Talk:Canada–China relations

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Charles Burton (sinologist) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 August 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Canada–China relations. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Canada–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) 23:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

irrelevant and redundant info edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

@Tobby72: Per your edit wars here, here and here i have remove the info you add until an agreeement on this can be occurred. Per brd do not restore this till we discuss this or i take you to administrator incident place for edit war on this article and the other ones (2018 china united relations, miao wei and Wilbur Ross). Waskerton (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Waskerton: Per your edit wars here, here and here please explain your reasoning. How can this be irrelevant?

In 2013, Canadian oil and gas company Nexen became a wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CNOOC Limited. —"Exclusive: China's Nexen plans Gulf of Mexico oil exit amid trade war - sources". Reuters. September 26, 2018.

Please explain to us. Thank you. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tobby72: To be clear the edit war is started by you. I reverted you which should have been signal FOR YOU NOT ME to start discussion on the talk page here per brd. Now on to materiall in question: the source does not say why nexen is important. in FACT the article you cite does not even talk about nexen in context of relations between canada and the prc it is about a trade war that is not even related to about canada. You need to get an article that say why nexen is even important to the relation between the two country or else the inclusion of the material will be just random. (like your other material on other pages) This really is not hard to understand if you just stoppped to try so hard to edit war jsut to prove a point Waskerton (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Waskerton: 1♯ Canadian oil and gas company Nexen is one of the largest oil producers in the UK North Sea. CNOOC is one of the world's largest oil and gas producers. According to the Maclean's, "The CNOOC-Nexen deal touched off a great deal of controversy about what degree foreign state-owned control of Canadian resources is acceptable. That the deal came from a Chinese company, in particular, raised concerns in some quarters about doing business with a non-democratic state."[1]

2♯ WP:BRD isn't a policy. WP:Edit warring, on the other hand, is. BRD doesn't mean you're allowed to just keep reverting if nobody starts a discussion. Second: as I said, BRD doesn't mandate who should start the discussion. It merely advises that if you're reverted, you should discuss the edit with the other party. Please read and follow WP:BRD#Details carefully.

3♯ You are wikihounding by reverting my edits, Waskerton — diff, diff, diff, diff. On your edit: also read WP:MOSLINK. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tobby72:

1: So obvious you do not read. I never say nexen or cnooc is not important i say the source you put does not mentioning why they are important. Or any of the concern or whateever else you say is involve. THAT is the point
2: i just laugh at your attempt to give me an impression like you are a wikipedia judge when you put all these links. Like i am suppose to be intimidated by your "knowledge" of wikipedia. No just simple logic would estroy the stupidity. If everybody follow your insane idea about brd then no disagreement on content would EVER be resolved because nobody will have reason to start resolution of it first. it would just be endless reversion/edit war.
3: You are wikihounding more ([2]). more of that and we go to ani Waskerton (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Folks, we are close to an edit war here. That is a shame, because this is an important article that many people are likely to read because of the tons of articles in the news media about the changes in our relationship with China. I am not an Admin or anything, but have made many updates to this article.

One option is to take advantage of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service to get others to look at the issue in dispute and comment as to which side they agree with. But that is a lot of work. The alternative is to get others who have worked on the article provide their comments but.....I have read your notes and do not really understand what the dispute is actually about. (And perhaps the dispute has been resolved by now). Peter K Burian (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

RECENTISM edit

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a reason why the Justin Trudeau subsection is taking up such a large portion of the History section? Can we not trim this down to the important details? Why does USMCA get a whole subsection, etc.? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic