Talk:Mainland China

Contents

1 "Great Han Tribe-Stan" 2 Rmd redundant text 3 See also mainland 4 Scope of the term mainland China 5 Removed redundant text 6 Edits by Huaiwei 7 Factual accuracy of the article 8 PRC's political PR team / Taiwan as an independent State 9 Extent of mainland China 10 Extent of claims 11 Proposed revision

"Great Han Tribe-Stan"

I've never seen this term. Can someone point me to a place where it is used 大汉族斯坦

Just for non-Chinese speakers. User Bingfeng changed the Chinese term "Mainland China" to "Great Han Tribe-Stan". I think that this was a joke.

-- Roadrunner

I think the term "Great Han Tribe" is a false term. Perhaps the writer intended to mean "Han Race". Han is a specific race originating from the territory of what is currently commonly known as China today. I must admit the humor in the term, as the Han believe they are superior to other Chinese races. Must have been termed by a Han... (by 70.242.208.89 at 05:22, Mar 21, 2005)

Rmd redundant text

The Hong Kong and Macau definition of mainland China is redundant because it is the same definition as provided in the first paragraph. Describing the setup of SARs is also not relevant.--Jiang 20:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

The text removed

Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau have different [[customs]] and [[immigration]] control, [[passport]]s, [[currency|currencies]], [[stamp]]s, [[judiciary]] systems ([[Court of Final Appeal|courts of final appeal]]), [[public finance]], [[extradition]], etc. Therefore '''Mainland China''' is used to refer to the territories under [[People's Republic of China]] control, excluding the two [[Special Administrative Region|speacial administrative region]]s, to distinguish the rest of China apart from the special administrative regions.

==See also==
*[[Mainland]]
*[[One Country, Two Systems]]
*[[Special Administrative Region]]s
*[[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] - a similar arrangement
*[[Political status of Taiwan]]

---

-- 202.61.117.73 17:21, January 4, 2005, UTC.

The description on the usage of the term in the two SARs is necessary, as mainland China is usually used to refer to the PRC authority in Beijing for situations which jurisdiction do not cover Hong Kong and Macau. -- 202.61.118.192 10:38, January 1, 2005, UTC.

The usage of the term in the SARs is the same usage as defined in the first paragraph. It is therefore redundant. This is not an article on SARs so explaining one country, two systems is not appropriate--that can be done, as it is, in the article on SARs. Sometimes the term is used (by the ROC government for example) to the PRC as a whole so the qualifyer "usually" is accurate. --Jiang 10:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is the SARs (together with the OCTS arrangements, colonial history, etc.) plus the stable existence of a former government controlling part of the country's soil, making it necessary to have coined the term "Mainland China" to referring to this major part of the country. -- 202.61.117.73 17:19, January 4, 2005, UTC.

No, colonies werent part of China. It was the Taiwan issue that needed clarification. Anyway, you text does nothing to explain how the term came about (it was used before 1997, well before 1997, FYI). You havent explained how it is not redundant so please do not add it in until there is consensus to do so. --Jiang

The usage of Dalu 大陸 or Neidi 內地 has long been used in Hong Kong and Macao before the handover. Since the handover, the use of the term "mainland China" is considered more politically correct than "China" as using "China" to refer to PRC territories excluding the SARs implies Hong Kong and Macao are not part of China. Furthermore "mainland China" is usually used to refer to PRC territories excluding SARs on trade, customs or statistics matters when the two SARs are not included. It is therefore necessary to state why the term has to be existed, its significance, what does it refers to. -- 202.61.115.161 16:17, January 5, 2005, UTC.

Unfortunately, the text you added does nothing to explain what you purport to do. Explaining how 1c, 2s works does not explain the fact that the term has "long been used in Hong Kong and Macao before the handover". it suggests otherwise--Jiang 00:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph that you insisted to remove tells why is it significant and necessary to have such a term to denote an area of China, and why the term has to be existed in the present-day context. OCTS has nothing to do with "the term has long been used in Hong Kong", which was a reply to your reference to Taiwan. -- 202.61.117.189 18:20, January 6, 2005, UTC.

The current text "It also usually excludes the two Special Administrative Regions administered by the People's Republic of China: Hong Kong and Macau, which are governed under "One Country, Two Systems" and have a high degree of autonomy." says enough. Details are not needed. Readers interested in details can click on the links. You paragraph, with the word "therefore", makes it seem a conclusion is being made, when the same conclusion has already been made earlier in the text. --Jiang 23:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay there're only two people in this discussion with opposite views. The original status rules, until there are other people joining this discussion.

Exactly, anon. Please stop trying to reinsert the redundant text. Your actions are bordering on vandalism--Jiang 09:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually there isnt exactly just a case of two people. I happen to hold similar views with Jiang on this one, as is the case in many other pages with similar topics. The term "Mainland China" does indeed occasionally refer to the whole of the PRC's jurisdiction, and is increasingly a term favoured by people in the PRC when refering to topics associated with Taiwan, because to talk about the PRC would refer an entity which includes Taiwan as far the the PRC is concerned.--Huaiwei 07:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also mainland

Please move back ==See also== [[Mainland]]. It was not added by me. -- 202.61.115.161 16:23, January 5, 2005, UTC.

Scope of the term mainland China

In the article it writes "It also usually excludes the two Special Administrative Regions administered by the People's Republic of China: Hong Kong and Macau...".

As far as I know the only occassion where the term mainland China covers Hong Kong and Macao is the Mainland Affairs Council (http://www.mac.gov.tw/index1.htm) (MAC) of the Executive Yuan of the ROC, which also handles Hong Kong and Macao affairs, through its Hong Kong Affairs and Macao Affairs offices. But it has different treatment with the affairs with the mainland, and with Hong Kong and Macao affairs, on immigration and travel, movie products, investment, and academic qualifications and exchange (please refer to the regulations on mainland affairs (http://www.mac.gov.tw/p1/mid3-2.htm) and on Hong Kong and Macao affairs (http://www.mac.gov.tw/p1/mid3-1.htm)). In the wordings in this page (http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/law/cs/law/18-6b.htm), for instance, "大陸地區人民" and "香港澳門居民", and "本辦法依臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例第十八條第六項及香港澳門關係條例第十四條第四項規定訂定之" clearly show that the MAC does differentiate people from mainland, and people from Hong Kong and Macao.

In all other usage Hong Kong and Macao are often not consider part of mainland China. In Hong Kong and Macao the term "大陸" (literrally meaning "the big land", "the mainland" or "the continent") has been used before the transfer of sovereignty to refer to PRC's territories (excluding Hong Kong and Macao). The usage remains the same after the transfer, although 內地 ("the inner land", equivalent with 大陸 in its meaning) is getting more common. The mainlander article also reveals that in Laos and among Laotian people in Canada the term "mainlander" (big land) is used to refer to Chinese people who are not from Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Therefore I would say the usage of mainland China to cover also Hong Kong and Macao is indeed rather rare. — Instantnood 08:21, Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

---

Huaiwei wrote "Actually there isnt exactly just a case of two people. I happen to hold similar views with Jiang on this one, as is the case in many other pages with similar topics. The term "Mainland China" does indeed occasionally refer to the whole of the PRC's jurisdiction, and is increasingly a term favoured by people in the PRC when refering to topics associated with Taiwan, because to talk about the PRC would refer an entity which includes Taiwan as far the the PRC is concerned.--Huaiwei 07:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)" on a string of discussion above.

When the PRC speaks to Taiwan on political issues and refers itself as "mainland", Hong Kong and Macao are not involved. It doesn't matter whether the term covers Hong Kong and Macao, as the governments of the two special administrative regions won't get involved anyway. Alternatively 兩岸 is used much more common instead of 大陆/內地 and 台湾 (as the article already suggests). When Hong Kong is involved in case of economic and trade issues, 兩岸三地 is used. — Instantnood 08:37, Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

Removed redundant text

I guess the text removed is necessary to be moved back. The text is essential in telling readers why and how this term is used. — Instantnood 08:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Huaiwei

In this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainland_China&diff=10989159&oldid=10988876), Huaiwei replaced "semi-formal" by "informal", and added "usually".

For the former, the term is used by the mainland authorities to refer to itself. It is also used by the authorities in Taipei, as well as in Hong Kong and Macao. The phrase "the mainland of China" is used in Hong Kong laws.

