Talk:China proper

removal link to chinese wiki zh:中国本土

reason,china proper and zh:中国本土 have the different definition,one of the definition refered to all the territories of China.Ksyrie

Please don't be pedantic, the treatment of 中国本土 is as close we can get to a discussion on China proper in Chinese.--Niohe 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make any no-go edits,in chinese wiki,there are at least two main definition of 中国本土,while one correspondants to china proper,another means the territory of china,so I found it not suitable to give the interlangue link to zh:中国本土,only if in en:China proper there are also the corresponding two definitions.Ksyrie

Stop deleting useful zh-links because they don't satisfy your perfect standards of 1:1 correspondence between different language versions in Wikipedia. Your acts are stumblingly close to WP:vandalism.--Niohe 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Be patient,I didn't intend to make any nationalist changes.The reason why I moved the link to zh:中国本土 is that, the topic in china proper and the topic in zh:中国本土 are not the same.That'a all,we cann't interlink two language version of wiki without the same topic.So if you really want to keep the chinese link zh:中国本土,you can either modify the article of China proper or zh:中国本土 to make the two article do tallk of the same topic.Furthermore,I acknowledge your idea don't satisfy your perfect standards of 1:1 correspondence between different language versions in Wikipedia.,But in our case,the definition of zh:中国本土 is too far from China proper.sometimes,we tolerate some small uncertainty ot nuances between different language wiki.But for zh:中国本土 and China proper,there are a big discrepancy.So I just suggested in chinese wiki to split zh:中国本土 in two articles,one corresponded to chinese daytimes used meaning ,one to China proper.Are you Ok?Ksyrie

No, I'm not satisfied and I think you should be patient and not delete useful links. The heading of zh:中国本土 clearly states "目前有大致有两种观点：一种观点（多为中国大陆民众）认为中国本土即指中国领土，一种观点（多为台湾）认为中国本土与英文的China Proper相当，指的是内地十八省的范围。在汉语字义上理解，中国本土指中国本有的土地、领土。" This is a close as we get, we don't need to rewrite the articles right now to establish a link between Chinese and English Wikipedia.

you sentence cann't make sense,since you have clearly understood the zh:中国本土 have the ambiguity of definition,people will automatically conclude that china proper and zh:中国本土 are not the same.So I just wonder that why you insisted on linking two differnet article?what is your finally aims to link two different articles?This can only cause confusion in understanding.Give me your reason,pleaseKsyrie

You just reverted WP:3RR and I'm reporting you to an administrator.--Niohe 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For the last time: there is absolutely no need for 100% correspondence, or 一一对应 as you call it on Chinese Wikipedia. In case two topics do not cover each other entirely, the link is there to facilitate translation and creation of new, more precisely defined papes. Please refer to Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links#Purpose for more info and restore your deletion. You risk being blocked for WP:3RR violation.--Niohe 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Other propers added for reference

I have added a number of other "proper" links to the article, to demonstrate that the use of proper on conjunction with a country name is well established in English. Here is another one:

List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper

--Niohe 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks

I just deleted most of the quotation marks around China proper, they make the article look ridiculous. I know that the concept of China proper is controversial, but just as we don't put quotation marks around Manchukuo, we shouldn't do it here either.--Niohe 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty is not Han

The Tang were a synthetic dynasty, which was more Central Asian than Chinese to begin with and still very Central Asian even in its decline. The concept of Han Chinese Dynasties is a poor one and I recommend its removal from the "China Proper from the Historical Perspective" section. Elijahmeeks 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

????????????? The above statements must be made by a Han-haters, as their dynasty was wiped-out by Han people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"China Proper" controversial?

I find this characterisation rather unsatisfactory. The problem is that the main objector to this terminology is the Chinese state and those who support its positions.

As the article states: "When the Qing Dynasty fell, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia were outside the administrative structure of China Proper, and it is possible to argue that after the fall of the Empire, Tibet and Outer Mongolia exited the de facto borders of China altogether...The subsequent PRC and ROC governments have sought to eliminate this separation in order to consolidate their territory." That is, Chinese governments are ideologically committed to eliminating and denying this division. The nature of the "controversy" is that Chinese governments have decided that "the separation doesn't exist".

But this doesn't mean that the division doesn't actually exist! Historically the division between territories under the administration of the Chinese bureaucracy and those outside of it exists (see Ming Dynasty military conquests for a look at what this meant), and the division between areas populated by Han Chinese and those populated by ethnic minorities also exists.

