Talk:Greater China/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled discussion[edit]

How is this article any different from China, but a paraphrased summary of "History" section and introduction? --Menchi 18:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is different from China, because it is created to escape the sensitivities of the status quo. Putting an equal sign would definitely be out of NPOV. Dooga  Talk 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article just shows how greedy and GAY these Middle Kingdom Hua Ren 中華大陸人 or Mandariner really are with their types of Middle Kingdom mentality! BTW, ROC charter included territory of current China as well as Mongolia! Taiwan is not included in ROC charter because Japan control Taiwanese territory back then! However, Taiwan is mostly return to control of Taiwanese people because of our democratic elections! Most Taiwanese would just like to keep what we have and manage our own resources and territory without outside (KMT and CCP) meddling! Iron_Jackal_TW—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.96.138 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People like you are the people who are ruining the face of people who live in Taiwan. Mainlanders aren't the enemies of Taiwan, people like YOU are. How's KMT outside? KMT is one of the political parties in Taiwan. KMT took over Taiwan again after it was given back to China by the Japanese. Please stop living in 1937, and stop being so offensive to other people. Dooga  Talk 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Chinese nationalists do think Greater China included singapore as well, and therefore I add "sometimes singapore is included in greater china because the ethnic chinese are clearly dominant".I don't know why someone delete the statement.

read before you post and use capitalization. thanks, Jiang 19:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
dear jiangster, please do not edit articles merely for justifying your changes on other articles. thanks. your pal,160.39.195.88 06:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore is a independent country which was ruled by the British in the colonial years. It is clearly not part of Greater China. Its like saying America is part of Greater Britain when it is not. --Zhongxin (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, I strongly oppose the inclusion of Taiwan as Taiwan is an independent country and Chinese government has no control over. >g2g886 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wtf[edit]

WTF? Greater china? CHina? TAIWAN IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH CHINA IN ANYWAY!!!! Taiwan is not a coumtry, YET is not part of china either! It is an issue undecided! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.102.103 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I don't know how to sign my writing, but Taiwan is part of China. Taiwan has technically never declared official independence. China promises to invade Taiwan if it does. Therefore, Taiwan does not pursue official independence. It is part of China, since politically, it has not declared independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.46.254 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is Taiwan a part of China when China has NO jurisdiction in Taiwan? Taiwan is De Facto an independent country no matter how you view it. >g2g886 (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greater China is not a political term, it is used by journalist and some people to describe the geographic and economic area which has direct economic influence with China.
That's what it supposes to be, but just like the comment above by User:Zhongxin, there are people suggest otherwise. As a result, I, too, oppose the inclusion of Taiwan in the term Greater China unless it includes Singapore or even Malaysia. >g2g886 (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. This is not an article about the People's Republic of China. It is not about politics. Who governs what and who has independence or not is completely irrelevant to this article. It is about a geographical and cultural concept. The world greater means effectively more than or broader concept or widely inclusive. When we say Greater China we mean more than PR China. We mean all of Chinese culture not limited by the political boundaries but in a greater sense limited by the bounds of the culture diaspora. While you can argue that Taiwan is or is not separate form PR China in a political sense, you cannot argue that Taiwan is very closely connected to China in a cultural sense. Look for example at other English language terms that use the word greater such as Greater Los Angeles Area, Greater Poland, Greater Antilles, or even Greater Taipei. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that my comment is in response to the double standard in this issue. I do agree with your standpoint on how the word "greater" is used, yet at the same time, with that understanding, Singapore or even Malaysia should have a place in this article. >g2g886 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore part of Greater China?[edit]

I disagree with Singapore "usually" being part of Greater China. In fact, I've almost never seen this usage at all. Singapore is geographically part of Southeast Asia. Publications like Asia Times group Singapore as part of Southeast Asia and not Greater China, and a quick Google search shows only mention of the mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. --Yuje 07:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

