Talk:Open Door Policy

Untitled

Shouldn't there be a mention (or redirect to an article about) the other type of 'Open Door Policy', the organizational management one?

In brief (AFAIK) it's a policy of transparency and openness about the operation and actions of the organization, often to the point of being intentionally entretched into the internal culture. It manifests in actions such as;

• being very willing to answer questions, or engage in public discussion,
• automatically publishing large amounts of info in the public arena (including stuff not normally seen to be of interest the the public, and materials that would otherwise be buried/withheld/censored),
• running information centers and asses tours of facilities,
• actively pushing info into the public arena and actively encouraging public interest,
• sometimes (but not always) encouraging pride in the policy, rather than seeing it as 'something we have to do',
• the role of implementing the policy would often extend beyond the 'PR' departments and instead be a component of the roles of large sections of the workforce.

My personal experiences of it are with various British public utilities (i.e gov owned) in the 80's and 90's, particularly the electricity and nuclear power industries. For the ex-CEBU generation group, Nuclear Electric between 1991 and 96 the policy managed to boost the reputation and image of the pic (and the nuclear industry as a whole) from unwanted scrag-end to the point of being able to start the UK's 3rd major nuclear power programme. (Unfortunately as groundwork was underway for the 1st station (Size-well C) and about to start on the 2nd, the pic's finances were frozen as part of privatization.) --Myfanwy 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Open door policy (business) now exists. --JWB (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Too broad

The opening paragraph of this article suggests that it is about the general concept of an "open door policy". It even makes a point of saying that China is not the only example of such a policy. The remander of the article, however,is specifically about China. I think this should be split into two articles, one about the general concept, and one specifically about China,or it should be clear from the first sentince that this article only focuses on China. Rentoc (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC) The opening paragraph needs to simply state what the open door policy is, not just place a link to the business definition. 24.166.131.189 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, sorry I'm not very familiar with how to undo vandalism so I just copy and pasted the old version. The user in offense is 68.51.192.6 Rrten00 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been vandalized again, or any previous attempt to correct the vandalism has failed.

pa79th 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What IS the Open Door Policy?

There isn't an understandable explanation in this article about what exactly the open door policy IS. It has the history of the Open Door Policy, who follows it, but for someone wondering what it involves, that's not that important. Fallenangei (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Open Door Policy" of modern China

this article doesn't seem to connect at all the idea of "Open Door Policy" with the economic reforms started by Deng XiaoPing.... what's going on? Spettro9 (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The BBC story was a one-off. It's the only source appearing highly in search (probably because it's linked from Wikipedia) that gives the impression "Open Door Policy" is a specific name for the recent reform policy, which it isn't. This is an analogy with the earlier name, that did not make it into widespread usage. --JWB (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Management

My manager has an "open door policy". It means he leaves his door open at a certain part of the day, so that any employee with a problem can go and have a chat. It means that rather than locking himself away, his door is open to anybody. I'd heard this term in this respect before I read today here that there's an official past to the use of the words in this concept. Is the concept of managerial "open door policy" related in terminology to this specific event?

Issues with Map

1. it implies that Taiwan is part of China when it was forcefully taken away from the Qing Dynasty by Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki/Maguan. Taiwan NEEDS to be coloured purple for Japanese.
2. why would the Japanese only take the area around Xiamen (not even Fuzhou) in Fujian? they also took Chongqing, which is in the middle of an entirely British region. the Japanese also demanded Suzhou and Hangzhou, which are instead in the British region.

华钢琴49 (TALK) 15:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Entries Needed

So,we've got the general idea in foreign/economic relations. There's the US policy from the late 19th century. There's the policy that Europe applied to Africa. Then there's the China policy. These are all different. We need 4 separate (and beefed-up) entries, not one sloppy, broad entry. -- 198.108.81.103

Only the US policy of 1900 is specifically known as "Open Door Policy". Chinese economic reform, which has its own article, is often generically described as an "opening" but is not specifically named "Open Door Policy" as the article now suggests. The long section could be deleted or reduced to a much shorter one.

Currently John_Hay#Open_Door_Policy has more detail on the diplomacy around 1900 even though it points at this article as supposedly the main article. Hay's ultimatum document, the Open Door Note, is also an important term, that doesn't have even a redirect. --JWB (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Brothels?

"The Open Door policy was rooted in desire of American brothels to trade with Chinese markets"

This seems like a very odd statement and needs more support and explanation. Were Americans trading prostitutes with the Chinese? I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discerning90 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is obviously vandalism by anon editor. --MChew (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Article should be split into two

Open Door Policy obviously refers to two different things here, one is the late-19th and early 20th century policy, the other the policy initiated by Deng Xiaopeng. There are plenty of books that talk about the Deng's policy - [1] [2][[3][4], etc. Mixing the two in a single article is not helpful. Hzh (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

a split would leave two weaker articles. Deng knew the history when he named his policy--it is not a coincidence but a logical result of China's new power. Rjensen (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Some WESTERNERs called it an Open Door Policy and this usage didn’t last in the West either. --JWB (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese economic reform "'reform and opening-up'; known in the West as the Opening of China” is the article on that subject. --JWB (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It is very unlikely Deng would take anything from the stigmatized “century of humiliation” era as a namesake. This was dubbed externally in an attempt to hang on a phrase Western audiences might recognize. --JWB (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Also look at the Chinese article zh:门户开放政策 which is definitely on the 1900 policy. At the end there is a sentence on the 1978 policy and even that has been marked citation needed. --JWB (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I agree a WP:SPLIT is required. Deng may have understood the significance of the 19th century, but his reforms are independently notable on their own. I recently noticed that MainlyTwelve created 2020–2021 Xi Jinping Administration reform spree, so maybe they can help with this. LondonIP (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We already have an article on the Chinese economic reform (aka "reform and opening up"). Is Deng Xiaoping's "open door" policy a separate topic from that? The Open Door Policy#In modern China section seems to be mainly focused on the reform and opening up. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I will read more about the topic and change my position if need be. I know the reform article is the main topic, but I was surprised that the modern reform CN>World policy wasn't disambiguated from the 19th century USA>CN policy. LondonIP (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)