For the latter, the word "usually" was removed based on the section above. — Instantnood 13:55, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I didnt edit them. I REPLACED them after you changed them earlier without consent.--Huaiwei 13:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saying "informal" is factually wrong. For the word "usually", the section above was left there for a long time before I removed the word. — Instantnood 14:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

No response ≠ endorsement. Something you seem to fail to understand. Meanwhile, whether "informal" is factually wrong or not should be debated...not edited and actually thinking it is a "minor edit". It is actually VERY major.--Huaiwei 15:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How could I know it was not a minor edit until somebody else reverted it? And why didn't you make any response over the month? I did tell you about it on your discussion page. — Instantnood 16:28, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

When you are obviously trying to champion the use of Mainland China in place of the People's Republic of China, you didnt know elevating the term "Mainland China" to "semi-pro" status from merely a "casual" term was a MAJOR edit?--Huaiwei 22:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not a casual term, and was factually wrong in the article. The real side of the fact is you are obviously downplaying the characters of Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood 23:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you think HK and Macau occupies so much of my mental spatiality, you have to be quite mistaken. I find it ridiculous, that in your insistance in treating those two countries as "countries" (something I dont really bother much actually), you are favouring the term "Mainland China" over the "People's Republic of China". Wow. Just what right does the people in those two colonies have in telling the 1.3 billion people in the rest of China how they should call their own country?

And when we have all kinds of listings of topics by country, and you see Hong Kong and Macau listed there along with an entity called "Mainland China". Would you mind telling me since when does the one county two systems formular entail that the mother country had to stoop to the point of not being able to use its official country name?

Please address these issues. They are the CORE of my entire unhappiness over your latest exercise.--Huaiwei 05:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is a proper and official term used by the PRC government. It is also used by the governments of the ROC, Hong Kong and Macao. The naming conventions on Chinese-related topics has already stated "mainland China" is a term to refer to PRC's territory excluding Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood 07:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

And you know that definition is under dispute. As long as there exists definitions which assumes that "Mainland China" includes the entire territoriality of the PRC, you cannot assume it only refers to the PRC minus the two SARs. In fact, there has never been a hard and fast definition that "da lu" must always exclude the two territories. If you insist, then please demonstrate it beyond all reasonable doubt. Telling us how many sites says it, or even how the PRC government uses it is not enough. Have they abadoned the use of the term "PRC" in favour of "Mainland China" when refering to the country?--Huaiwei 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only usage as far as I know to cover the entire PRC's territory is by the Mainland Affairs Commission of the ROC. Yet the MAC does differentiate mainland and the two SARs.

Whether "PRC" or "mainland China" should be used depends on situation. — Instantnood 10:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am not equating "mainland China" as a country or as an entity, or the term as a "official country name". When it comes to listings of topics by country, it is necessary to have the scope of the content or the statistics of a particular article (or category, section, etc.) accurately reflected by its title. The same should applies for titling a page. — Instantnood 07:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

But if you did not notice, I have been especially critical of your edits when they ARE pertaining to lists or categories on a country basis. We can condone the existance of HK or Macau, by virtue of the one country two systems ruling (But hey....its one country two systems!). Listing the two entities as seperate from the PRC in country lists is bad enough. Renaming the PRC as "Mainland China" in country lists is as much an insult as renaming the United Kingdom as "England" "Scotland" and so on and so forth in country lists. How about listing Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, etc, as countries two, and just call the rest of what is left "Han China" next?--Huaiwei 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Metropolitan France is listed "on a country basis" too, on lists such as area or population. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is one sovereign state with three parts of components, and each of the parts are listed as countries. Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Ningxia are not special administrative regions. — Instantnood 10:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh.....this is the first time I realised Tibet is not a special administrative region! LOL! So...is Metropolitan France a special administrative region? The "components" of the Netherlands? If they can be shown, why not Tibet? You want consistency, dont you?--Huaiwei 11:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You'd better ask the contributors of List of countries by area and see why England, Scotland or Tibet, Xinjiang are not listed separately, but Hong Kong and Guadeloupe do. By the way, "the Netherlands" ≠ "the Kingdom of the Netherlands". — Instantnood 11:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wow...thanks for another new lesson! And meanwhile, do I see "People's Republic of China" listed, or "Mainland China"? Why should Tibet not be listed there, since it was also arguably "annexed" by a "foreign" power? Where is your consistency?--Huaiwei 11:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To repeat: You'd better ask the contributors of List of countries by area. — Instantnood 11:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I noticed that list has an interesting history. The dependencies (including the SARS) were actually grouped below their controling states, until someone felt that format makes it look cumbersome, and decided to use a notes column instead. So all our dependencies suddenly look like they are countries as well...more because of presentation issues then fact. You apparantly chose another lousy illustration.--Huaiwei 12:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not the only list using this way to present, and as you can tell, it's more because of presentation than fact. Who's that someone by the way? — Instantnood 12:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

In other words, by listing "mainland China" along with other countries does not meaning mainland China itself is a country. — Instantnood 13:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Let's get back to the basic. You asked why "mainland China" can be listed "on a country basis", and that's why I mentioned components of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and metropolitan France. Don't ask me why there are such precedances established. — Instantnood 11:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh....and I suppose you are saying the vast majority of people out there knows the Kingdom of the Netherlands is not the same as the Netherlands, and therefore, they are consciously accepting that perculiarity? "Metropolitan France"? Now tell me how many people heard of them term, or use it in their everyday usage? You do love to pick strange examples, dont you?--Huaiwei 12:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling they're strange examples. — Instantnood 12:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I sense the "discussion" is reaching new lows in terms of quality and content.--Huaiwei 12:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was because somebody regarded the terms as "strange examples". — Instantnood 13:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you dont understand why I called it strange, do you? Your failure to comprehend is hardly a valid excuse to lower the standards of this discussion, I would think.--Huaiwei 14:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to be unhappy Huaiwei. I would say, like the earlier dispute on Taiwan vs. ROC issue among some contributors, "the CORE of [your] entire unhappiness" is a result of confusions, ignorance, and misunderstanding. — Instantnood 07:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Another example of a tasteless and irrelevant comparison.--Huaiwei 10:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The real enemy is one doesn't know about his ignorance." — Instantnood 10:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

You wisdom impresses me. I wish its applied more often around here thou.--Huaiwei 11:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of the article

(In a nutshell) The article says "mainland China" is an informal term, and it usually excludes Hong Kong and Macao. Both are inaccurate. "Mainland China" is a formal and official term used by the PRC government, as well as the governments of Hong Kong, Macao and the ROC. The term excludes Hong Kong and Macao in almost all occassions, with very few exceptions. This is elaborated at the section above. — Instantnood 14:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

So long that there remains occurances of the term "mainland China" as equating to the People's Republic of China, whereby it is not always clear if it includes or excludes the two SARs, then the term "usually" is not factually wrong. Yes it is a common reference, but it is not all-encompassing.--Huaiwei 15:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The term "Mainland China" may be used occasionally in governmental speeches, documents or in the press, but it is not sufficient to proof that they are official terminology which can be used in liue of the "People's Republic of China", for example. Indeed, the term, which has had informal roots, has gained favour to refer to the Beijing government from the Taiwanese more because of political sensitivities in the choice of words than its legitimacy.--Huaiwei 15:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From where do you come up with the conclusion that the term had informal roots, and it's not an official terminology? — Instantnood 10:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Simple. Is "Mainland China" the official name of the "People's Republic of China"? ;)--Huaiwei 12:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is an official terminology used by the PRC to refer to the territories it controls minus Hong Kong and Macao. "Mainland China" does not equal to the PRC. — Instantnood 13:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

PRC's political PR team / Taiwan as an independent State

It seems to me that the China's political PR team is at work here. The fact that Taiwan is a distinct, self-governing, independent nation is being blurred and minimized. I always thought Taiwan was a separate country. It's got its own flag, stock market, currency, embassies in various other countries, government, Olympic team, etc. If China and Taiwan were one country, how could they have separate flags, distinct markets, different currencies, and different embassies within other countries, both a communist and democratic society, etc!? I don't know who's in charge of these boards but clearly, the fact that Taiwan is a distinct, self-governing, independent nation is being clouded and covered over by a few editors. (added by 70.242.208.89 at 23:41, Mar 18, 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mainland_China&diff=11281608&oldid=11265935))

Taiwan does not consider itself an island country as it still officially considers itself the Republic of China with dominion over the mainland area. China and Taiwan are not "one country" as you say but rather, each of the respective governments claims the other as part of their territory. That's why it's complicated. Though Taiwan has its own Olympic team, what happened when it won gold medals in 2004 illustrates the dicey situation (August 26, 2004, Taiwan wins first-ever gold, Associated Press [1] (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Athletics/Games/2004/News/2004/08/26/603550-ap.html)):

Chen Shih Hsin won Taiwan's historic gold in the women's 49-kilogram category, with Chu Mu Yen clinching the men's 58-kilogram class, sending Taiwanese fans delirious. The medal ceremony was more sober -because of its sovereignty dispute with China, Taiwan is not permitted to use its actual flag and anthem in international competitions. Instead, Chen and Chu had to watch as a more generic Taiwanese flag, featuring the Olympic rings, raised to the tune of the Song of the national flag.

Fuzheado | Talk 05:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and the song was not the national anthem. — Instantnood 13:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Extent of mainland China

I'm confused. Do English speakers generally use mainland China to include Tibet and Mongolia? I thought there was a minority who considered the latter to be captive nations. Moreover, my impression is that mainland China is used only in contexts that require a distinction between PRC and ROC.

Like:

• Relations between Taiwan and mainland China worsened today, when the People's Republic deployed a large invasion force at X, directly across the Formosa Strait from Taipei.

(I'm also wondering about the yet more informal term China proper. Is there an analogy to Russia and the iron curtain countries like Poland, Ukraine and the -stan's? "Russia proper" meaning just the Russian republic, as opposed to the rest of the USSR.)

I'm not trying to assert any POV about what is "right" in a de jure sense. I'm trying to describe accurately and neutrally what people mean when the use the terms. That is all. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Your example is exactly right, it's a differentiating term. Outside the context of differentiating, it's useless. SchmuckyTheCat 19:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(response to Uncle Ed) Hong Kong is usually irrelevant in cross-Strait relations, as Hong Kong won't deal with political interactions between Beijing and Taipei. Unlike trade and traffic between mainland China and the ROC/Taiwan, direct trade between Hong Kong and the ROC/Taiwan has never been interrupted. And therefore people just say "relations between Taiwan and mainland China", because Hong Kong won't be part of the issue anyway. It does not imply that Hong Kong then becomes part of mainland China. — Instantnood 20:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

China proper usually refers to the part of China which is the historical homeland of Han people, or ruled by Han dynasties, or the 18 provinces of the Qing dynasty, while mainland China refers to PRC-administered territories minus Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood 20:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Extent of claims

Professor Fuzheado, I know that PRC still claims all of China, particularly Formosa/Taiwan, its "renegade province". But does ROC still claim the mainland, in addition to what it actually controls? I thought they abandoned that claim long ago.

On the other hand, I recall that the leader of the world peace organization I'm involved in (the Unification Church) said that he advised the leader of the government on Formosa to:

1. Give up the claim to all of China, just claim Formosa, et al. - the part they de facto control; and,
2. Stop using the name "Republic of China" (maybe pick "Taiwan" instead)

But I never followed up on that. I suppose they ignored his advice entirely (this has something to do with the question of "which China" would be in the UN.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• My understanding is that a sizable number of people living in Taiwan would like to do exactly that. The problem is that giving up the claims to all of China gives the appearance to the PRC that the ROC ever had a right to make the claim in the first place, which then views it as a step towards claiming independence, which the PRC has threatened the use of force over. So any claim to any name is frought with problems so they mostly don't make any. SchmuckyTheCat 19:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(response to Uncle Ed) I am interested to know did the leader of the world peace organisation ever mention what should be done with Quemoy, Matsu, etc. :-D — Instantnood 20:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hold on an instant, before my brain turns to noodles... Are you saying that if Taiwan gives up their claim to the mainland, that the mainland will thereupon invade them? That's so nutty I'm speechless. ("Say it ain't so, Joe!") -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• that's the extreme paranoid case. Giving up the claim is a reasonable step towards claiming "see, we want nothing to do with China, we're independent." Declaring independence, of course, defies Beijing. By maintaining the claim, even if it's on crumbling fifty year old paper, the lie of an ongoing civil war in one country is maintained as well. The whole "one country" thing is ingrained in the heads of the leaders of the PRC. Nobody believes the lie, nobody really thinks Taiwan is going to rule China anymore than Chiang Kai Shek is going to rise as a zombie to lead the army that does it. But there the status quo is, and any deviation is seen as caving to Beijing on one side or declaring independence on the other. [2] (http://taiwansecurity.org/NYT/NYT-TaiwansNewDoctrineUnintelligibleInChinese.htm) SchmuckyTheCat 22:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(see Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy)

