Jump to content

Talk:China–United Kingdom relations

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


Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article covers Sino-British relations since the 18th century. The chronology makes it clear that this covers three separate Chinese "regimes" (not intended to be a derogatory phrase, merely a neutral one). The article name says that it only covers one of these regimes. Therefore Sino-British relations would be a better name, with People's Republic of China–United Kingdom relations kept as a redirect. --Matt's talk 00:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

It is not necessary, and may not be desirable, to include or bold the article title in the first line; this is a descriptive title.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Notes

[edit]

Anglo-Chinese should not be used of people; it's ambiguous. It implies, but need not state, that the person is of English and Chinese descent, not (I gather) true of Robert Hart. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wade and Giles are classed as diplomats (as which their services are forgotten), shouldn't Legge be a missionary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article seems incredibly biased, just reading through the bullet points in the modern era made me sick, makes these countries sound really lovey-dovey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.58.107 (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opium Wars Motivation

[edit]

Without any specific account, the assumption will be that the Opium Wars were driven by profit alone, without the cultural dimension which led the UK to see providing opium to people they saw a oppressed was in some ways merciful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.68.0.137 (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

This is presented as a sentence, but it is not: "Because of the Cold War, First and Second Opium War, and the status of Hong Kong, and other issues." Sadsaque (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on China–United Kingdom 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) 11:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on China–United Kingdom 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) 05:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on China–United Kingdom 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) 02:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the Unequal treaty between United Kingdom and China?

[edit]

Very interesting. Because Russian-Sino relations article is is full of this.--85.212.85.218 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also no mention of the 1943 equal treaty. --JWB (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:China–United_Kingdom_relations&oldid=1223296660"