Talk:China lobby in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rename to China lobby in the United States?

In order to be consistent with other articles on other lobby groups and to clearly differentiate the China lobby in the US from potential China lobbies in other countries. --Deodar 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

do you have evidence or examples of a "China lobby" being referred to as such existing outside the US? The common names rule takes precedence provided there is no ambiguity.--Jiang 07:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the article. You have a China lobby in the UK and another one in Canberra. I'm not sure about Canada but I would guess that their political theatre also notice the influence of a China lobby that wants to voice opinions in different matter ranging from tourism and trade to the Taiwan issue. Regards. South Korean Sky 05:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

moved back as there is no consensus. I did a search and could not find evidence of the specific term "China Lobby" being used to refer to groups in Australia or the UK. Please present some evidence here. In any case, I think having this as the primary article would better reflect the prominence of the American "China Lobby" (both of them).--Jiang 07:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] But you're right that when people speak of the "China Lobby" they most often refer to the one (or two) in the United States. How about the consistency argument, you're not persuaded by that either? South Korean Sky 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

here it is being used as a phrase "pro-China lobby" (notice the pro in front of China). "pro-China" is used in adjectival form to describe "lobby" (lowercase l). this is not quite the reference we see in history books as "the China Lobby" (emphasis added): [4].

There's Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) but no policy on consistency. If the other lobbies are refered to using specific names, then perhaps they are the ones that should be moved? Instead of "Israel lobby in the United States", that article should be titled "Israel Lobby (United States)"? --Jiang 10:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You do make some good points. I will not move the article again. Regards. South Korean Sky 11:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that as more articles are created on the other lobbies it will make sense to move it to the name I suggested. There is no rush for the time being. --Deodar 18:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Lobby" should be capitalized because this refers to a specific lobby, not just any lobby promoting China, even though in actuality there are two of them. As above, it is rendered "the China Lobby" not "pro-China lobby"--Jiang 16:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The article fails to make much mention of the role of US Senator from California, William F. Knowland, who was a virtual unstoppable supporter of Nationalist China.

This had dire consequences for the US Foreign Policy in Asia, particularly in regards to Southeast Asia, and, of course, Vietnam.

While I personally am not so knowledgeable about Knowland's role this way regarding "The China Lobby," there must be someone who is and this should be expounded upon.

Another big mouthpiece for the "old" China Lobby was Time-Life publisher Henry Luce, but, and I am purely speculating, Luce's preoccupation with Nationalist China this way (and at the expense of the United States ignoring the now gigantic PRC) would most likely be from personal interest; Luce was born there and lived there until he was 14.

Luce had tremendous influence in shaping US opinion this way; in "those days" print journalism (and in Luce's case I'm being rather, uh, "loose" with the word journalism [but that's just my opinion!:)] Luce's beliefs did more than filter into his publications' news content; Time Magazine was a TREMENDOUS importance at the time.

Still, to ignore two such important and influential people this way seems rather short-sighted and unfortunate. Satchmo Sings (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"China Lobby" and "China lobby in the United States"

The current article consists mostly of original research, and applies the term "China Lobby" to "groups lobbying for China in the United States". The former is most frequently used to refer to a loose pro-ROC, anti-communist group; the latter refers to any group lobbying for China(ROC or PRC) in the United States. The original research comes from using the former to refer to the latter, which is not in common usage in reliable sources, if at all.

The proper way is to split the content into two articles, one for "China Lobby", the other "China lobby in the United States" or some other name that is consistent with other Wikipedia articles for lobbying groups. --Happyseeu (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any problem here. There's no need for two separate articles when the topic is Organizations inside the United States with a lobbying interest in China. Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

China under the rule of ROC and China under the rule of PRC are completely different entities(different ideology, government, diplomatic policy, etc.), and the groups lobbying for them are different, often with conflicting interest. This is akin to lumping Loyalist during American Revolution with groups lobbying for British interest later, and write an article for "Organizations inside the United States with a lobbying interest in Britain". --Happyseeu (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC

Happyseeu is correct. "China Lobby" was a historic definite name for American friends of the ROC who blocked recognition of the PRC. It is not used as a proper name for PRC influence today. The article should be restored to address the former. --JWB (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Also note that the articles linking to this one are largely on individuals of the WWII and Cold War era for which the term China Lobby was actually used. There is not a lot of linking from articles on recent Chinese lobbying, if there even are any of those.

An article named "China Lobby" should have more detailed coverage of the period when this phrase was actually used. --JWB (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

See Google Ngram search on actual usage of the phrase. [5]

I do agree “China lobby in the US” is not a clear name for an article on more recent PRC influence. When I search the phrase, I still mostly get stuff on the old China Lobby.

The material on recent PRC influence can just be deleted from this article. If someone wants to merge it into China–United States relations or Propaganda in the People's Republic of China#Influence operations in the United States or elsewhere, they can do that. --JWB (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The Committee of One Million

"The Committee of One Million Against the Admission of Communist China to the United Nations, which later changed its name to The Committee of One Million Against the Admission of Communist China to the United Nations"??? Something should be wronh here.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)