Proposed revision

I've written a proposed revision here. My opinion on the troublesome term can be found in the new text on the Taiwanese usage. As for the term neidi, I've never been aware of any meanings other than non-coastal provinces. The interpretations I added came from a few friends of mine in either Shenzhen or Hongkong. Please correct me should this not be a representative sample. -- Alassius (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The proposed revision seems reasonable to me. Could you summarize the differences compared with the existing version? --MarkSweep 17:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Not really much, except for the new text I've mentioned (which might be subject to dispute), the notion of the term being political-geographical rather than geographical, and the disambiguation of neidi. You can see a diff page here[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAlassius%2Ftemp&diff=0&oldid=13929047), although it's not very intelligible. -- Alassius (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Alassius and it's pretty nice. But in fact the phrase "Zhongguo Dalu", or simply "Dalu" (well, of course, spoken in Cantonese) had already been used extensively in Hong Kong (and very likely also in Macao) long before the handovers, probably because of the substantial size of the population who were born in the mainland, or had a very recent ancestry there, and as a result most people perceived Hong Kong and Macao as part of the broader sense of China, though politically not. Perhaps it's the English term "mainland China" the one which gained popularity after the handover. Prior to the handover people just say "China" in English. — Instantnood 19:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Instantnood. The usage of "Dalu" isn't limited to cross-strait relations. Even before the handover, the word was a part of the vocabulary of Cantonese, to distinguish between China and Hong Kong. People from China and Hong Kong were called the Cantonese equivalent of "Dalu ren" and "Xianggang ren". "Zhonguo ren" is used less often because, meaning "Chinese person", it can refer to HKers also. --Yuje 01:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would not know its usage in Hong Kong as I myself am from neidi. The allegation was simply copied from the current article. -- Alassius (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How about this[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAlassius%2Ftemp&diff=next&oldid=13970399)? -- Alassius (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Alassius. I have made some rather minor changes [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alassius/temp&diff=next&oldid=13972081). And frankly I have never heard about Zǔguó Dàlù. :-) — Instantnood 14:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• meh. I like the addition of political-geographical and neidi. SchmuckyTheCat 22:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I was invited to comment on these changes, so here they are. I apologise if I appear too critical thou. In general, I appreciate the changes made, and the good intentions of clearing up usages of terms such as China, Taiwan, Mainland China, PRC, ROC, etc, by incorporating them into this text. But we know a related convention was under major dispute, and it is sometimes neccesary to realise that a naming conventions may not neccesarily qualify as text in an article like this. Allow me to explain:

First, the realisation that the term "Mainland China" is a political-geographical one, and not merely geographical, is completely aggreable from my POV, something certain folks have been trying to argue against. They insisted the term was purely geographical, and hence suggested its greater "nuetrality" over other terms in the convention discussions, and therefore incorporates this into the said convention. When you tried to weave that POV into this one text, the clash becomes apparant. You begin by saying the term is political-geographical. Yet in the next paragraph, it is suggested that the term, together with Taiwan, "can be understood as geographical terms". What happened to the political aspect?

Second, because this text becomes an exercise in pushing forth views in the naming convention, I notice it starts to read more like a POV advocate then one which tried to present views from multiple POVs. Trying to be nuetral dose not equate to a failure in mentioning alternative views. We all know the vast majority of views out there understands these terms in sometimes very different meanings. Should wikipedia gloss over them, or mention all of them, in its attempt to present views in a non-biased manner?

Third, I see alot of added text which starts to veer beyond what is neccesary to define the term "Mainland China", in particular paragraph four regarding "liangan guanxi". It also constantly talks about "prefereed nuetral terminoloy", something I see peppered in other parts of the text too. Can a wikipedia article actually "instruct" others on what is more nuetral and what is not? Is this a NPOV, when the same term can mean quite the contrary to others? If the terms "China" and "Taiwan" are considered "inferior" because they are suggestive of seperate states, then what explains the extremely frequent usage of both terms not just outside East Asia, but also within China and Taiwan themselves? Perhaps, both "China" and "Taiwan" are words of convenience, even more so than "Mainland China"?

