Jump to content

Talk:Sino-African relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simpleshooter99 (talk | contribs) at 02:51, 28 July 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

References system (to summarize)

Extended content
Hello, I noticed a large effort on reference and spelling. I will slowly restore the previous reference organization, my aim being from the start to move toward a system such History_of_the_Song_Dynasty#Notes. I understand your effort, but I do my best to keep a 'easy to edit' wiki text. Recent studies (Usability Study Results (Sneak Preview)) enlighten the need of simpler wiki text, that's also my believe, and that ease my research-edit work.

In the end, I also plan to replace my codes such <ref>CES, p8</ref>, by the more academic Cambridge style <ref>Zha Daojiong, 2005, p8</ref>. Let me just some few days.

Also, please talk first when you wish such radical changes (ref, source section), I have now to edit one by one all the concerned ref, which will take me about one hours, to don't revert your copyedits. XD Yug (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move from Yug's talkpage:
Please note that footnotes are generally preferred to whole article references on Wikipedia, as are wholly self-contained inline citations, hence why I significantly tweaked the referencing in the article and reverted your recent edits which undid my edits. Note that no references were deleted or substantively altered through my initial edits, and that the changes were quite labor-intensive to do. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As previously explain, I noticed your work, and manage slowly to keep all your copy edits. I prefer the former ref system, which is use in other articles (FA Song dynasty), and which ease my edit/redaction work. Later ref changes are also planed. Yug (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the new ref system add confusion to the wiki text and the sources section. I also made some improvement (ref IMF), and correction (ref CB5). Yug (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editability of wiki markup for new users should not be a direct concern of editors; we have little impact on it anyway (compared to what the usability team could do) and mere simplicity of markup is no reason to use a nonstandard (or at least significantly less popular) referencing scheme. I would welcome a third opinion though, to help ensure I'm not off base on this. With regards to why I did not bring it up on the talkpage before making the changes, I considered the changes minor as they did not substantively effect content and they helped bring the page more into line with usual Wikipedia practice. Also, no one WP:OWNs articles, so strictly speaking, permission isn't required (I didn't expect this to be controversial or contentious). --Cybercobra (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I made the references less confusing, as clicking the ref link would take one directly to a full citation without having to lookup the abbreviation in the list at the end. Again, would appreciate third opinion on this. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put my work on wiki, so share the edit work is clearly ok. I notice that's I'm still deeply involve in this article redaction, and such ref scheme change, as well as source section change are perturbing, while I don't see the benefice of the new ref scheme. As I said, the page is still under construction (rewording, adding, deleting). This ref changes confuse the situation, give no benefice, and take us energy better to spend into rewording, data/source improvement and copyedit. The History_of_the_Song_Dynasty#Notes being a FA article, I guess that such ref system is ok. That's what I look for : notes on one section, book-webbook in an other. Yug (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 <ref>CES, p8</ref>, by the more academic <ref>Zha Daojiong, 2005, p8</ref> (Cambridge style) ;
－ sources uses just some few time : include the {source|} template in the first <ref> balise.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


This article is very biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.58.161.222 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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, Onopearls (t/c) 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progression, please take one section !
Section level 2 (==) {{I take|Name}}/{{done}}
1 People's Republic of China & 2 Africa {{I take|yourName}}
3 Chinese diaspora and private projects {{I take|yourName}}
... {{I take|yourName}}
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I will manage the fork this summer. :] Yug (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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&Windows 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Involvement of the People's Republic of China in Africa → 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Support More accurate than current title, and as Ocaasi points out, the history section goes back to the Tang dynasty. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Onopearls (t/c) 07:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree. 112.118.162.227 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

  • Support. Ocaasi (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Skinsmoke (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Onopearls (t/c) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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, Onopearls (t/c) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sceptical: this article is about "Chinese... involvement... in Africa", including economic (mainly), friendship/ideologic, and diplomatic.
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Cooling of Ango-Chinese relations

Really interesting. Many informations. I encourage you to read it. Yug (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikileaks cables reveal U.S. attitudes towards Chinese involvement in Africa

Haven't had a chance to look through these yet:

  • 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

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

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)[reply]

Reference system: upgrate to harvard style

Hello, the reference system need a serious upgrade. Currently, the <ref> 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.

Replacement
Sections current/former new/next
 In progress #Source section incomplete and depressed {{Cite book|blabla}} completed & anchor friendly {{citation|last=|first=|title=|year=}}
not ready Article <ref name="ABD, p28">ABD, p28/ref>
 ({{Harvnb|AuthorLastName|YYYY|p=pages}})

China is trading with Africa (Marafa 2007, p. 27)

  • ABD : Marafa, L. M. (Nov. 15), Africa’s Business and Development Relationship with China: Seeking Moral and Capital Values of the Last Economic Frontier (PDF), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 2007 African Economic UN Conference, p. 28 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |university= ignored (help)

Yug (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FIRST STEP: #Reference / #Sources sections largely upgraded to {citation}  Done
    • 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.

I have to go, help welcome. Yug (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

This talk already occured. The two topics are differents.
  • Africa⇔China relations
Yug (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
AO, merging IS possible. But the result will be hard to manage and balance. Yug (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves#Merging_page_histories_of_pages_with_many_revisions Yug (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge and create subarticle for economic content.Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Africa–China relations. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 02:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sino-African relations/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Fail point 4 'The article is reasonably well-written' to be set on B class article. The 5 others B class point are ok. (10:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC))

Last edited at 22:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Military

@Amigao: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
You need to read WP:BRD, your edits are disruptive and edit warring.PailSimon (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Either way you need to gain a consensus instead of being disruptive.PailSimon (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
A consensus is needed first. PailSimon (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Sweeping reverts of multiple edits

@Fobhouse you mass reverted all my edits.[1] 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)[reply]

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. [2] Simpleshooter99 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Simpleshooter99, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-African_relations&oldid=1100863483"