We can change it to sometimes then. But it is wrong to say never. And Macau is often NOT included--160.39.195.88 16:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Macau is usually not mentioned ore mentioned only in passing because of its relative unimportance, both economically and poltically. But it is definitely part of the region, as a Special Administrative Region of China. But newspapers like Asia Times include Macau in their Greater China section, and the Chinese Wikipedia [1] includes Macau as part of the definition but not Singapore. I agree that Greater China refers to a common cultural and economic market and region and doesn't carry the implications of nationalistic annexation the way Greater Germany does. Singapore geographically and economically falls outside the region. It's inclusion might be qualified culturally, but I've never seen such a usage.--Yuje 23:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well, looks like there's consensus on the political side. With regard to Macau, I'm not advocating it's elimination, but if it's not included because of its relative unimportant culture/economy, then it's not REALLY a part of Greater China when it's used in that way (although it is at other times). The word obvious has a meaning that's in flux. Especially in the dominant economic use, if you didn't include, say Tibet, or most of western China, you'd be using a correct definition of the word. If you mean a financial market, then you mean an even more restricted Taipei/HK/Shanghai/Beijing, and not even really all of China!--160.39.195.88 00:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify what you are claiming? The links provided by these two google searches suggest otherwise: [2], [3]. --Jiang 22:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Singapore is sometimes included and this has everything to do with business and nothing to do with politics.

I wasn't even the one that added them to the article. Obviously, I'm not the only one that has encountered them. You're biased against my work.--160.39.195.88 00:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Singapore isn't part of the Greater China, then why should Taiwan be?--68.98.154.196 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that was quite a strange remark, Singapore was never "rule by Chinese", you can see why PAP wisely use non-chinese as president :) Taiwan was return by Japan to China after it taken away from it in very much the same way as Hongkong (by war). Singapore was taken from Malaysia, when the British left, Singapore join back Malaysia, but was kick out by Malaysia central government. there is nothing common about the two. and also because Taiwan is not even a country but a place, the Republic of China is a country; china is still technically in a state of civil war, only ceasefire but no peace treaty. lastly, Singapore don't claim the whole of China like some official ROC map does! :P Akinkhoo (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore is a part of 華文世界 but not a part of 大中華區, according to most of the media in Chinese.98.201.161.241 (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Political Implications[edit]

Economic and language similarity are the basis of calling these regions "Greater China" There is no political implication because if there were, they wouldn't use it. We are talking about things like electronics manufacturing, computer manufacturing, chip manufacturing, etc...16:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"Greater China" is a relatively new word created recently by mainland Chinese(including those immigrating to Taiwan after 1949),and don't forget Singapore is also included in it. Without Singapore I don't think there is anything meaningful in it in reality except political motivation.

Ehm it doesn't really make sense that this refers to "financial markets and economies". For example, you can't say "Greater China is in decline" and expect it to be understood as the economy. I expect what that phrase is intended to mean is that it is usually used to describe the economy of that area, but that's not what it currently says. This should be clarified. --LakeHMM 05:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I distpue that "Greater China" is coined by "mainland Chinese". Greater China serves to distinguish itself conceptually from "China". Most mainland Chinese people would believe that "China" = "Mainland China", except Singapore.
I find the use of "Greater China" offensive and non-NPOV since it suggests that China is not a unified whole, an issue which is under dispute. --Sumple (Talk) 06:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt such idea. As the term "Greater China" has introduced nothing of the ideal political statu of the regions covered by the "Greater China", rather it only shows these region shares some similar characteristics. Oscar24 6 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.192.16 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is crazy. Singapore and Macau are obviously sometimes included as indicated by the preceding discussion, but this article is being changed to something political (administered by????). Come on, Greater China is a business term and it works because people that share a common language do a lot more business together. Why is this a political article?

oh, i agreed. but the current description doesn't match those in the list. i advice the article be rewritten with distinction to the "Business" usage, and PRC's "Special Politically" usage >:P for "Business" section should explain the benefit of "Greater China" which provide a common market for chinese comsumer goods, chinese movies, games etc... Akinkhoo (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My POV is Greater China is a generic term used to describe the geographic and economic area in relation to the East Asia region. This includes mainland China, Hongkong, Macau and Taiwan. I don't think its a political term used to denote territorial boundaries. Anyone who thinks in political terms have got carried away with their nationalistic sentiments. --Zhongxin (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mapo[edit]

what does the map have to do with the article? --洋金 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's really not appropriate. The article is describing "Greater China" primarily as a euphemism for PRC + Taiwan.

Then in the "Rare use of the term" section the article describes some territories not included on the map, but not Japan or Korea or Vietnam (included on map).

The map seems to be intended to show the "realm of Chinese cultural influence" -- but again leaves out essential areas in the Malay islands area, etc.

I think really three maps would be good: 1. showing PRC/HK/Macau + Taiwan + Singapore with a note indicting might be considered part for some purposes; 2. showing the extent of Chinese cultural influence in East Asia; 3. Showing the theoretical maximal historical territorial claim of the Chinese Empire -- say a "Chinese Empire Territorial Claims in 1800" or something like that.

The map is totally irrelevant. Migye 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

大华/大華[edit]

Never heard of this being used instead of "Greater China". Cite please? --PalaceGuard008 01:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

大华... bank? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Overseas_Bank that is the only place i seen this term used. (O_o") but then i don't read chinese newspaper :P.. Akinkhoo (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
大華 means great China rather than Greater China. It is not uncommon that organisations are named 大華. There was a department store in Hong Kong having name of it. — HenryLi (Talk) 08:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great China or Greater China?[edit]

which name is better? It seems that Great China is the better phase, than "greater". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.156.44.158 (talk) 23:55, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

technically "Greater" since it is a comparative term and most other geographical regional use the "Greater" term too. Akinkhoo (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greater China is the correct word to describe this situation. It denotes the influences of the China's economic sphere and its trading partners.

Great China means the country of China which is great which this article is not about.

--Zhongxin (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your map is meaningless[edit]

No one ever, ever thinks of Japan as part of Greater China. Sure, it was *culturally influenced* by China, but that's not the same thing at all. (The region which includes China, Japan, and the Koreas could be called "East Asia", "Confucian Asia", or "the former Japanese Empire.")

I notice that the larger map leaves off Japan, but still includes the Koreas. Is this based on the territories of the Qing Dynasty at its height? If so, some justification should be provided for linking that with "Greater China" as the phrase is used today.

I see two main usages for the phrase "Greater China": A political one, as an umbrella term for the PRC, Taiwan, and perhaps Hong Kong and Macao (if these are to be distinguished from the PRC); and an ethnic / cultural usage, including "overseas Chinese" populations as well.

--Dawud

Remove the map to reduce the political tension as it may offend people associated in that region. For more information, please refer to other articles, such as Chinese cultural sphere, Tianxia, and Sinophere. Durianlover1 (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient times?[edit]

"The term is often used to refer to cultural and economic ties between these areas dating back to ancient times, often to avoid invoking sensitivities over the political status of Taiwan. "

This needs to be fixed. Taiwan didn't have any cultural or economic ties with China in ancient times. According to the Wikipedia article on Ancient History "ancient" in the context of China goes up to the Qin dynasty. Even for Europe, where "ancient" can refer to much more recent times, the latest is the year 1000, long before contacts between Taiwan and China. Readin (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan didn't have any cultural or economic ties with China in ancient times. [citation needed].
Depending on delineationg, China did not have a "medieval" period. In orthodox PRC historiography, "ancient China" goes up to the Opium Wars, and "modern China" goes up to 1949, post-which it comes "contemporary China". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia?[edit]

"Occasionally, the term is meant to also include Mongolia, usually out of ignorance of the country's political dynamic." - if it's only "occasionally", and also "usually out of ignorance", then why is it included on the map? 81.159.61.104 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about "usually out of ignorance" as that is clearly opinion of the writer. I would even say that "Greater China" is nearly always used out of ignorance for the offense it gives to many supporters of Taiwan's continued independence. As a cultural term, "Greater China" is used out of ignorance if it fails to include Singapore. Readin (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insert non-formatted text here

Why is Mongolia still on this map, yet Mongolia is not mentioned in the article? Badagnani (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the trivial cartographic aggression against Mongolia. It's been promptly reverted. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement~
But some people deemed that the independent country Mongolia is belonged to the Greater China.
is quite true to the supporters of the Kuomintang. UU (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide reliable sources to this, I consider this statement dubious, offensive and defamatory to the KMT. I will remove the statement from the main text in the meantime. The statement said "some people", who are the so called "some people"? KMT itself made the statement above, and I have never heard of any KMT supporters making the statement either.--pyl (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you speak Chinese, could you please delete the corresponding statement in the article zh:大中華地區 in Chinese Wikipedia??? I use the term "some people" because the statement is true not only for the supporters of the Kuomintang... According to the view of the Kuomintang, the territory of China includes Taiwan, Mainland China and Outer Mongolia since only Republic of China is recognized, People's Republic of China and Mongolia are not recognized. Then using the view of the Kuomintang, if the region of the Greater China does not include Outer Mongolia, it will be contradicted to the territory of China... UU (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do speak Chinese and when the KMT leaders talk about 大中華地區, they never talked about Mongolia. In fact, last year when President Ma was interviewed, he pointed out that there may be issues relating to ROC's claim over Mongolia. To this end, I would appreciate reliable sources if you insist on putting Mongolia in the article.--pyl (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you have put a lot of efforts on improving this article. You said you speak Chinese, but why don`t you delete the corresponding statement in the article zh:大中華地區 in Chinese Wikipedia??? UU (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"images of Japan's wartime "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere."" q.e.d. Yaan (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't paying attention to the Chinese version. I normally do the English version.--pyl (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, Mongolia is removed from the Chinese version of this article. No reference was provided for that highly unreliable and contentious statement in the Chinese version either.--pyl (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for deleting the corresponding statement in the article zh:大中華地區 in Chinese Wikipedia, and it makes this article in English and Chinese languages be more consistent. In addition, I agree with the view of pyl, so if the statement in English or Chinese language is added without any reliable source, I will delete it. UU (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia and Tibet are treated the same in terms of its relationship with the ROC Executive Yuan. Therefore, if Tibet is considered part of Greater China, Mongolia ought to be also. Refer to this map [5] The alliance (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about (alleged) opinions of Taiwan's Executive Yuan, it is about a term from the business world. Yaan (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, not once is "the business world" mentioned in the article. Second, I'm just providing another example of what some define as Greater China. Third, if it truly is about the business world, Tibet would be irrelevant because the percentage of business done in Tibet relative to the rest of Mainland China and Taiwan is negligible. The alliance (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alliance!!! Congratulations for your great appetite. Eat Tibet, eat Xinjian and now eat Mongolia as well. Bon appetite!!! Gantuya eng (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not going to contribute to the discussion with civility, it would be best for you to remain silent. I am trying to understand why there are inconsistencies in what constitutes "Greater China" not trying to advocate for irredentism. The alliance (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a Taipei Trade and Economic Representative Office in Lhasa? And again, I don't see what alleged relationships of Taiwans Executive Yuan have to do with this article. If you read carefully (or do a text search), you will find words like "commercial ties" and even a sentence like "The concept is a generalization to group several markets seen to been closely linked economically and does not imply sovereignty." In fact, the article even claims the term Greater China was invented by economists, not by some island's renegade government. Yaan (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you, The alliance, think linking to the predatory map outlawed long ago from "China" article is civility? Wherever I see such a predatory map, I'll never be silent. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor 204.115.121.5[edit]

Those persistent attempts by anonymous editor under IPs 98.207.166.114 and 204.115.121.5 to describe an independent country to be a member of so called "Greater China" is driven by clearly political interests. This person makes special efforts to veil her/his POV under pretext of economic dependence. Many countries are economically interdependent with China, and this person's attempt to single out Mongolia to include her in this category is surprising and worrying as it borders with irredentism. Mongolia culturally belongs to the nomadic cultures of Eurasia while Chinese culture is not nomadic. Mongolian economy is heavily dependent on Russia as she has to purchase 90% of oil products from Russia. In this sense, Mongolia may better fit in a category of "Greater Russia". It is said the Mongolians fry Erlian potato on Gusinoozersk fire. Even potato is now imported less as Mongolian crop production started reviving. Moreover it's globally recognised that Chinese products are of extremely poor quality and often harmful. Chinese toys contain lead. Mongolia has banned import of melanin milk from China. I'd advise the anonymous editor to be courageous to login before editing. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I call anonymous editor 204.115.121.5 to stop the edit war and elaborate it in the talk page. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
crop production in mongolia? you must be joking. nothing grows on the steppe or desert.
Have you been in school? Have a courage to sign like this. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and i think you mean lead not mercury

(one edit to Gantuya's talk reverted) First off, in my understanding Greater China is not an ideological term like Greater Germany or Greater Serbia, it's simply a term to refer to some countries (or non-countries) with very similar (business) culture. So it's more like Benelux or Nordic countries/Scandinavia. The countries and non-coutries meant to form the Greater China region are, AFAIK, usually the PRC, the ROC, and the SARs. Sometimes Singapore is also meant to be included. I have yet to come across some serious source for including Malaysia or Mongolia ([http://www.trade.gov does not seem to be among them, or I did not look hard enough). But if such sources can be provided, we should also mention this in the article, no matter how wrong we may find this personally. Of course we could then also mention that Mongolians don't like this label to be applied to them, with sources. Yaan (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Yaan is basically correct. The name "Greater China" is unfortunately inaccurate because it includes non-China countries like Taiwan and Singapore, but accuracy concerns not withstanding, "Greater China" is a name that is used. The reason to include or exclude Mongolia is unrelated to its independent status. Nor is the claim made by Taiwan in its constitution to be the legitimate government of Mongolia relevant. Readin (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This term is similar to the offensive term "Sixteenth republic". Gantuya eng (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to explain what you mean by "sixteenth republic". As for the offensiveness of the term "Greater China", it surely is offensive. It is offensive to Taiwan as it implies Taiwan is not a country, and it should be offensive to Chinese as it implies they have imperialist ambitions (unfortunately they seem to actually have those ambitions and thus may not find the term offensive). Mongolians probably feel the term is offensive for similar reasons. But that is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't shy away from offensive terms. It describes their use. For including or excluding Mongolia, offensiveness is not the question, usage is. Readin (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16th Soviet Socialist Republic. kind of like 51st state.
But then, I guess 16th SSR had at least some on-the ground basis (say, architecture, school system and so on). Including Mongolia into a "Greater China" or "China Economic Area" seems to have no basis except maybe transport routes.
But I agree usage is the important factor here, even if only with relevant sources. We can still point out that Mongolians reject the term. Yaan (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REading is a DPP agent[edit]

readin has a pro independnce agenda he wants to push on taiwan. taiwan's consitution claims its the republic of china and also claims land in china, russia, mongolia, india, north korea, bhutan, tajikistan, and burma. readin is totally wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.73.83 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia??? part of Greater China?[edit]

Sorry - but it is wrong. And comparison to EU while including Taiwan as part... This article can simply be considered as PRC propaganda.

As far as I know, if the editor of mass media includes Singapore as a part of Greater China, he/ she will also include Malaysia as a part of Greater China. File:Greater_China.GIF shows what I mean. UU (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of Greater China is invented outside PRC, in fact the PRC media never used this term until a decade after HK media had been using it. media outside PRC commonly used the term XinMaGangTai (singapore/malaysia/hongkong/taiwan) for several decades now as those are the countries that produces chinese media entertainment(eg. chinese singers). and Zhong(PRC) was added only after PRC opened up. 218.186.17.240 (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "Greater China" is often used in HK, Macau, and Southeast Asia. Chinese people in the US use it sometimes. But it is hardly ever used in Mainland China and Taiwan, especially in MainlandYulouCN (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion?[edit]

This article has been around since 2004 and still only has one reference (and that just noting that the term can be offensive). It's time to either find references or recommend it for deletion.

If anyone thinks it's worth keeping, find references! Readin (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a useless article. Agree to delete. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article has its problems, I don't think it is useless. I'm not against rigorously asking for sources, though. Here's a start:

"For many Asians, "Greater China" conjures up images of Japan's wartime "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." [At one conference in Hongkong, Yaan] consensus eventually emerged, however, that if "greater" was equated with "larger" it was an adequate term to describe the activities in, and interactions between, mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and the offshore islands, and Chinese overseas."