Just some tots which floats to my head immediately when reading the revisions. More might come to mind later, but I am quite tired now, coz I just returned from my first trip to Taipei in Taiwan/ROC? :D--Huaiwei 15:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me state clearly, that the reason I didn't bring this up until one month after the flame war on NPOV has cooled down is exactly to avoid any abuse of this rewriting. I do not intend to advocate any proposals to change the naming conventions. Personally I think Instantnood's endeavor was a little too harsh, despite agreeing with many of his ideas. Consensus, not precedent, is the law of Wikipedia. The way Wikipedia grows is through natural evolution and self-organization, and no system-wide policy should be imposed unless it's really a consensus (read: everyone but trolls).

That mainland China can be understood as political and geographical simultaneously is precisely what makes the term neutral. The ambiguity comes from that different parties with contrary ideologies are able to have different interpretations of the same term. "Mainland China and Taiwan" can be understood as geographical terms by those in favor of unification, yet they can also be understood as political terms by those in favor of indenpendence. Both parties choose to ignore the alternative interpretation in order to avoid exhausting (non-constructive) debates over basic ideas where it is safe to do so. For instance, when discussing the Three Direct Links, it is not necessary to first agree on whether there should be only one China, and mainland or liang'an will serve perfectly in this case.

I kept liang'an guanxi and neidi because I think these are relevant terms that are by themselves not sufficiently intricate for separate articles. It is perfectly ok if you want to find a nicer place for them, e.g. put liang'an guanxi into Political status of Taiwan. As for the notion of preferred usage, I would rather say it is an observation than a mandate (perhaps a rephrasing like "these are recognized as the preferred neutral terms etc. etc." would be less suspicious?). Beijing[6] (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=30&hl=en&c2coff=1&scoring=d&q=%22%E5%A4%A7%E9%99%86%E5%92%8C%E5%8F%B0%E6%B9%BE%22+site%3Axinhuanet.com&btnG=Search&meta=) uses "mainland and Taiwan", Chen Shuibian uses it[7] (http://www.phoenixtv.com/home/news/taiwan/200405/20/259731.html), Lien Chan uses it, but Beijing[8] (http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=30&hl=en&c2coff=1&scoring=d&q=%22%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%92%8C%E5%8F%B0%E6%B9%BE%22+site%3Axinhuanet.com&btnG=Search&meta=) and Lien would probably not use "China and Taiwan". People (in Taiwan) do use "China and Taiwan": they (e.g. Lee Tung-hui) use it to make a point. People who do not wish to make a point will likely choose "mainland and Taiwan". This is what is meant by political correctness.

The reason China is more frequently found in western media is that BBC, CNN and the like are not afraid of angering either side of liang'an. Neither the Chinese nor the Taiwanese are buying their newspapers or paying them for advertisements. A very POV stance does not hurt western media more than it hurts Lien or Chen. It even hurts Beijing, seeing how Chen gained popularity under Beijing's constant threats of force. Political battles are all about winning the middle, and political leaders have to be moderate unless what they want is not winning the election but merely promoting their ideas. Media are about appalling news that catch eyeballs. They cannot be used as a measure of neutrality.

Besides these, it isn't very clear to me that what you are opposing, specifically what do you mean by alternative views. Would you care to elaborate? -- Alassius (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I speak from the perspective of a social geographer fairly familiar with the field of geopolitics, which probably explains my concerns over the way this article is being threated. That it should be called a "geopolitical" alone does not make it politically nuetral, for the same could be said for all such terms, including the term China itself. What, then, makes the term "Mainland China" more nuetral then "China"? Is it possible to quantify this, and if so, should this article not address it in greater detail?

I mentioned usages of the term "China" and "Taiwan" even within the two entities. Yes, I observed usage of these terms in their everyday speech, and on their media, while on my trip to Taiwan a few days ago. Are they being "politically incorrect"? They would be, if wikipedia now defines these usages as "less politically nuetral". Therefore I ask again. Is it wikipedia's business to define what is nuetral and what is not, but instead, clearly state what is "considered" more "politically correct" by which party, and in which circumstance, etc?

