Talk:China's peaceful rise

message: The NYT reported: "Earlier this year, Mr. Jiang opposed and effectively sidelined a new framework for China's foreign policy Mr. Hu had developed. Mr. Jiang argued that a slogan Mr. Hu had begun using to describe China's ambitions as a great power, "peaceful rise," sent the wrong signal at a time when Beijing was warning Taiwan that moves toward independence would provoke military retaliation." 
TIME reported: Last December, Hu made a major speech on "The Peaceful Rise of China," which was meant to signal his arrival as a theorist while assuring the world that China's emergence as a world power would not threaten its neighbors. But Jiang, says a Western diplomat in Beijing, "forced Hu to tone [the theory] down." In subsequent speeches, Hu has referred instead to China's "peaceful development." 
This seems to contradict this article. --Jiang 21:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: doctrine sidelined?

message: I tagged this NPOV.  It has basically no sources, plenty of surprising citationless statements, and does not even point out anything about internal conflict e.g. in Tibet.  Fix these issues, and my objections to the POV will be addressed.  71.231.179.83 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibet may not be an issue.  But the article also ignores external problems such as Taiwan and China's constant threats to start a war. Readin (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The existence of this article itself is NPOV in my opinion. Given the internal (eg: Tibet) and external (eg: Taiwan and India) issues and disputes and the way the Chinese government addresses those issues (ie: by claiming those to be "internal affairs" or threatening the use of force. Saying some issue is "internal" does not make it so and in today's world, and given China's quasi superpower status, very few issues are "internal") is anything be "peaceful". I agree that China's rise (because it is rising, that's a fact) is not as aggressive as the rise of the US or Europe in the past, but claiming it to be peaceful is NPOV (especially given that no great / super power ever reached that status peacefully). Maybe if the content of that page was in the Chinese Century page, it would alleviate the issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.194.103 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibet is not an internal problem, and Taiwan is universially recognized by ALL nations on Earth as part of China.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on China's peaceful rise. 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/20131004214141/http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=2325&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 to http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=2325&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
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) 02:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified