Talk:Sino-American relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Sino-American relations is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||
|
||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Energy
The 'World Energy Outlook for 2004' is published by the OECD's International Energy Agency.
It looks from the report that Sino-American good relations should include energy. While nowhere near America's demand for energy, China's consumption is exploding. One concern is the need for security of trade in the sea-lanes of the world. Perhaps more importantly though, both China and America should be worried about trade in energy with Russia. The Russian Federation is a major supplier of energy: the Energy Charter Treaty has been plugging away in vain for years to get the Federation to agree a safe transit discipline - largely for the assurance of investors. However recent developments there concerning the treatment of oil and gas as assets that should be sold strategically, and with Yukos, put further question marks on investing there. No doubt these problems will be solved soon.
[edit] war on terror
How has it created a common enemy? As far as I know Taliban had a presence in the Xinjiang seccessionist movement, but it's a nuisance to say the most and definitely not a threat. I think whoever wrote that played too much C&C Generals... :) -Hmib 04:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's not created a common threat per se, but caught in its own anti-terrorism language, Washington had to essentially turn a blind eye when China stepped up its crackdown on the Xinjiang "terrorists". The two powers are both concerned about the radicalization of Islam in Central Asia, although their cooperation on this has been made rockier by the perceived U.S.-supported revolution in Kyrgyzstan. —thames 13:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] PRC Propaganda?
This entry really seems to be written by someone more interested in running cover for the People's Republic than in telling a balanced story.
For example, there is no mention at all of the inconvenient Korean War, started with PRC complicity and waged cruely and unnecessarily for two years after lines became stabilized. Scott Adler 06:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I find that the POV is going the other way, but, be that as it may, POV is POV. This needs some serious reworking. -Yossarian
10:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed that there's POV issues here, regardless of one way or another. To my eye there's the typical Wikipedacaricaturization of the Ugly American. But where's the mention of the Cultural Revolution? China-towns in the US? American-born Chinese attitudes toward the PRC? Huge H1B populations in many major US metropolitan areas? --M a s 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It seem to me you feel like everything that is not "PRC bashing" is "PRC Propaganda", is it not possible to have some positive attitudes toward the issue that you require every article to describe PRC as a horrible entity? You must think I work for the communist government or something, don't forget your tinfoil hat. Yongke 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- And in any case, the Korean War is covered elsewhere, where China and Japan's roles are hashed over quite thoroughly to both of their detriment. WiccaWeb 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US Propaganda?
(Yes, this is a play on the section above.) I don't think there is anything too outwardly biased about the article, but it does seem to be written almost entirely from an American perspective in that it discusses only or mainly the American side of issues. For example, in the discussion on trade, it talks about the trade "deficit" (which is only a deficit on the American side), and does not examine the issue from the Chinese perspective, i.e. the reasons for the trade surplus, and answering questions like why should they, or don't they, invest more into US trade? 24.6.99.30 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flipped Map
Why is it that on the design of the map in this article, the flags are above their opposite countries, and the labels on the bottom are directly underneath these flags, but not underneath their corresponding countries on the map? Why isn't the American flag on the left side, with the Yellow "United States" label on the left as well, and the Chinese flag and label on the right side? Is it because of the Sino-American name? If so, I think that it would be better to have the flags and labels on their correct sides, despite the the order they come in the name. It would be easier to understand. BirdValiant 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm wondering the same. If someone can provide the source for that template so it can be changed. YCCHAN 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changes
I made a number of changes to the article for the following reasons:
- Grammar, syntax, or spelling mistakes and/or better flow to the wording.
- More accurate internal links.
- Provide a little more historical background in the context of Cold War relations, particularly after the Nixon period.
- Reword some passages to make it sound a little more neutral.