"Alternative views" here simply refers to views not mentioned in the said naming conventions. The naming convention insisted that the term "Taiwan", for example, is only a geographic one in reference to the island of Taiwan. Yet common usage both in and outside Taiwan regularly refers to the term as a political entity inclusive of all territories under the direct jurisdiction of the Taiwanese government. The naming convention comes under fire by disregarding political interpretations, and prefering to turn them into geographic ones, in its aim to be "politically nuetral". The same thing with the term "Mainland China", in which some have tried to ignore its political implications in order to uphold it as a "preferred nuetral term". When this inperpretation becomes adopted into this article, it is only natural that the disagreements gets carried over as well.

I am of the opinion that the details on "Liangan" etc should be moved to Political status of Taiwan and so forth.--Huaiwei 09:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Political correctness isn't correctness. It's just the least-objectionable. And "mainland China" is less objectionable than "China". Would you agree? Can you elaborate on your reasoning that suggests a significant amount of people treat China as a neutral term, which can be included in the article to support your claims? If you do believe (and better, prove) that some views or important implications of any terms are missing, then they should be supplemented into the article along with explanations.

Please let's stick to this article now, as it is more easily to achieve NPOV here than in a convention. -- Alassius (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

But "objectional" from who's perspective? The article claims it was "nuetral", yet does not state why. Why do I sense that certain presumptions have been used to form these statements without due recognition of their underlying existance of POV? I started questiong you if "China" is a nuetral term, because you claim "Mainland China" is "neutral" because it can have multiple interpretations. Since "China" also has multi-dimensional meanings, then should it not be "nuetral" too by your definition?

If you are asking for this version to be accepted into the Mainland China article, then please address these issues of NPOV head-on. If they do not address these concerns, I dont see how this helps to advance the stallmate over in the naming conventions, or how this should make dispute resolution any "easier".--Huaiwei 10:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Should Chen or Lee uses China and Taiwan, it will be objected by Beijing, Lien and even Washington. Should the latter parties use mainland and Taiwan, it's more probable Chen and Lee will remain silent, as Chen himself will use the phrasing. Compare these with the province of Taiwan in the context of other provinces in China which will surely provoke anger even among pan-blue parties. Mainland is more acceptable not merely because it has multiple interpretations. It's because it so happens that every party can find a satisfactory interpretation, while all the interpretations of China and Taiwan would make Beijing unhappy.

I don't understand what exactly is missing that you are suggesting. How would you address your concerns? -- Alassius (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you have anything to demonstrate that there are "people who are unhappy" when usages of any of the above terms are used? I see the above as mere generalisations and assumptions. On who's position are you speaking from? You claim Taiwanese politicians use the term "Mainland China" over "China", because the former is more "political correct". How about the alternative interpretation, that this usage was prefered because "China" could mean the ROC or the PRC, or that the Taiwanese government has often avoided using terms like China and the PRC because they refuse to make direct references to the PRC government, in the same way the PRC government often uses the term "Taiwan" over the "ROC"? Are they doing this in order to be "politically neutral" alone, or are they also "making a political statement" at the same time?

You mentioned Taiwan Province as being "provocative", yet it is also the accepted term to refer to "Taiwan" excluding the Kinmen islands, and is used to refer to a still existing political entity in Taiwan, something I doubly confirmed in my trip to Taipei. Look at the Taiwan Province article, and see for yourself if it tries to insist that its usage should be "avoided" because it is contentious. Notice it does not. So may I know why this article should do so? In addition, shall it be neccesary for us to now write in the China and Taiwan pages stating their usage preferences in various contexts?

As I have said many times. I protest this amendment, because it tries to include contentious POV issues in the naming convention. If it cannot be addressed there, I would like to see it addressed now. If not, then we are back to square one.--Huaiwei 12:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was obvious... See [9] (http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2004-05-22/09182596944s.shtml), [10] (http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2004-05-24/10352611775s.shtml), and [11] (http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2004-05-21/21593297768.shtml). In Chen's speech [12] (http://www.phoenixtv.com/home/news/taiwan/200405/20/259731.html) he used China once and mainland twice refering to the PRC, only the former was cluster bombed by Beijing's propaganda.

What exactly do you mean by contentious POV issues? I'm not sure if you are suggesting that mainland China is not a politically neutral term, or you are contending that the article should not mention anything about neutrality even if it is by many people considered more neutral. -- Alassius (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)