese lenders are state-owned. FobTown (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

weasel words
There are unsourced words trying to hide the fact that most of the world doesn't share those concerns. Saying (an increasing) of international concerns despite what actually constitutes as "increasing"? When the same countries that accuse China is just USA and and a handful of mostly Western nations. It hasn't really grown to be claimed by African countries, middle East, latin America, etc Such edits give an impression that it's increasing because more evidence have unsurfaced, when none has. If there is anything that is increasing a lot in recent years, it is the amount of research and publications showing over and over again evidence proving that the accusations of debt trap diplomacy are just unfounded. Also what military fears? It's overblown to point at literally a single Chinese base in the entire continent, and then make it seem like China has bases all over everywhere. It's undue and misleading (Npov) to make it seem as Such. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Heading organization
Currently, “Contemporary Relations” is a subheading under “Historical Relations.”

“Contemporary Relations” has many sub-subheadings of its own.

I think the organization would be improved if we took “Contemporary Relations” out from under “Historical Relations” and made it its heading.

Does anyone have a strong position about that? JArthur1984 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)