Nor is the Chinese government's position the only way of looking at China. It is not really Wikipedia's place to toe the political line of the state, but to record the facts. The facts are that historically and ethnically the difference exists, and that the Chinese government, for various reasons, is strongly committed to the position that it doesn't.

The entire introductory section, with its statements that "China proper is a controversial concept, since it is valid only from paradigms that contrast the core and the periphery of China", "However, the controversial nature of the term is somewhat mitigated if it is interpreted as the historical and cultural-anthropological center of the Chinese people", and "Generally speaking, the idea of China proper is quite malleable and its definition often changes depending on the context", are all rather mealy-mouthed and weaselly. The article seems to bending over backwards to recognise the position of those who are most vociferous about denying the division.

What the article should do is state and explain the distinction, discuss the history and dimensions of the distinction, and also note that under modern Chinese state ideology the difference is no longer considered to exist (and perhaps note that Chinese who subscribe to this ideology are opposed to recognising the distinction). But to state that the distinction is "controversial" because the Chinese government doesn't like it and many Chinese feel, for nationalistic reasons, that it shouldn't be recognised, seems to be giving rather too much credence to groups who are committed not to discussing the facts (historical dimensions, ethnic dimensions, etc.), but to discussing what the facts ought to be according to their own world view. This is ideology, not scholarship.

Bathrobe 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As an afternote, I might add that official denial of a division between China Proper and peripheral regions can be regarded as controversial in itself. For instance, the Chinese government uses this position to give itself a free hand in swamping ethnic minority territories with Han Chinese, somewhat similar to Indonesian transmigrasi. Mention of "controversy" solely from the notion that "China Proper" offends the Chinese government and the nationalistic feelings of Chinese is quite POV. The other side of the "contoversy" should also be stated.

Bathrobe 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

After I had made the above comments, LionheartX made a number of changes to the article that went even further in the POV direction that I was concerned about. He/she has also failed to respond to my comment on his/her talk page.

It is entirely inappropriate to start the article, as LionheartX does, by saying that 'China proper is a controversial concept'. The concept is not particularly controversial outside China and is a legitimate way of viewing China, political considerations aside. All that is needed at the beginning is a definition of the concept. The controversy can be covered quite adequately within the article.

I've taken the opportunity to slightly change the wording within the article. The changes are not great, but (1) make it clear that the term 'China proper' is controversial within China (this is what the article said originally, before July 2006! The edit that changed that was rather heavily POV) (2) make it clear whose paradigm we are talking about -- that of the Chinese government. I am perfectly aware that many Chinese feel that the government paradigm is the correct one, but it is still POV as there are people who hold views in conflict with the government's views and their views should not be somehow labelled 'incorrect'.

I don't believe that the changes I've made are detrimental in terms of POV. They merely take the article away from the previous tone which seemed to one of abject apology to the Chinese government and people that Wikipedia should even presume to have an article on the subject of 'China proper'.

User:Bathrobe

Origin of the concept

"It is not clear when the concept of "China proper" in the Western world appeared. According to Harry Harding, it can date back to 1827 (see Harding 1993). But as early as in 1795, William Winterbotham adopted this concept in his book (see Winterbotham, 1795, pp. 35–37)."

This is very scholarly, but to speak of when the concept appeared in the "Western world" is rather POV because it suggests that the distinction did not exist in the "Chinese world". In fact, while the name "China proper" may not have existed in Chinese, the concept certainly wasn't made up by Westerners; it was implicit in Qing governance. While the Qing adopted the mantle of a Chinese dynasty, the Lifan Yuan was a peculiarly Qing institution that explicitly placed large swathes of Qing territory outside of "China". Qing policies on the immigration of Han Chinese into outer territories were also based on a distinction between Han Chinese territories and those of other ethnic groups. Surely this section should make some reference to this. The fact that China no longer recognises the distinction does not invalidate it as a historical concept.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

From your recent edit summary in Zhonghua Minzu it seems that you hold an incorrect concept to interpret the existence of Lifan Yuan as the proof that Qing did not regard all of their territories as "Chinese". In fact, while Lifan Yuan existed as an institution to govern outside China proper differently, Qing rulers did consider all its territory as "Chinese" territory. For example, the book "Overseas Chinese, Ethnic Minorities and Nationalism: De-Centering China" (by Elena Barabantseva) pg 20 mentions that "they referred to their expanded empire as both Da Qing Guo (Qing Empire) and Zhongguo (Central State) calling all subjects of the Empire recently and previously conquered as "Chinese" (Zhongguo zhimin, Zhongguo zhiren, and later Zhongguoren or Zhonghuaren)". The book "Empire to nation: historical perspectives on the making of the modern world" pg 232 also mentions that "The early and mid-Qing emperors repeatedly sought to identify their expanded empire as Zhongguo, and the term was commonly used in communications and treaties with foreign states." In pg 251 it further mentions that "The boundaries of the Qing had the advantage of being set by treaty, especially on the northern border with Russia. ... When the educational reforms of the late Qing introduced geography into the curriculum, textbooks were written to publicize those boundaries. As a result, the emerging Chinese citizenry may not have known what it meant to be Chinese (or in what way the Mongols and Tibetans were also Chinese), but it did know that Mongolia and Tibet were included within the territory of China". Clearly, academic sources show that Qing rulers did regard all of their territories as "Chinese" territory, and even tried to teach citizens through geography courses during late Qing reform. For more information regarding Qing's identification with China, see the article "Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century" [1]. Basically Qing redefined the concept of China or Zhongguo to become a larger (and multiethnic) entity. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are essentially trying to "prove" a point of view here, a rigidly held point of view in China, that the entire Qing expanded empire was "Chinese". You can pick out quotes here and there, but the title of the article you cite says a great deal -- reinventing China. As does the quote "the emerging Chinese citizenry may not have known what it meant to be Chinese (or in what way the Mongols and Tibetans were also Chinese)". There are obviously plenty of arguments in favour of the Chinese interpretation of history, but there are also plenty of arguments for the opposing side. That's one reason why it's a contentious issue. Since you're basically trying to "prove" your point of view rather than write a useful article, your interpolations are wrong in both phrasing and intent. Instead of inserting distracting rebuttals of what was written in the previous paragraph (the usual technique of POV pushing), why not try to present a balanced picture of the situation? The article you cite obviously covers the ground in considerable detail. It was a process of reinvention, and as such should be presented as a process, not as a string of cavils for or against your own point of view.

Incidentally, I'm a little sceptical of your source by the Chinese scholar Gang Zhao (Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century). The sentence "The Chinese people never returned to the position that China was the property of the Han people" sums up the problem. We need a lot more than one Chinese scholar setting out to prove the official position that "China now sees itself as a multi-ethnic state". Who are the "Chinese people"? The Han Chinese? The Tibetans? The Mongols? The Uighurs? Do they all subscribe to this idea? If you could demonstrate that a majority of (for argument's sake) Tibetans didn't subscribe to this position, then essentially Gang Zhao's case is null and void. I don't think that a consensus position among the dominant ethnic group (however big their majority) proves that all ethnicities are happy with this formulation.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, as Wikipedian please talk in a polite and scholarly manner. And please do not call it a "Chinese (or oppositely Western) interpretation of history", instead everyone is trying to discuss in a Wiki style. While it's true that there exists disputes, but actually your edit summary was trying to give a definite statement claiming that they did not regard all of their territories as "Chinese", rather than giving an indisputable fact. What was written there can be seen as quote and verified from sources (which were already mentioned above, all are reliable sources), but you are claiming that they are "wrong interpolations", no offense but you really acted as a truth teller. You also removed statements regarding Qing treaties which explicitly mentioned itself as China, which is not really a good behavior. There may be a better location to be placed, but it did represent useful information. Furthermore, one of the most important principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, but obviously you are trying to claim that others are try to "prove" own point of view, and with edit summary that representing own point of view. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, it was indeed a process of reinvention, but the article did also explicitly mention that "shortly after occupying Beijing, the Qing rulers began to identify their own empire as China". The statement added in the Zhonghua Minzu article is basically the same as this, conforming with what the articles say. So it's really unfortunate that you treat it entirely as own point of view. Again, as Wikipedian, discussions are to be in a polite manner. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I find your manner of taking umbrage highly impolite. I descibed your interpolations as wrong in phrasing and intent -- phrasing because they present useful information in the form of cavils or rebuttals, which is destructive of good article writing. Intent because you appear to be pushing a very strong POV that enables you to make impolite and arrogant statements like "you hold an incorrect concept". (Maybe it sounds ok in Chinese, but it sounds very offensive in English).

Bathrobe (talk)

OK, that was because I saw you were trying to give disputable statement as edit summary, and also removed the statements regarding treaties, which are obviously not "interpolations". Sorry if you considered one of my statments offensive (BTW, I'm not in China), but I was trying to explain that the sources which are saying the opposite. The source from Gang Zhao is just one source providing some details, but all of the other sources are not from Chinese scholars, which also verified that information. What is concerned here is not what Chinese now think, but what Qing rulers thought. On the other hand, the Qing treaties are originally sources which can be used to directly verify the information, which you had removed. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As an example of the treaties: in the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 (ratified by both USA and China by 1869), the first sentence stated "Whereas since the conclusion of the treaty between the United States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire (China) of the 18th of June, 1858...". Here the "the United States of America" is used as the name of the polity on the US side, whereas "Ta-Tsing Empire" and "China" are used as the name of the polity on the Chinese side; apparently both "Ta Tsing" (Great Qing) and "China" refer to the Chinese entity. In the body of the treaty, "the United States" is often used as an abbreviated name for the USA, whereas "China" and "Chinese Government" are used to refer to the Chinese side (e.g. Article VII stated "Citizens of the United States shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the government of China, and reciprocally, Chinese subjects shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the government of the United States..."). So it has nothing to do with what Chinese or other ethnic groups now think, but what Qing rulers themselves considered as. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that "it has nothing to do with what Chinese or other ethnic groups now think, but what Qing rulers themselves considered as". The whole issue of Qing perceptions of its the outer territories is not some isolated historical issue that bears only on the Qing. The reason that people care is because of its relevance to the modern situation. To state it bluntly, if one can prove that the Qing regarded Tibet and other areas as "part of China", then there is some justification for China being in there. If not, then the occupation of Tibet and other areas (many of which are still quite restive) becomes historically and morally reprehensible. That's basically what it is about and why history in China is such a fraught area.

The wording of international treaties is obviously relevant and is valid information, but there is much else to consider. My edit statement was not meant to be "indisputable"; it was meant to show that the situation is not as black and white as some might think. In fact, there has also been a lot written that heavily qualifies the position you are putting forward as "indisputable".

I don't like removing information. But the information that you inserted had obviously been put in there to cavil at the thrust of the article and was totally against logical structure or flow. I scratched my head about where to move it on more than one occasion but could see no obvious place for it to go. It really belongs further up in the article, or possibly in another article, not randomly placed in the Implications section.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bathrobe:If one can prove that the Qing regarded Tibet and other areas as "part of China", then there is some justification for China being in there.

“India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator.”- Winston Churchill.

Bathrobe, so India should not exist because Churchill thought India is not a nation? Do you even know basics of human history? Most countries today are former colonies and their borders are drawn by Europeans(in fact even in Europe after two world wars you still have borders that do not coincide with ethnic borders and wishes of some ethnic groups). And you think that it is important what Qing thought(it is not because the ROC is a successor state ot the Qing-). From India to Africa to Americas the borders are usually drawn by people who didn't even live there . Those countries became independent from their colonial masters and now exist in borders drawn by them, and not what ethnic groups within those countries wanted. And that borders are respected because they are recognized by international law. Modern China was created by people that only live in China(the Manchus), so China is more like Japan and the UK, countries that were newer colonies and that were created by people who currently live within those countries, and not by independence from other states or some colonial power. Rate 12 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course if we are talking about political issues regarding Tibet etc, we do need to consider each of their perspective (at least have a general idea of what they think). But as for myself I'm mainly interested in history, not politics (which will link to issues regarding nationalism, which I don't want to be involved in), so I want to avoid the latter as possible. I do agree that there are more complicated issues, but I think in Wikipedia we should at least also consider what Qing rulers themselves thought, not just what modern people think (which will directly involve nationalism, contradictory to the general environment of Wikipedia). Nevertheless I do agree there may be a better way to organize the materials. BTW: to show that Qing regarded Tibet as "part of China", it may be sufficient to show some original materials, such as the geography textbooks published during the late Qing reform. For now I just provide a link to the original 1906 New York Times article regarding Qing's assertion of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet: [2] --209.183.18.76 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That article is interesting because it uses the term "Chinese", it talks about the Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, but also speaks of sending a "Tartar" (read Manchu) general to Tibet. There is no doubt that the Qing asserted sovereignty over Tibet. But the Mongolian interpretion of history (just for your information) is that they never belonged to China. They were a part of the Qing empire, under the rule of the Manchus, but they never actually belonged to China. As your article cited earlier says, even if the Qing described their country as "China" with its clearly defined boundaries, the Mongolians never knew they were "Chinese". I don't think international treaties capture the whole reality. Bathrobe (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mongols could surely read all those treaties. You have thousands of ethnic groups around the world without their states and with their own interpretations of their history, but what a treaty says is clear even if you don't like it.

