Talk:Foreign relations of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Three Recommended articles for "International territorial disputes"[edit]

1) This article is very up to date (2012) explaining how the current secretary of state Hillary Clinton was not able to change China’s mind on the issue of territorial disputes in the South China Sea. China claims that it has historical evidence to prove that the islands and waters inside its "U" shaped policy are theirs. Furthermore, China has recently blocked the Scarborough Shoal entrance and is constantly under patrol of the area. Not only that, but China has also placed a military garrison on the Parcel islands angering the Vietnamese who are claiming the parcel islands as Vietnamese territory. In addition China has openly stated that the U.S should not get involved and even though it is up to interpretation, it might be a warning from China to the U.S (military wise). Most of the things I have mentioned are not present in the Wikipedia article and I believe they would be great assets for it being that they are current events and it adds the point of view of the US in the issue of disputed territories in the South China Sea.

Perlez,S. (2012, September 6). No Movement on Major Disputes as Clinton Meets With Chinese Leaders. The New York TimesSection A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 10

2) This second article starts by saying that ASEAN could not make amends with the Chinese, over the territories that China claims as “theirs” in the South China Sea. It also names how China has problems with Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. This would add a little more detail to the article since it mentions some of the problems with the countries mentioned above. In addition this article shows ASEAN’s point of view which is currently insisting in peaceful negotiations with China but the countries leader only wants to negotiate with the individual countries one on one where it clearly has an advantage over them. Finally, in the last paragraphs of the article the author mentions the influence China is having on the decisions taken by ASEAN as a whole.China has created a division between the countries that are part of the organization by making them choose sides between those influenced by the US and the ones that are dependent of China either by trade or some other economic relation. All these could potentially add emphasis to the troubles China is having with other countries.

Manthorpe, J. (2012, July 23) ASEAN patches up rift over territorial disputes with Beijing. The Vancouver Sun(British Columbia)P. C3


3) This third article points out that Japan has offered to buy the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyutai) from the individual private owners for a total of 26 million dollars. These islands as you already know are also claimed by China so this action by Japan has angered the Chinese who are questioning Japans motives. The article mentions that it is speculated these islands have some sort of natural resource that would definitely benefit either country and also goes on to explain some of the history of these islands and why China and Japan are going at it for them. In addition, the article also shows a little insight as to where the US stands in the issue and how China is dealing with not only Japan in this issue but also the countries that form part of the ASEAN organization as well. I believe the things mentioned in this article are worth taking a look at and should be placed in this article because, again, it would give good information on events going on in that part of the world.

Popham, P. (2012, September 6) THE ISLANDS THAT DIVIDE SUPERPOWERS; Japan's purchase of these uninhabited, barren rocks, has enraged China and the US. Why? Peter Popham reports on a battle for influence - and oil. The Independent(London)P. 34

--CMAcadet2E (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[]

Talk 1[edit]

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[edit]

I moved foreign relations of China to foreign relations of the People's Republic of China to (1) better reflect the content of the article (2) conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy (3) be consistent with Category:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China (4) be consistent with foreign relations of the Republic of China. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 22:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I dont agree with the move. We would have to purge Foreign_relations_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Imperial_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? 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.

Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Relations with Vatican[edit]

The press says the PRC and Vatican broke diplomatic relations in 1951. ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) When did they established diplomatic relations? The relevant article on Wikipedia has no mention. Meanwhile the foreign relations of the ROC and foreign relations of the Vatican City articles say the ROC-Vatican diplomatic relations has been in place since 1942. — Instantnood 15:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[]

Are you confusing the ROC and the PRC? The Republic of China is the Taiwanese government that claims to be the authentic China - mainly via the U.N. system and some intense lobbying efforts. The People's Republic of China is the ruling government on the Chinese mainland which is widely recognized as the official government of the political entity "China" (and holds the U.N. security council seat). The PRC is almost always what is meant by "China", because the ROC's claim is basically technical. In order to establish diplomatic relations, the PRC has long demanded that countries first recognize China as unified - thereby denouncing the ROC's claim.
For what it's worth, my unsourced, personal knowledge says that the Vatican broke relations with the then-Communist, then-atheist PRC around 1950 or so, while relations with the ROC are ongoing and have been good (because the ROC needs recognition badly). I understand the new Pope Benedict XVI has offered to mend relations with the PRC (see [7]). This is unlikely to happen unless the Vatican modifies its stance towards the ROC.
--Vector4F 06:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[]

Taiwan's inclusion[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 13:49, October 22, 2006

Inaccuracy in illustraion[edit]

The graphic showing the decades of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China is inaccurate. The UK estabilshed relations with China in the 1950s, not the 1970s as shown in the image. --PalaceGuard008 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[]