David Shambaugh, "Introduction: The Emergence of 'Greater China'", in The China Quarterly, No. 136, Special Issue: Greater China (Dec., 1993), p. 654


"As is so often the case with the phrase of the moment, however, the precise meaning of "Greater China" (usually rendered as dazhonghua in Chinese) is not entirely clear. [...] Some refer primarily to the commercial ties among ethnic Chinese, whereas others are more interested in cultural interactions, and still others in the prospects for political reunification. Some observers focus exclusively on Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and mainland China, others incorporate Singapore, and still others include the overseas Chinese living in South-east Asia, America and Europe."

Harry Harding, "The Concept of 'Greater China': Themes, Variations and Reservations", in The China Quarterly, No. 136, Special Issue: Greater China (Dec., 1993), p. 660

User:Yaan (talk)

The term is indeed problematic, but it is used commonly, especially in the area of business and economics. For that reason, I think this article should be kept, but its problems should be made aware to the readers.

Currently, the only footnote for this article is incorrect. It says nothing about Taiwan independence supporters finding the term offensive. It simply just says this term is probably OK in the area of business.

As far as my understanding of this term goes, it really just includes mainland China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan - the so called "two coasts four places". I think I made this comment before, I have never heard of the term being used to include Singapore, Malaysia or Mongolia. I think the first quote above may be used for definition purpose.

Also, the diagram has a misspelling of the words, "Hong Kong", in it. If this diagram is going to be redone, I think Singapore and Malaysia should be removed. The occasion to include those places is so rare (if any), it should be totally discounted according to Wikipedia rules.--pyl (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source for including Singapore is the second quote above (by H. Harding). I actually have heard this usage of the term in real life, the rationale being that the biggest population group in Singapore are Chinese. P.S. I guess the first sentence of the first quote is good enough as source for something like "usage of the term may cause offence"? Yaan (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to what I said earlier, when I typed in "greater China" (with quotes) in google, I got about 1.6 million results, and I got 9.25 million results from Yahoo. I am in Taiwan at the moment, and I have problems finding definitional results in English as the search engines here prefer Chinese results so English ones are all the way down the list. With these many results from the two major search engines, this term is, as I said above, a common term.--pyl (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Harding quote is excellent. Too bad we can't copy it word for word as our opening sentence. It concisely defines the term while presenting various points of view on the subject.
The Shambaugh quote provides some good detail for later in the paragraph or for a separate paragraph. Readin (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this as the opening paragraph for the article:

Greater China is a term use to refer to commercial ties, cultural interactions, and prospects for political unification among ethic Chinese. As a "phrase of the moment", the precise meaning is not entirely clear, and people may use it for only the commercial ties, only the cultural actions, or only the political prospects, while others may use it for some combination of three. Usage of the term may also vary as to the geographic regions it is meant to imply. Some usages may include only Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and mainland China, while other usages may include Singapore, and still others may include the overseas Chinese living in South-east Asia, America and Europe.[1] Readin (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the proposal in principle.
I think the rare context that gives rise to the latter meaning should be pointed out. As I said previously, I have never heard of the term being used to include places other than the PRC and the ROC, and "Greater China" is a common term.--pyl (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both sourced definitions include areas outside irredentist claims of the PRC (the Shambaugh quote includes "Chinese overseas"). Please find some evidence that this usage is rare, rather than a matter of your unique experience. Readin (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will see how I go and revert.--pyl (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I typed in "greater china" "hong kong" taiwan macau mainland in google, I got about 20,000 results. There were plenty of definitional results which say "Greater China" means Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and the mainland. For example:-

http://www.routledge.com/books/Economic-Convergence-in-Greater-China-isbn9780415435819 http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~curs/ap21.htm http://www.hku.hk/ccpl/events/otherevents/documents/2007Apr20-Sonny.pdf http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010380377 http://www.hsbc.com.cn/1/2/hsbcpremier/assistance/greater-china-services http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:RaTYhGtJUacJ:english.people.com.cn/200311/05/print20031105_127660.html+%22greater+china%22+%22hong+kong%22+macau+taiwan+mainland&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=tw&client=firefox-a http://www.taipei.org/book/no046/greater.html http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event_summary&event_id=3777

