Talk:2009 Barack Obama visit to China

Refs

• John Shovelan, 17 November 2009, Obama visit to China overshadowed by trade tensions, Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Regarding US debt to China and how it affects Obama's bargaining position.

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Expand to include all of Asia trip

The name of this page should be changed and the subject expanded to include the entire asia trip.67.79.10.114 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fake students in Shanghai

Fake students during Town Hall meeting? Arilang ^talk 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Question? Subject? Request? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama in China: an information war behind the scenes

Benlisquare, this article presents a lot of "insight"

1. The type of questions asked by Shanghai students.
2. Who came up on top, Obama or 中宣部 Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee.
3. Twitter again being pushed towards the center stage.
4. The Obama effect on Chinese bloggosphere.

In fact, this article gave the best analysis on Obama's visit. Arilang ^talk 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo needed

Looking for a high resolution version of [1]. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess if its from the White House website, there shouldn't really be a higher res image elsewhere, if the White House copyright exemption is to hold. If it is from the White House website, it should be exempt from Copyright, so if you are unable to find a higher res image from that site, just use this one. If you take it from somewhere else, chances are that it is not exempt from copyright. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Importance?

I understand having an article on the 1972 Nixon visit to China - that was truly historic, as confirmed by its lasting impact. But why this one? Clinton and Bush both made similar visits there; we note them at Sino-American relations, but we don't go so far as to have a separate article. This seems much more like news than material for an encyclopedia article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I too, think this would be best merged into Sino-American relations. After all, it doesn't really matter that Obama went to the Forbidden City if nothing else interesting happened there. The only real thing to come out of this visit is that America now recognizes it can't push and shove China around anymore and Obama has to respect the rules laid down by his host, Hu. Other than that it's rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. They couldn't even come up with a comprehensive plan on climate change. If you have time, please also review some of the articles in Category:2009 in China; some of them also ought to be deleted. Colipon+(Talk) 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This Obama visit is important in the historical sense that this is the first time in the Chinese history that the most powerfull CEO of the western world come to Kowtow(nearly) to the Tianchao Daguo, as China has suddenly become the Number One creditor of the US. Arilang ^talk 15:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Someone just slapped a merger tag on this article without bothering to open a discussion. I'm not sure how this would be done though. This article is almost 14k, but in the Sino-American relations article it couldn't reasonable take up more than a short paragraph. That would be tantamount to a deletion, but as we have already seen, there is no consensus for that. Lampman (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the merger tag. There is no real discussion on the actual merge. Benjwong (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I "slapped" the merger tag on because of the discussion above. There was an obvious discussion of merging it to Sino-American relations. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it has been discussed here. I'm adding the tag again. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think it's at all feasible or sensible to merge it into Sino-American relations. First of all, that page is already gigantic that following WP:SIZE, I think it is actually in that article's best interest to keep the China visit a separate article, not merge it into it. And secondly, merging the whole article into Sino-American relations would give the China visit undue weight, unless it was cut down to one or two sentences maximum, which would be tantamount to deletion, which has already been rejected by the AFD process. I think the best solution would be to A) keep the China visit page as it is or B) merge it into a larger article to the effect of Sino-American relations under Barack Obama. I'd say B is the best solution if there is enough (outside the China visit) to warrant such a page, but I'm no expert on the subject. Otherwise, I'd go with A (for now)... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to state a neutral position to the merge. I only added the tag because the topic of merge came up in the deletion nomination and above. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am removing that "neutral" merge tag again. See Wenweipo for some record of all the other previous presidential visits. That Sino-American relations article cannot fit every visit. There are too many. Benjwong (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be your argument but removing it and saying "per discussion" is ridiculous. The discussion above this shows an opposition to you opinion. You can't just take ownership of the article. Please see, WP:OWN --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• At the same time, though, nobody has come forward in support of a merge. If anyone does come foward, that's fine, but otherwise I don't think we need to keep this merge discussion open for too much longer... — Hunter Kahn 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree but it hasn't been that long. The AfD discussion shows that there was support for merging it. I personally could care less but I also think there should be something between keeping it or deleting it. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The topic is notable in its own right, and there is plenty to say about it, so it should not be merged into any other article. Everyking (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blackman in a Black country comment

A black man, wearing a black shirt, in a dark night, holding a black umbrella, walks into a black country is a phrase coined by Chinese netizens. There are other internet comments touch on the topic of Obama being a Black President. Arilang ^talk 20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:TheLeopard's decision to remove the section. Foreign language sources should be avoided as far as possible; there is simply no way for most of us to assess the significance of the phenomenon, or the reliability of the source. At first glance it does not seem like a reliable news source, however. Rather it appears to be a blog. Lampman (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language sources is impossible to avoid since we are talking about China, and there are more than one active and trusted editors who understand both Chinese and English on en:wiki and are willing to help. There was another internet popular phrase:America can have a black president, when is China going to have democracy? At least on main stream media, Racial Prejudice is considered to be taboo, but on Chinese blogosphere, this topic generate many frank comments. Arilang ^talk 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree that foreign language sources should be avoided as much as possible (for some topics, it would be impossible to write about, period, without a foreign language source; for others, it provides unique perspectives that have not been published in English), I do agree that non-news sites should not be used as a source for this encyclopedia. I would support the use of blog sources if they are documented by recognized news sites. Colipon+(Talk) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean by "as far as possible": WP guidelines say that foreign language sources should only be used if no satisfactory English sources can be found, which may be the case here. When it comes to China, we have the paradoxical situation that major news outlets can not be considered reliable because they're organs of state propaganda. I'm stumped here, ideally I would like more input on this one. Lampman (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For this specific case, I would say introduce more analysis to the phrase, which has caused a big stir in Chinese cyberspace, or remove it altogether. Because as of now the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense at all. For example, it needs to be explained that "a black country", referring to China, is actually meant to imply that the country is under the rule of a bad government.

Having dealt substantially with China-related articles in the past, I would recommend the following for dealing with Chinese language sources. There are very few impartial Chinese websites. They are either a propaganda megaphone for the state or a means of proselytizing for the state's detractors (i.e., Falun Gong). Both sides produce absolutely outrageous materials. So far, the best impartial site I've found is Duowei, which seems to report news without any pre-conceived bias. It may be nice to see what they make of the whole Obama visit. In any case, this is where we must apply attribute individual comments to the source. Xinhua said this, Falun Gong sources said that. We have to make it clear who said what. Colipon+(Talk) 12:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added two more ref from anti-PRC websites. Arilang ^talk 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not about quantity. Colipon is right, the statement as it stands now has no context, and no assessment of the sources. Lampman (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)