The PRC & Pacific Island nations[edit]

The section on Relations by region and country has nothing on the PRC's involvment in Oceania (see here). I'll see what I can do when I have time. Aridd (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[]

PRC and Taiwan[edit]

This reversion was apparently caused by a misunderstanding of my initial edit. The third paragraph as it is (and was before my edit) is some assertion about the "completeness of sovereignty" that implies that PRC will not recognize any government that recognizes ROC, Tibet government in exile, or east turkestan independence group. In my edit summary I stated—maybe not in the clearest language because of character limit contraints—that there already were citations for PRC not recognizing any state that recognized ROC in the article. I was doubting the fact that the PRC does the same for any government that holds official diplomatic relations with tibet or turkestan groups, because there were no citations and because I know that no state has done that, so it would be strange for that to be prominent in foreign policy.

So I integrated the Taiwan claim into the second paragraph, seeing as without Tibet and Turkestan, it wasn't long enough to merit a paragraph of its own. Since the new citations given only mention Taiwan, I feel I can safely remove Tibet and Turkestan for a lack of citation and credibility. Because I do not know the position of the reverting editor on whether or not PRC's nonrecognition of ROC recognizing states deserves its own lead paragraph, I will not touch that. But I do want to hear why the editor feels that the single sentence bit should have its own paragraph in the lead article, especially when it does not reflect such a prominent place for the current PRC/ROC dispute in the article's main text. Splittist (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[]

Hi Splittist, thanks for the clarification. I only caught the tail-end of that history as well via my watchlist. Like you, I haven't heard anything about third party states recognising Tibetan sovereignty and winding up in that situation. I did see on CCTV where the Chinese government mentioned being open to holding discussions about granting Tibet the status of "special administrative region-SAR" (similar to Hong Kong and Macau) but, I haven't heard anything either about Tibet or Tukestan for that matter. I had thought your edit was a quick clean-up, hence I was quickly supplying some references to augment what appeared to be in the article prior. Just to clarify my position, I have no problems with the movement of that minor bloc of text and integrating it elsewhere in the article (even if that be outside of the introduction). :-) Thanks again for clarifying. I don't know if anybody else has an objection? CaribDigita (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[]


So guys i guess the dispute is resolved, is it not ? Samuel325 (talk) 10:59, 22 may 2012

IDPs?[edit]

What is the distinction between IDP and migrant workers in China?

Also what percentage of IDP are due to acts of nature rather than man?

Additional: Do persons who used to live in one part of the PRC and have been forced to move to another part of the same country really have anything to do with foreign relations? Hcobb (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[]

1: Choice (though this is debatable). 3: No. I have removed it. Quigley (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[]

potential resource[edit]

China Engages Latin America: Tracing the Trajectory by Adrian Hearn, Jose Luis Leon-Manriquez, Reviewed by By Richard Feinberg Foreign Affairs November/December 2011 99.19.44.155 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[]

Requested move from PRC to "China"[edit]

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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[]



– The country article is at China, so these child articles should correspond. The style for foreign relations articles is to put the material on the modern state under the common, or short form, country name. See Foreign relations of Germany or Foreign relations of France. Just plain "China" is used formally by the United Nations and by the U.S. State Department. Kauffner (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[]

Survey[edit]

  • Strong support See discussion at Talk:Flag of China#Requested move. No matter what you think of the PRC's location at China, fighting for inconsistency in different articles isn't the way to address the issue. If it's ever moved back to People's Republic of China, I promise I'll be just as strong in my support of moving China articles to PRC ones. Let children articles follow their parents—period. --BDD (talk)
  • Support for consistency with the content at China, and for consistency with the common understanding of this phrase in the wider world outside of Wikipedia (in a news media article or similar). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[]
  • Support per nomination. mgeo talk 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[]
  • Support per WP:COMMON NAME. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[]
  • Support, this should be uncontroversial. - filelakeshoe 09:32, 27 June 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.
  • Very sad to see.The move should have been prohibited as violating NPOV.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[]

Orphaned references in Foreign relations of China[edit]

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 Foreign relations of China'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 "theage.com.au":

  • From Sino-Pacific relations: McDonald, Hamish (November 10, 2003). "Tiny Pacific islands play China using the Taiwan card". The Age. Retrieved November 11, 2011.
  • From Foreign relations of Nauru: Pacific nation Nauru on brink of collapse The Age, 18 April 2004

Reference named "chinadaily.com.cn":

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 12:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Orphaned references in Foreign relations of China[edit]

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 Foreign relations of China'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 "wsj":

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 08:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[]

Question of scope[edit]