But when I added Singapore, there are only 10,000 results and the results were not really definitonal. Do these searches and it should be clear what the common usage of this term is.--pyl (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of interesting stuff there. I didn't have a lot of time to look over them yet, but I ran across a couple other refs that are interesting:

The Chinese Overseas By Hong Liu Flexible Citizenship By Aihwa Ong

A couple of quick observations: First, most of the sources or the source's authors were from the PRC. It would make sense that such sources would equate "Greater China" with the areas claimed by the PRC. Of course, people in the PRC would also be more likely to use the term. So while it might be right to say that the PRC claims usage is most common when speaking of geography, it would also be correct to point out that this is the most common usage within the PRC.
Second, the queries you ran are hard to judge. "Overseas Chinese", under the irredentist definitions used by the KMT laws and the PRC, normally includes ethnic Chinese living in Singapore. It is hard to know how many of the 27000 hits from googling ""greater china" overseas chinese" would have definitions that would include ethnic Chinese everywhere.
It does look like the term has a lot of different interpretations that we'll need to cover. From the Chinese Overseas" source:

The lack of precision in the term "Greater China" - whether it should cover Hong Kong-Macau (hereafter Hong Kong), Taiwan, and all of the People's Republic of China (PRC) or only parts of it ... If the stress is on the dynamic process of economic integration, then Greater China may mean only the souther coastal provinces, Taiwan (Republic of China), and Hong Kong...However if the emphasis is on the broader picture of cultural China...millions of ethnic Chinese now residing abroad might find it possible to identify with it." This provides definitions that run the gamut from only Taiwan and southern China to all ethnic Chinese no matter where they live.

Readin (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting observation that you've just made (pointing out the sources are relating to the PRC). When you say PRC, do you mean Hong Kong? I think that's where most of the sources are based. In any event, I don't think mainland China likes to use "Greater China" when they talk about Taiwan: they would just use "China". "Greater China" implies that Taiwan is not part of China, which is contrary to their claim.
Singapore is certainly not China, therefore all Singaporeans of Chinese heritage are "overseas Chinese". I don't think there is any conflict in that definition. I can see how Singapore can be included in the definition of "Greater China" if overseas Chinese are considered to be part of the greater Chinese population.
I do agree with you that it seems there are many definitions that need covering. In principle, I have no issue with your proposal above. I just wish that the commonality of "Greater China" meaning Taiwan, Macau, Hong Kong and the mainland could be pointed out. At this stage, I can see that it would be difficult to find sources to scientifically prove that, as it would be logistically impossible to run a survey on this. The common meaning of "Greater China" is exactly that: it is a term in part of people's every day language and the interpretation of the term is subject to people's common experience.
At this stage, I am happy for you to use your proposal in the main text. If you wish to reword the quote that you took from the "Overseas Chinese" article and use it in this article, then please feel free to do so. I think that quote is a fair statement.--pyl (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

usage within PRC[edit]

I've never been a stickler for OR claims because one cannot do any editing without at least making a few conclusions, however small. However, we do not, in the strict sense, have a reliable source saying what the most common usage of "Greater China" is. What we have is WP:OR based on our google searches. Those same google searches, that is the same OR, shows that the usage is predominantly within the PRC or by people from the PRC (and yes, to answer a question, Hong Kong is in the PRC and has been since 1997). Readin (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the results show the sources are mainly from Hong Kong, not the mainland. By saying PRC, it may give the impression that the mainland is trying to include Taiwan using the "greater China" tag. But that's contrary to the fact. As I stated above, the mainland considers Taiwan as part of China, not "greater China". The usage of "greater China" is not a popular one on the mainland compared with "China". Most people would just use the expression "we China" or "we the Chinese" to include Taiwan and the people on Taiwan. We therefore need to be more specific than just saying "PRC", if the area is going to be mentioned at all.--pyl (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
point taken. Readin (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true - hardly anyone in mainland China uses the term. It is not considered neutral there, since the separate concept of "Greater China" implies that Greater China =/= China. It may even be considered offensive by some. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia??[edit]

