Talk:Mainlander

Cross-article Redundancy

This article is repeated in the article Mainland China. Is it necessary? User:Kowloonese, 15 Apr 2003

I believe this problem has since been rectified, with "Mainland China" having only a minimal summary. --Menchi 03:22 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Dàlù rén definition

Removed the sentence about da-lu ren excluding all residents of Taiwan. A person who recently immigrated to Taiwan from Mainland China (as would be the case with someone who was married) would probably be classified as a da-lu ren. They almost certainly would not be a wai-sheng-ren.

There aren't many people in this category, but they are enough so that *all* is false.

Roadrunner

The deleted sentence clarifies and contrasts the two definitions. It can be rectified. I have restored it and incorporated your info. --Menchi 07:31 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Move?

Should the bulk of this article be moved to Mainlander, Chinese? Jiang 23:28 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but Chinese Mainlander is more natural. "Mainlander, Chinese" can't be used at all in article in actual sentences. --Menchi 03:22 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps specifying Mainlanders on Taiwan as "Chinese" may be inaccurate and to some, offensive. I assume most post-war waisheng ren are of the Pan-Blue Coalition, who consider themselves legimate members of China (hence Chinese), but aren't there waisheng ren, especially second-generations, who consider themselves Taiwan an integral part of them, and hence Taiwanese? --Menchi 04:58 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If they identify themselves as "mainlanders" in the first place, they must acknowledge the existence of a mainland. And what can this "mainland" be other than the Chinese mainland? It is not offensive for the people who use this term to identify themselves because the "offense" is implied in the term itself. If they found it offensive, they wouldn't be using this term. Perhaps those members second-generation dont call themselves "waishengren"... --Jiang 05:08 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Or you could try "Mainlander in Taiwan", but there's no escaping the fact that the mainland in "Mainlander" refers to Mainland China.Jiang 12:37 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How about "Mainlander of Taiwan", would that be basically the same as "Taiwanese Mainlander"? --Menchi 12:52 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think so. That would be misleading. With the current focus of the article, Mainlander in Taiwan seems fine, but it should be also noted that daluren are willing to refer to themselves as such, and that term is regularly used overseas (so for a larger scope Chinese Mainlander seems for accurate and fitting). Jiang 14:34 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The two definitions would need distinct pages, since they're basically unrelated, if the 2nd definition is to be elaborated. But can it be elaborated? Or will it always be a dictionary definition (one-paragraph, or worse, like now, one-sentence)? Do you know what to write there? If so, then the separation could proceed even further into 3 pages. --Menchi 15:02 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't know how to elaborate more than what is there, other than to write that the term "daluren" is also used by overseas Chinese. The connection is already highlighted in the article, in that they both essentially mean "Mainlander". I dont think a separation is necessary. Jiang 15:30 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that daluren is anything more than a a dictionary definition, and so it's probably not necessary to create a third page. Unlike waishengren, there is really little "self-consciousness" amount daluren. Roadrunner 27 June 2003

Why don't we just call the new daughter article Waisheng Ren? Even for some non-English nouns with unambiguous and uncontroversial translations, such as Aozora Bunko, officially, their "translations" is just its Romanization. Latin books, Korean proclamations, many are untranslated despite the ease of doing so. --Menchi 07:02, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)