I was going to add some stuff on the foreign relations of China during WWII from a book I've reading, specifically regarding FDR, India, and a few other topics. This article is only about foreign relations since establishment of the PRC. The only other article I find deals only with Taiwan in its guise as the "Republic of China." I've read the comments on this page regarding reorganization of this article, BUT: Is there no article for China's 20th century foreign relations before 1949? If there is, it really needs to be referenced somewhere on this page. --Michael K SmithTalk 17:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[]

Two Chinas[edit]

The listing on this article and the one at Foreign relations of Taiwan, stating which countries recognise which China, are different, and both lack sources. The only reason why I'm mentioning this is because the information has been added to the UN-related articles for the Holy See, Marshall Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. So please settle this before taking the info, and any possible edit-warring to other articles. Thank you. -- 10:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

China-Uzbekistan Relations?[edit]

Someone add these bilateral relations. They just recently got back in contact as trade partners. I have sources if you need them. Sereniama (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[]

Links[edit]

>> Unfair to paint China as a colonialist in Africa>> China admits 'growing pains' in Africa ties (Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).[]

Possible sources[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreign relations of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreign relations of China. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Foreign relations of China. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[]

Wording of diplomatic recognitions[edit]

@HenryZhang: Could you explain the revert you did to my edits to the wording of diplomatic recognitions? Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[]

There are 22 countries have no diplomatic relations with the PRC government. The Holy See is not a UN member, and Bhutan has diplomatic relations with nor the PRC neither the ROC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryZhang (talkcontribs) 12:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[]
I see. So it was just a number issue and I missed Bhutan. I will correct the number and restore my edits to the wording. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[]
Can you guys clarify whether Bhutan recognises the PRC? I think there is a difference between recognition and diplomatic relations. Maybe Bhutan recognises the PRC but just hasn't established formal diplomatic relations. This image which is featured in the infobox for the article "One Country on Each Side" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Two_Chinas.svg/1920px-Two_Chinas.svg.png) depicts Bhutan as "a country that recognises the PRC but maintains semi-formal relations with the ROC". This means that, according to this article/image, Bhutan does actually recognise the PRC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[]

São Tomé and Príncipe[edit]

São Tomé and Príncipe should be coloured green on the map. De wafelenbak (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Foreign relations of China. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Foreign relations of China. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Foreign relations of China. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018[edit]

Please undo this revision that has

  1. Introduced grammar mistakes. Countries that have no diplomatic relations with the PRC was changed to Countries have no diplomatic relations with the PRC
  1. Introduced disinformation. This revision added Dominican Republic under the title Countries have no diplomatic relations with the PRC which is clearly factually-wrong as DR has established diplomatic relations with China and ceased to recognize Taiwan. (see China-Dominican Republic relations where a number of sources can back my claim.)
  1. Removed content without any explanation, e.g. Islands in Diaoyutai Islands and Square in Tiananmen Square Massacre and etc.

See this diff for further information

P.S. To possible answerer of this request: please keep an eye on this article even after answering my request so that the same disruptions won't happen again as it had been persistently disrupted by several different IPs prior to the protection. 123.161.168.116 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[]

 Done (diff). Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[]

Its time to split the article at 1991[edit]

I think its time to split the article, which I propose to do after the section on Tiananmen Square (1989-1991), Which also marks the end of the Cold War and the end of the USSR. Any comments? Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[]