Please let me know if you have any comments. BlizzardGhost 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Theories about future war
This article is generally upbeat about Sino-American relations, but there have been many speculations over the possibiliy of future conflicts fuelled by America's and China's competing demand for oil, and China's friendship with Iran. See this article, for example: [1], and all these books. I am not competent to write anything about this, but it seems someone with some expertise should write something. The Singing Badger 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name
POV? I think the title of this article is either POV or at least inaccurately vague, as there are two "Chinas," and this one arbitrarily chooses the People's Republic of China. The relations with the Republic of China (or lack thereof, or unofficial via the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) have just as much a right to be under the name "Sino-American relations." Thoughts? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. This article can have a section dedicated to US-ROC relations. AFAIK, that is not covered elsewhere. Material on this topic might be sparse though. I only know that the US considers the ROC an "ally," albeit one with an ambiguous status that is not formally recognized. Ngchen 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The notion that there are two Chinas is a common misconception. In fact, the PRC is sovereign and the ROC is not. This is because there are no international legal documents which show that the territorial sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" has ever been transferred to the ROC. In the truth of the matter, the ROC is a government in exile. See http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rocexile.htm and there is no legal basis to consider native Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens, see http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rcitizen6.htm Hmortar 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are describing a POV yourself :-) I'll leave it to the readers to learn the various de jure theories and the situation as it currently exists de facto. Ngchen 05:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Issues in Sino-American relations today
Why do all the issues in these relations listed here only concern China itself? China obviously has many issues concerning the US as well. Also, should we rank the issues in order of importance? e.g. Taiwan is the #1 issue/concern today. Jsw663 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I can provide two reasons, one is that this page, like many pages in wikipedia, suffers from US centric view. Second, let's face it, while the USA can afford to lash out on other countries, China cannot, especially against the USA. So I think this is fine as it is. 24.89.245.62 06:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think you're right, en.Wikipedia.com is in general American-centric, it's a product of and for (the most part) American editors and viewers. But there are other versions... WiccaWeb 01:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can provide two reasons, one is that this page, like many pages in wikipedia, suffers from US centric view. Second, let's face it, while the USA can afford to lash out on other countries, China cannot, especially against the USA. So I think this is fine as it is. 24.89.245.62 06:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese translation in title
Is the Chinese translation of "Sino-American translations" in the lead really necessary? I'm an avowed proponent of multilingualism and the use of original-language sources, but at the same time the case can be made the original-language terms should only be used in an article title for proper nouns/place/personal names. --Dpr 15:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) stop posting meaning less words!
[edit] proper move
Apparently, somebody decided to move the Sino-American relations here, found out that they're actually different things, and simply decided to delete half the article. Well, here's the problem. The original article was about Sino-American relations, meaning the relations between China and America as a whole, i.e. any government which was in power in China. That creates a little problem, of course: the PRC was formed at 1949, so does that mean everything else before 1949 is to be deleted? If it was deleted, how would the reader comprehend the article? Or, if it was not deleted, then how much would be included, and how much would be left to other articles like Sino-American relations before 1949 and ROC-American relations? These are pretty hard questions to solve, and I could not quite understand how a person could be so absurdly short sighted as to make the move.
But those issues are only trivial compared to what the article is facing now. I'll put it frank - this article makes no sense. Read from 2.1 to 2.4 - For two and a half sub-sections it talked about matters with no relevancy to the article at all, then all of a sudden this Communist Party led by Mao came out and created the People's Republic of China, which just happened to be the topic of this article. So very sad. And then there's this lovely little sub-section, title "People's Republic of China," cleverly summing up 30 years of relations between the PRC and the US in two sentences:
"For 30 years after its founding, the United States did not formally recognize the People's Republic of China (PRC). Instead, it maintained diplomatic relations with the Republic of China government on Taiwan, and recognized the ROC as the sole legitimate government of all China."
So it would only be logical, if logic has any value in this article, that the next sub-section would be titled "United States" and how for 30 years nobody in PRC cared about her. Right? Wrong. It's "Korean War." And the next two? "Relations frozen" and, all of a sudden, "Reapproachment." Damn, I know something's missing. Aran|heru|nar 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Sino-American relations" is correct. Obviously, someone has an ax to grind. I don't think it's a big deal, it can be reverted when they change it, and if they are persistent, an admin can be brought in to make some decision. WiccaWeb 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mercy-merging "Potential military conflict between the United States and China"
I have recommended that the tediously titled article Potential military conflict between the United States and China be merged here. It’s a very weak article that barely survived RfD, and has basically been ignored in the intervening year by those who insisted it was a hot topic. It mostly talks about the Vietnam War, and until four months after I mentioned it, totally ignored the Korean War (which actually saw the highest prospect for a real "hot war"); furthermore, other than citing Jeffrey Record (and listing references he mentions), it offers tremendously little info on modern "prospects". It also has no mention of past actual American conflicts with China that might provide some useful historical context. I believe the editors here could make something useful out of this haphazard work which doesn’t seem able to stand on its own at this time. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Unitedchinarelief.jpg
Image:Unitedchinarelief.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV?
Regarding the edit by Pauly04... I'm not a wiki editor, but that really doesn't look right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.72.5 (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
