Talk:Australia–China relations

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

Possible historic contact between Chinese and Aboriginals[edit]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-10/old-chinese-coin-found-in-arnhem-land/5660382

Statue found

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gko5v7NBKMgC&pg=PA292&dq=australia+chinese+statue+god&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NQ3oU4W5IcvKsQTa04CACw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=australia%20chinese%20statue%20god&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=HziEsiVMgyQC&pg=PA66&dq=aboriginal+zheng+he&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vQzoU5KAL8jmsASi8oCIAQ&ved=0CCYQ6wEwAg#v=onepage&q=aboriginal%20zheng%20he&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=TsEMaLqw7OUC&pg=PA13&dq=aboriginal+zheng+he&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vQzoU5KAL8jmsASi8oCIAQ&ved=0CFAQ6wEwCQ#v=onepage&q=aboriginal%20zheng%20he&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2IGEQwGLUPQC&pg=PA18&dq=aboriginal+zheng+he&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vQzoU5KAL8jmsASi8oCIAQ&ved=0CEMQ6wEwBw#v=onepage&q=aboriginal%20zheng%20he&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure of the relevance of this collection of bits and pieces to the article, which quite clearly states in the lead: "Sino-Australian relations refers to the relations between the Commonwealth of Australia and the People's Republic of China" - ie two modern nations. Nickm57 (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way - this is what the Powerhouse Museum says about the Darwin statue - Statue. There is also a page on Zheng He already, also Gavin Menzies and his theories. Nickm57 (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Australia–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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australia–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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australia–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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese presence in Australia[edit]

In the "History" segment, it has been suggested that Chinese traders have been recorded coming to Australia since the 1750s. As far as I'm aware, the British settlement of Australia began in the 1770s. As such, it seems doubtful that there would have been Chinese people in Australia at that time. Is there any evidence for this spurious claim, or is this simply a typo and the correct year is 1850? If the latter is true, then that would make a lot more sense. There have certainly been Chinese people in Australia since the early 1800s. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on Zhao Lijian's controversial image tweet[edit]

If some editors want to propose making changes to the section regarding Zhao Lijian's controversial image tweet in November 2020, please move over to Talk:Zhao Lijian for ease of discussions. Appreciated. NoNews! 01:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economic coercion[edit]

Hi 91.250.240.141: Could you at least read the article WP:NPOV before you recite "not NPOV"? "Economic coercion" is the exact phrase that RSes used to describe the situation, and it is a view whose weight should be proportionally reflected in the article regardless of what editors believe are "neutral". Normchou 💬 16:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Government[edit]

I think this subsection needs a major clean-up or rewrite. A lot of irrelevant information needs to be removed. This section is about the bilateral relationship under the Morrison government, not a description of other countries, their governments, religions and whatnot. Normchou 💬 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When actions were joint efforts with other countries or led by other countries then China or Australia joined later, they are considered relevant background.TranscendentMe (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re these two sentences you added:
    "Immediately afterward, the envoy for Pakistan stood up and read out a statement signed by 55 countries, including China, denouncing any use of the situation in Hong Kong as an excuse for interference in China’s internal affairs."
    "Cuba made a joint statement on behalf of 45 countries in support of China's counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang. Kuwait also made a joint statement supporting China on behalf of three Arab nations."
  • The first one violates WP:COPYPASTE and needs to be paraphrased or removed. For the second one, "on behalf of 45 countries in support of China's counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang" is nowhere to be found in the cited source. Normchou 💬 19:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the first one has been rephrased. the second one has reference 121 https://www.newsweek.com/70-un-nations-support-china-human-rights-policies-1537327 TranscendentMe (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV edit[edit]

@TranscendentMe: how exactly are you justifying referring to the Xinjiang re-education camps as “so called” and then edit warring rather than discussing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seems to be self-righteous: On one side, accepting "What it calls" in the paragraph to refer to "vocation education and training centers" which is the official name in China, but one the other side you find that using "so-called" to refer to "Xinjiang re-education camps" which is only used by Western media as POV edit? Aren't you the same have a POV here? TranscendentMe (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You started reverting other's edits without discussion first, and the part that you reverted is not even the main contents of it. Don't try to blame that on me.TranscendentMe (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem... in WP:BRD the r comes before the d... You are in fact supposed to revert *before* the discussion of the bold change. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
also on WP:BRD Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. My edits have several improvements to the original description and with reference. You reverted my whole edit only because of one word used that doesn't fit into your satisfaction. Are you being constructive? how do you justify your reverting? Do you want to focus on the behaviors rather than the contents in the WP page? I notice you didn't respond to the real talk we should have here at all.TranscendentMe (talk)
What one word? I objected to your whole series of changes btw, I just chose one simple thing for you to justify first. You have not yet shown that the source provided supports your change or presented anything else that supports your change other than to inaccurately accuse me of pushing a POV. My own opinion is irrelevant, we go by what WP:RS say as you well know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, really? what's your objection to my refinement of WHA resolution vs Australia investigation proposal? How convenient to say you object to my whole series of changes. I find this pretty personal.TranscendentMe (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal. We’re talking about the “so called” change because its the first from the top of the page. We can get to the rest in time. What in the source supports this change? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you want to go back to the topic. I have answered you in my first response. In case you missed it, "Xinjiang re-education camps" is used by Western media, "vocation education and training centers" is used by China officially [1]. You either refer to them equally as "so-called", or not to use words like " so-called" or " what is called" at all. Otherwise, it's considered picking sides and lacking neutrality.TranscendentMe (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how WP:NPOV works, we have no policy which would allow us to give equal weight to the Chinese government and to WP:RS. Even if we did that wouldn’t support your edit, we cant do WP:OR and say things that the WP:RS hasn’t said, even if we think/know them to be true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One party call it A and the other side call it B, this is simply a matter of fact I have provided reference, nothing to do with WP:OR. As you said it yourself "we think/know them to be true", isn't it a loud admission that's just your opinion? I didn't even touch the page of Xinjiang re-education camps which is full of unverifiable fabrication and assertation, the infamous 1 million number is pure speculation without any statistics to support it yet has been circulating widely in Western media as if it's fact. WP:NPOV stated: "Prefer nonjudgmental language" and "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.", but you are ok with putting "so-called" in front of the name supported by a majority of African, Mid-East, and Muslim-major countries[2], but not ok put it in front of a name only Western states call it? TranscendentMe (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be confusing the opinion of governments with the opinion of reliable independent sources based in those countries. As for the rest of your comment please review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move page name to "Sino-Australian relations"[edit]

should we?--222.152.250.176 (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "14 Grievances" turning point[edit]

Looking through the last couple of years of reporting, it seems the delivery of the "14 grievances" was a turning point in the bi-lateral relationship, which have been documented as follows:

  1. "foreign investment decisions, with acquisitions blocked on opaque national security grounds in contravention of ChAFTA/since 2018, more than 10 Chinese investment projects have been rejected by Australia citing ambiguous and unfounded "national security concerns" and putting restrictions in areas like infrastructure, agriculture and animal husbandry.
  2. "the decision banning Huawei Technologies and ZTE from the 5G network, over unfounded national security concerns, doing the bidding of the US by lobbying other countries
  3. "foreign interference legislation viewed as targeting China and in the absence of any evidence.
  4. "politicization and stigmatization of the normal exchanges and cooperation between China and Australia and creating barriers and imposing restrictions, including the revoke of visa s for Chinese scholars.
  5. "call for an international independent inquiry into the COVID-19 virus, acted as a political manipulation echoing the US attack on China
  6. "the incessant wanton interference in China's Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan affairs; spearheading the crusade against China in certain multinational forums
  7. "the first non littoral country to make a statement on the South China Sea to the United Nations
  8. "siding with the US' anti-China campaign and spreading disinformation imported from the US around China's efforts of containing COVID-19
  9. "the latest legislation to scrutinize agreements with a foreign government targeting towards China and aiming to torpedo the Victorian participation in B&R
  10. "provided funding to anti-China think tank for spreading untrue reports, peddling lies around Xinjiang and so-called China infiltration aimed at manipulating public opinion against China
  11. "the early dawn search and reckless seizure of Chinese journalists' homes and properties without any charges and giving explanations
  12. "thinly veiled allegations against China on cyber attacks without any evidence
  13. "outrageous condemnation of the governing party of China by MPs and racist attacks against Chinese or Asian people
  14. "an unfriendly or antagonistic report on China by media, poisoning the atmosphere of bilateral relations.[1][2]

I feel it's warranted to include, so I've done the bold step and included. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "China shows official list of reasons for anger with Australia". www.9news.com.au. Retrieved 2022-10-23.
  2. ^ "Which freedoms will James Curran give up to be friends with China?". Macrobusiness. 20 July 2021.

Coercion article[edit]

Looking at the political relations section, I agree it's got a heavy weighting to recent events. Seems clear that's because there has, in recent years, been a more combative political relationship, characterised by greyzone conflict. In recent years reliable sources such as Nikkei, Australian Financial Review, RUSI, Foreign PolicyLowy and The Economist have described this as China's coercion campaign on Australia.

Given that this has been a settled term for three or four years, and that there are many reliable sources to draw on, I suggest that this become its own article.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be unwise. A "coercion" characterization, judgment, mode of analysis, or viewpoint is not conceptually distinct from the subject matter of this article. Wikipedia:Content forks, particularly the Wikipedia:POVFORK section are relevant guidelines here. Possibly also relevant is Wikipedia:NotNews, in that we aspire to have articles on matters with long-term significance, and the trend described here may ebb and flow.
Some of what you predicate your position on is also not quite right. You have said there is a "settled term," but even the sources you cite here do not support that a proposition. For example, the only instance of "campaign" in the Foreign Policy article is that "if China intended to bully Australia into silence, the campaign has been a spectacular failure." Established point of view, sure -- and not one we ought to split into a separate article. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JArthur1984 interesting perspective, especially given how extensive your contribution on China has been. (Just read the article you helped create on Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People's Republic of China. A task well beyond my skill set.) I hope to hear from other editors too. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, I'm glad you found it useful and interesting. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would attempt to describe it fully within this article here first, if it becomes too long or unwieldy then we can break it off. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the stuff in there might also be better covered at Transnational repression by China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Especially as it pertains to individuals in Australia. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also inclined to the view it's better dealt with here rather than in a separate article on coercion, at least at this stage. However, I take your point that the article is increasingly weighted towards recent events. I note that the article is already pretty broad in that while it is mostly concerned with diplomacy a large section is now given over to public opinion - which is not necessarily the same thing.Nickm57 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For years - for decades! - the China-Australia relationship really was mostly about trade deals, one-way immigration and diplomacy. The imprisoning of Australian journalists, punitive trade moves and military sonar hits are all very recent and, in historic terms, really out of character. Looks like we just build that into the existing article, but we all need to be comfortable that it's going to stick out. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creating this section will involve material from the Turnbull, Morrison and Albanese administrations. It would need to bring in recent material from activities uncovered by AFP officers who found an Chinese espionage operation targeting Australian residents, particularly regards Mr Yin who was the victim of a physical attack in Melbourne that left him with a broken nose, and which Mr Yin understands to be Chinese government agents. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia–China_relations&oldid=1223602707"