Good -- though 1949 would be a better dividing point as allowing both fuller coverage of the 1800-1949 period and a through line for the PRC.
I added a "references needed" template because most of the notes are to (outdated) newspapers or oddly chosen scholarly articles and monographs, but little if any to solid scholarly surveys. This is also borderline Original Research because the balance or proportion of topics is random, rather than picking up from surveys and monographs. Nor is there representation of contending views among qualified observers.
To take a few random examples. "History": incomprehenisible sentences on Boxers, allied invasion, and Manchuria; ditto "Republican era". PRC: weak or no explanation of Mao's global ambitions, the nature of the Sino-Soviet alliance and dispute, and no mention of the polices of the Cultural Revolution or Nixon, etc. etc. Under "Relations by Region and By Country," "United States" has four sentences, which is less than "Barbados" or "Arab World" "Medieval Era."
So yes -- go for it! (inadvertently left unsigned; signed later) ch (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[]
OK I have started the move to History of foreign relations of China Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Rjensen, Thank you for taking the initiative on the three articles in this cluster, Foreign relations of China, History of foreign relations of China, and Foreign relations of Imperial China. We need more curation of established articles, and you are setting a good example.
I agreed with you that it was time to split the article (though not that that 1991 was a useful division), and I made a few suggestions.
But it would be even more helpful if you let other editors know your plans, usefully here, even more usefully on the China Project TalkPage. You decided to be bold, rather than post a notice and start a discussion, which is certainly allowed, but you would set a good precedent if you encourage teamwork. I think of Users lowellian and PericlesofAthens, among others who made major edits to the page.
I'm also concerned that there might be trouble with the split if we don't follow the procedures described in WP:SPLIT. The article describes templates and procedures for preserving edit history, among other concerns.
I don't want to interfere (and don't have time to in any case), but do want to share these procedural concerns. I have other suggestions about specific content and recent changes, but will take those up later.
All the best! ch (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Another possibility for splitting the article would be 1971, the date of Resolution 2758. T8612 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[]
I think 1949 is a long time ago--it's history and the Mao era is history and should be in the historical article. There is a large scholarly historical literature 1949-1991 that needs summary there. Historical studies are not common post 1991--that is current events and belongs here, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Thanks -- now I see your point. After looking at the parallel articles for France and Germany, I agree that Foreign Relations of China should describe the present government's foreign relations, though the date 1991 shouldn't be a dividing line for the History section, which should have a summary of the material moved away. In China today, “history” is important.
But the two History of Foreign Relations articles are still a problem.
I'm glad to see that you are working on History of foreign relations of China, which was a mess, and hope that you can follow up. You may have better ideas for the title, which does not inform the reader of its actual content.
A few quick points, at the risk of interfering:
Thanks again for taking on this task!ch (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[]
I'm still worried that you will put in a lot of work that may have to be reverted or revised, as WP:COPYWITHIN specifies that "attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page." Cheers again! ch (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Just to be safe about the move, I posted a question on Editor Assistance, here. ch (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Border Disputes[edit]

Creating this section in response to a sweeping revert done by @HorseEyeJack (user page doesn't exist so can't @mention) of my many changes to the border disputes section. The changes I had made can be seen here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_China&oldid=972685290#International_territorial_disputes

Here is my edit summary: "Added subsections and cleaned up. Removed a factually incorrect statement that China seized Aksai Chin after the war; it was already occupying much of it. removed n.korea (china and n.korea have no dispute over the yalu river; if someone has sources, please provide). Added more info and sources.)"

The edit summary for @HorseEyeJack's revert was "You cant move/keep some uncited material while deleting others, thats not how this works".

Now this is the very definition of disruptive editing. Instead of manually removing/changing the parts of the text you had a problem with, you removed the WHOLE thing, including the parts that you didn't have a problem with (I've seen you do this on multiple pages now).

Can you please answer the following:

1. Why did you revert EVERYTHING, and not just the parts that you disagreed with (manually)?

2. What about the factual errors I had deleted that existed on the page, such as for border disputes with Indian and North Korea? (I had explained all in my edit summary)

3. What uncited material have I kept?

Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]

You’ve barely been here a week... Don’t throw around accusation you know nothing about. Nobody is going to help you become a competent editor if you keep attacking everyone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]

And this is the third time you've pointed to my account's age!! Anyway, can you address my concerns above so we can arrive at a consensus? Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]

In the “border dispute” section you removed some of the entries and not others despite none of them being explicitly cited. Selectively removing unsourced information while leaving what you believe to be true is not how we do things. They were also all indirectly sourced, they are now explicitly sourced (you’re welcome). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Just FYI, any multi-thousand byte edit to a major controversial page that spans multiple sections and contains individual poor edits is most likely going to be reverted regardless of account age. That you’re making such edits before you’ve even learned how to indent your replies on the talk page just raises the level of concern. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Its your opinion that the edits were poor. Yet, all of them were sourced. But no problem, thats why we are here - to reach consensus.

If you only wanted to add sources, you could've just as easily added the sources to my version as well, no? Why revert and THEN add the sources, if the perceived lack of sources was the only problem?

And I did not leave any disputes unsourced (you've still not answered that question I asked above btw), except one for North Korea which I invited sources for in my edit summary. The disputes for which there are hyperlinks (paracels etc.) need not be sourced surely, since there's already a hyperlink to a whole wiki page for them? If we need sources for those disputes as well, no problem , I'll add them if it helps us reach consensus.

And speaking of sources, the CIA page you provided is not a source for China occupying Aksai Chin after the Sino-Indian war. That's not mentioned at all, because of course it isn't true. Also, this statement in the CIA document is wrong: "India does not recognize Pakistan's 1964 ceding to China of the Aksai Chin". You can check this on Wikipedia itself. Pakistan has never controlled Aksai China, let alone cede it to China. It ceded the Shaksgam Valley to China, and it is this act that India does not recognize. I suggest we remove a source that makes such a basic mistake, especially when there are much better sources available.

If you're OK with the other changes I had made (breaking up into sub-sections etc.) can we reach a consensus if I made my earlier edits back, and added more sources (better than the CIA ones of course), if thats your only contention? Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]