Talk:Sino-African relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Nanjing Anti-African protests 2 Name 3 Another issue with the name 4 History

[edit] Nanjing Anti-African protests

The Nanjing Anti-African protests (or background info) might be a point of interest. heqs 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I just added it. Szvest 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[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 other agencies) 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)

You may be right Koavf but the Sino is universally used to refer to People's Republic of China. You may find this category and academic references using it. Cheers -- Szvest 18:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

China At least some of these refer to ancient China or the PRC via ancient China, which makese more sense. I'm still not exactly convinced that it's used universally, but that having been said, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and consequently can't advocate one side or another in a dispute. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. It just means that the article also should cover African-ROC relations. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure That makes the most sense to me. Of course, we would also need to change the map and/or add a new one. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Koavf, i assume you know better than i do re this matter. Of course Sino is widely and universally used.

Sino-American (378.000 google hits)

Sino-Japanese (1,180,000 google hits)

Sino-European (87,400 google hits)

Sino-Asian (1,210,000 google hits)

Sino-African (38,000 google hits) -- Szvest 19:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted No doubt, and since the majority of the world's states recognize the PRC as the Chinese state, I've no doubt that a majority of these sources will use this terminology, but that hardly makes it NPOV. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another issue with the name

African-Chinese relations Why is it Sino-African instead of African-Chinese? How does one decide who goes first? If anything alphabetical order in English seems like a fair way of naming, which would of course, reverse the word order of this title. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Again Koavf...

African-Chinese relations (5 google hits)

Sino-African relations (814 google hits) -- Szvest 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Google While useful, Google is not the be-all nor is it the end-all. It has biases of its own, and this still doesn't address the fundamental issues of naming that I'm raising here. Should we name all articles whatever gets the most hits on Google? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming foreign relations Sino-XXX is just a common naming convention, that's all. To me, it's not a big deal what the name of the article is. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, granted At the same time, foreign relations Russo-XXX is another common convention. Why not Russo-Chinese relations instead of Sino-Russian relations? There should be some uniformity, especially if there is a print Wikipedia. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought the uniformity here was to precisely name China's foreign relations as Sino-XXX...? Honestly, I don't care if the name of the article starts with African or Africa. Not everybody will agree with you though. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with me? Agree with me about what exactly? I'm not proposing anything really - I'm begging a question. These aren't just China's foreign relations with X, they are simultaneously X's foreign relations with China (whatever "China" that is.) To name all article that have to do with Chinese relations "Sino-XXX" is giving an undue preference to the Chinese, is it not? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you - that the name of this article is problematic. Isn't that the point you're trying to make.....? --- Hong Qi Gong 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh well I guess we're talking past one another. Let's just agree with that last statement of yours. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re XXX-Chinese... Justin, it's not google in fact. It's the media and academics who opt for the Sino-XXX fashion. I, myself, am not a fan of google hits but Google, most of the time, follows the trends. Just try it out at Google News this time. -- Szvest 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Universal? Look up "Russo-Chinese" and you'll find 35,000+ hits, so I'm hardly convinced. (Especially when who knows how many of the 187,000+ "Sino-Russian" hits are just mirrors of Wikipedia...) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Justin, look it up on Google news instead to avoid those mirrors. The media is more precise. Mainichi Daily News uses it 3 times, the rest is from Eurasia Daily Monitor and United Press International. Now try it out w/ Sino-russian. By the way, is this that important? -- Szvest 11:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Standards There should be a uniform standard, for people creating new articles, to coordinate similar articles, and in the event that these are published. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ you. We need standards over here. I've tried in vain a few times. I'd like to organize w/ you something similar. Any thoughts? -- Szvest 14:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical order' The only thing that makes any sense to me is to take their shortform names in English and use alphabetical order. "African-Chinese relations," "Sino-Russian relations" (from "Chinese," of course), but I'm not sure what to do with America. I guess we would use the shortform name "United States" rather than "America," making "Iranian-American relations" and "American-Vanuatan relations." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no objection w/ that. We only have to respect also the common usage such as French-American, etc... I suggest that we discuss this at the Village pump to gather more opinions. -- Szvest 14:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean the alphabetical order paradigm would not be applied to "common usage" terms like French-American? --- Hong Qi Gong 14:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my point. Common usage comes first of course. If there's no common usage than Koavf idea is correct. -- Szvest 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And what decides if a term is common usage? --- Hong Qi Gong 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply Hong and Justin. I have this examples and Wikipedia:Search engine test...

Mainly, common usage considers the ease of spelling, pronouncing, etc... Usually, people keep calling a thing the same way the first one to call/name it did. I believe people used Sino-XXX for those reasons. An example; Sino-Tibetean may be considered biased toward China but i think it has nothing to do w/ that but to do w/ the ease of usage.

If this issue is really important, it can be discussed it in depth at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (China-related articles). -- Szvest 22:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (I hate these semicolons, by the way) I looked into the naming convention articles and WP:Google, too, but I still couldn't get a bead on where to go about this issue. Furthermore, not all of the articles are China-specific, so I don't know where to take this, really... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I also see Wikipedia talk:Village pump as a suitable place. Just paste the same request there. That way, we'd at least get an opinion or a view. -- Szvest 17:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course! Village Pump was made for this. Thanks, Fayssal. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Relations between China and Africa started long before the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC). It started as early as the 15th century Cheng Ho voyages, or even earlier. This article should be expanded to cover the history of Sino-African relations. — Instantnood 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I was thinking about it but wasn't sure if it belonged to here. I think we can add it. -- Szvest 15:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some stuff to the history section (Zheng He voyages and Chinese relations to the ANC in the 60's). It is certainly not complete, but I'll come back to it as I have time. Please let me know if I haven't used the correct citation forms for something. gamblingbear 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)