Talk:United States foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China

message: Most of the article should be in reference to the Pentagon Papers - leaked government information about launching massive wars, bombings, and toppling governments on China's border in order to "contain" China.
-G  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.87.220 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentagon Papers 

message: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8871366 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.229.152 (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the axis of democracy 

message: Much of this article appears to be original synthesis, particularly the "Challenges" section. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on China containment policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928145802/http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=94620 to http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=94620
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just deleted one sentence in the 1st paragraph based on two reasons.
1, The phrasing indicates that the policy of containment exists only in the perceptions of Chinese netizens. The main article and the references show the existence of debates, papers, policies. Therefore, it is not a well organized conclusion of histories and current overall situations of the topic.
2, Netizen is an informal and arguable term, which shall be avoided in an encyclopedia article.
Please review this change, thank you all!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.16.69 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used primarily in Chinese perceptions and hardly at all in the US except quoting Chinese statements. For a start I am going to add “alleged”. --JWB (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is also directly used in US-American discussion. Scholars like Mearsheimer, whose works are well received in Washington, D.C., objectively make use of the term to describe a desirable US foreign policy towards China. (See John_Mearsheimer#Rise_and_containment_of_China). So, while it is true that some influential persons in the US deny a China Containment Policy, others make use of the term in a descriptive manner. But should Wikipedia give more weight to political statements by officials (whether they are Chinese or US-American) or to political scientists' academic discussion? I suggest the following: Simply describe it as a geopolitical theory, as was done in the article String of Pearls (Indian Ocean) in the first sentence while trying to avoid the word "alleged" according to WP:ALLEGED. --2003:F6:2717:8600:6129:4E86:9D9E:9F74 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of One Sentence 

message: Nothing wrong with the links. They give a good progression of U.S. policy and thoughts of China from 2001 to 2021, it is very informative. A reader new to this topic will have a good summary of 20 years of U.S. thought on China. There are no unfairly anti American or biased links in it as far as I can tell. They are quite fair in their views of U.S. policy. There are also good sources giving us views from the chinese side. Views from U.S. officials and official documents are also represented in a balanced way.
27.104.203.24 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal was appropriate per WP:EL. All relevant, reliable, and verifiable sources should be absorbed into the main text for a WP:NPOV representation of different viewpoints. Normchou 💬 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Then what are external links section for? These links have been here for over 10 years, no problems so far from anyone. I think we need some sort of vote before any drastic action.27.104.203.24 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Before asking , perhaps you can just read WP:EL, which clearly states that the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.  is not a valid reason for preventing the page from being improved. As a matter of fact, this whole article turns out to be largely based on WP:SYNTH that needs a major rewrite. If the listed external links point to reliable, verifiable sources, then they would be incorporated into the main text anyway. Otherwise, they should definitely be removed. Normchou 💬 15:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So which are the problematic links that should be removed? They all seem fine with me. If there are really links with serious problems, I am fine with removing it. 27.104.203.24 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Guardian and Newsweek articles can be directly used as RSes. Opinion pieces such as those by Michael Klare and Mark Valencia can also be absorbed with proper in-text attribution. Self-published blogs are not considered encyclopedic content and should be removed. On second thought, I'd keep these links here for now, but I don't see a valid reason not to incorporate them in the main text once the rewrite begins. Normchou 💬 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the blog link. 27.104.203.24 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The external links give quite a good summary of U.S. containment policy of China 

message: :Sorry if I am possibly not up to date. But where is the source that says that Washington now opposes or has denounced Chinese soverignty over Taiwan? My understanding is that all the sources instead say Washington does not take an official position on Taiwan’s sovereignty. Meaning it doesn't oppose nor support, and that it's careful to emphasize it gives no position on the matter. Yet, I look at the Wikipedia article and they give the impression that Washington does have a strong singular position which is nowadays to actively oppose Chinese soverignty  over Taiwan, and no longer be neutral in the matter. I think that's a misrepresentation of their policy, and so added in the relevant correct factoid that Washington states it does not take any position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan.  Because previous article make it sound like the US nowadays have one official position which is to oppose China's soverignty, when that is untrue. KaplanSun (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Position on Taiwan