This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
China–United States relations is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Consensus for Deleting "Further Reading" section in light of substantial references cited in article body?[edit]
I propose deleting the extensive further reading section. It unnecessarily lengthens the article and adds little. We have hundreds of references in the article - my view is, if it's an important enough source, we should cite it in the body of the article. Furthermore, for a topic this extensive, it is difficult to curate an authoritative "further reading list" given the multiplicity of views and constant new publications.
Are there other views on this matter? JArthur1984 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}