And the 1906 treaty respecting Tibet only mentions China and Great Britain. Read it here:[|Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet]. Rate 12 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What you said is true, which I'm aware of. The reality is that Qing considered their empire as China, and became more and more became sinonized (but still kept some identity), while Mongols (Outer Mongols esp.) considered their allegiance to Qing emperors, not Chinese state. During its last years, Qing began to make attempt to integrate it as Chinese province, but 1911 Revolution led to the fall of Qing Dynasty and independence of Outer Mongolia. All of these major information may be mentioned, so it should not really a problem. We may just represent the major information as we usually do in Wikipedia, without involving personal or national views. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's odd to speak of the Qing as if it were a single static thing over the course of its history. There is evidence that that Qing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw their empire as equivalent to China. That doesn't tell us that much about what Dorgon, Kangxi, or Qianlong thought about the same question.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the cited sources mentioned earlier also state that "The early and mid-Qing emperors repeatedly sought to identify their expanded empire as Zhongguo" and "shortly after occupying Beijing, the Qing rulers began to identify their own empire as China". Note that they both talked about the early and mid Qing emperors, not just the later ones. The 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk for example, as can be found here, also used the name "China" (even the Manchu text of the fourth article of the treaty says "The Russians now living in China and the Chinese subjects who are in Russia shall be left there for the rest of their lives"). Qianlong's letter to George III in 1793 is another example. So there is no doubt they also saw their empire as equivalent to China. --173.206.10.250 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

A relevant Chinese concept to China proper is Eighteen Provinces (十八省), which has been discussed in the section Historical perspective. But this concept does not clearly identify itself as China (中国) and other places as non-China. This is a crucial difference between the concept of China proper and that of Eighteen Provinces. A more relevant Chinese concept is Zhongguo Benbu (中国本部, see zh:中国本土), which roughly identifies the Eighteen Provinces as China. This concept likely appeared at the end the Qing Dynasty and reflected then Han Chinese revolutionists' idea that the Manchu rulers were foreign occupiers of China. The earliest written record of 中国本部 I can find is Zou Rong's 1903 book The Revolutionary Army (革命军). --Pengyanan (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to consider what the Qing themselves thought, then there is a lot to cover! There is the kind of options open at the time (gaining the Mandate of Heaven and taking tianxia were the parlance of the day, not establishing independent sovereign states), their special relationship with the Mongols, their total segregation from the Han Chinese (set apart in special areas of the city, intermarriage forbidden), their ban on Han Chinese settling in outer territories, the role and status of the Lifanyuan, the cultural and political policies adopted in Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, and the West, their insistence on establishing boundaries and control, their insistence on placing Manchus in all government departments, the superficial maintenance of the Manchu language as an equal of Chinese, historical changes as the dynasty progressed, and much else besides. These are all things that can be interpreted in many ways. One example is the Chinese academic insistence that the Manchus became totally assimilated to the Chinese. This meshes well with the view of the Qing as a "Chinese" dynasty and the Zhonghua minzu as a view of ethnicity within Chinese history, but it glosses over considerable aspects of reality as it was experienced by the Manchus themselves.

Bathrobe (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Or to 209.183.18.76? --Pengyanan (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, edits are coming so thick and fast I misplaced my edit. With regard to what you say, I'm not sure what we should be looking for. Let me cite an example. The Mongolians call China Хятад. The Inner Mongolians call China Дунд улс. The rationale is that Хятад refers to the country of the Han Chinese; China as a multi-ethnic state should be Дунд улс (central country). This tells me that there is definitely a prior-existing consciousness of China (meaning China proper) as a different entity from Mongolia, even under the Qing. I have seen a paper on the Mongolian consciousness of their country and how it has been manipulated in modern times, which I will look for. I don't think that the absence of a Chinese equivalent negates the historical validity of "China proper". (I found these articles and books, interesting, but not the one I'm looking for: [3], [4], [5], and [6].) Bathrobe (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

For your information, there is a Chinese equivalent: Zhongguo Benbu (中国本部). See the relevant sections at zh:中国本土. --Pengyanan (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with 中国本部 is that it looks like an imported or externally imposed concept, not a inherent local concept. Bathrobe (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I also guess so although I cannot find evidences to prove whether it is an inherent local concept or imported one. But no matter whether it is imported or not, this Chinese concept deserves a place in this article, doesn't it? --Pengyanan (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly a Tibetan word for China proper, viz the normal Tibetan word for China, རྒྱ་ནག་ gyanak. Therefore, if Tibet is part of China then China proper is an indigenous Chinese concept which predates the first Western uses.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)