Malaysia is, without question, not part of Greater China or any conception of the "Sinosphere" -- why is it on the map? At least, the article doesn't mention it at all. I propose the map be edited or deleted, unless someone can supply a new section on how Malaysia is part of "Greater China." The terminology used on the map is also grammatically poor.118.71.8.22 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Some Taiwan independence supporters object to the term as it implies that Taiwan is a part of some concept of China." So if "it implies that Taiwan is a part of some concept of China.", then why should other countries such as Malaysia be shown as part of it? Gantuya eng (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I removed the map. Given that this term is controversial enough as it is, any attempt to provide an illustrative map will imply a political judgment that I think is best avoided, so I propose that the article be left without illustration.118.71.8.143 (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's the solution if they cannot provide a proper map. By the way the whole article seems to invalid and maybe better to delete it. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree.118.71.10.155 (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Harry Harding, "The Concept of 'Greater China': Themes, Variations and Reservations", in The China Quarterly, No. 136, Special Issue: Greater China (Dec., 1993), p. 660

"Shanghai" wiki article states HK vs. Shanghai for dominance in "Greater China"[edit]

"Shanghai and Hong Kong are rivaling to be the economic center of the Greater China region. Hong Kong has the advantage of a stronger legal system, international market integration, superior economic freedom, greater banking and service expertise, lower taxes, and a fully-convertible currency. Shanghai has stronger links to both the Chinese interior and the central government, and a stronger base in manufacturing and technology."

-Shanghai's Economy section, wiki article

Many articles online state that Shanghai is China's undisputed financial hub.

What about Hong Kong? I mean, clearly HK got the advantage over Shanghai since it's technically the most wealthy region/city in China today.

I guess the difference is Shanghai is mainland China's financial hub where as Hong Kong is Greater China's financial hub.

Kokang[edit]

Should Kokang be mentioned in this article? 76.66.202.213 (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topographic context[edit]

Can someone expand the info on the topographic usage from the 1930's? A map to go with it would be good. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source Material[edit]

Recently the lead paragarph was rewritten and two sources that were written specifically about the topic of "Greater China" were removed and replaced with an unsourced statement. Please make sure you have sources of equal or better quality when replacing sourced material. Readin (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD & PRIMARYTOPIC[edit]

Although the article itself admits as much, the current lead is misinformed or narrow to the point of violating WP:BIAS and WP:LIE. "Greater China" is not business jargon "of the moment": it's a phrase well older than 1930 that serves two purposes: recognizing a unity to the Chinese state or nation while simultaneously asserting the existence of a China Proper that's distinguishable from this "Greater" China. Under the Qing, Republic, and early People's Republic, it distinguished the Han-dominated areas from the Qing hinterlands; only in modern contexts, it is used as a means of lumping the PRC and ROC together while simultaneously denying the Chinese claims that there is a single China being run according to two systems. Both should be addressed well by the article in the lead as well as the running text.

Meanwhile, while that can be called the Sinophone world (if one is willing to lump Singapore in as well), neither has anything to do with the Sinosphere, which includes both Koreas, Japan, and Vietnam at the very least.

Meanwhile, Greater China can also be used to describe all of the territories claimed presently or historically by the ROC (see Administrative divisions of the Republic of China for maps including all of Mongolia and parts of nearly every neighboring country) and the PRC (see territorial disputes of China, particularly the Diaoyu Islands, NE India, and the South China Sea). — LlywelynII 07:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where should the redirects Chinese region and China (region) be targeted?[edit]

The two redirects Chinese region and China (region) are currently being discussed at RfD, where you're welcome to comment. – Uanfala (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"M-pop" redirect[edit]

In the introduction, within the phrase "Chinese-language television, film and music entertainment", the word "music" is linked to a redirect titled "M-pop", which redirects to a page about Malaysian pop music. I assume that this isn't actually what the sentence in the article is referring to. Is the sentence actually supposed to refer to Mandopop, or Chinese pop music more broadly? Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in finance[edit]

I have removed the "Usage in finance" section, added by an IP a long time ago, as it had numerous problems. My attention was drawn to it by the link rot as a number of its links were dead, whether archived or not. This is as they were to products of companies, ones that were no longer being sold perhaps. Not reliable sources even if archived copies could be found, and the way they were used were as primary sources, making the section OR, out of date, with undue weight given to that particular use.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_China/Archive_1&oldid=1075132612"