Jump to content

Talk:Mainland China/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

First Archive 

   * 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
   * 12 The term "mainland China"
   * 13 Original Article POV
   * 14 "Continental"

contained at Talk:Mainland China/Archive 1

"Informal"

Whether the term is informal and used only in informal contexts is disputed. See /archive 1 for arguments previously presented. — Instantnood 12:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

tl;dr, but nobody there is agreeing with you, and that conversation is from March 2005. Are you going to leave this dubious template in the article until 2007 when you obviously have no concensus? SchmuckyTheCat 15:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Who's telling you there's nobody? Am I the only participants in the discussion to have such view? What about the facts that several participants had presented? — Instantnood 16:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
You linked to "Edits by Huaiwei" and the only conversation there is between you and Huaiwei, except at the end, where an anon comes along and disagrees with you as well. So yes, I'm telling me there's nobody and that you are the only participant in that section that agrees with you and the several participants in the section "edits by Huaiwei" are figments of your imagination because they don't exist. SchmuckyTheCat 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read other sections in the page as well. User:Huaiwei and I are not the only participants. And please note #Edits by Huaiwei and #Factual accuracy of the article are not the only linked sections from here. — Instantnood 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
OIC, you've linked to several sections in one word. tl;dr, but it still appears that consensus exists that the term is informal (though sometimes used formally) and usually (but not always) excluded HK and MO. SchmuckyTheCat 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any evidence presented showing it's always informal and never formal? Is there any evidence presented justifying that it's usually but not always excludes? How would you justify your bold claim that user:Huaiwei and I were the only participants? — Instantnood 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
If it's not informal and if it's not formal, how about simply removing the word "informal"? I don't see every term in Wikipedia being dubbed with "informal" or "formal", and since it's contested here it's quite unnecessary. Aran|heru|nar 09:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Usually excludes"

Whether the term always or " usually excludes ", as said by the article, is disputed. See /archive 1 for arguments previously presented. — Instantnood 12:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

nobody there is agreeing with you, and that conversation is from March 2005. Are you going to leave this dubious template in the article until 2007 when you obviously have no concensus? SchmuckyTheCat 15:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the dubious template will stay there forever. Because Instantnood and Huaiwei will never agree. Every article about China has these two people arguing. Usually Instantnood is right - he is also right in this case. The wording should just be "..however, it excludes the two.." without any mention of always or usually. 219.77.110.110 13:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to my response above. — Instantnood 16:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
You linked to the "factual accuracy" section of the archive. The only conversation there is between you and Huaiwei. It stands to reason that you're pounding sand. The term does not always exclude, so the word "usually" is appropriate here. SchmuckyTheCat 17:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to my response above. — Instantnood 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Huaiwei

---I agree. The USA also has terrorities outside its mainland, such as Hawaii, and Alaska, but you wouldn't hear of anyone refering to USA as mainland USA, unless it was a Hawaiin, Puerto Rican or Eskimo speaking. Likewise, we shouldn't refer to China as mainland because it would be following the speech of Taiwanese, rather than going with what locals say, which would typically be "guonei". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie (talk • contribs) 15:00, March 12, 2006 (UTC)

FWTFIW, the Mainland is used to refer to the “lower 48” in Alaska, although I’ve been told its use is usually facetious, and my homegirl’s staying in Hawai‘i right now; the Mainland is definitely used there, too. I’ve used Mainland in a U.S. context ’cause it’s fewer syllables than 48 states; if another English speaker tells me the Mainland in reference to China, I assume they’re excluding the SARs. Otherwise the standard term is "China." —Wiki Wikardo 6 in the bloody morning, 23 April 2006 (PDST)
At most time when the press talks about China, they're actually meaning mainland China. In every issue of The Economist, for instance, separate figures for "China", "Hong Kong" and "Taiwan" are listed on its last page. The same is true for stories in newspapers and news magazines, as well as TV news channels. Sometimes the word China does, however, include Hong Kong and Macao, but that really depends on the contexts. News articles are catered for general audience who don't have to posess much knowledge with the subject matter. That's not the case for Wikipedia, an encyclopædia. — Instantnood 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Careful there Chinoiserie - we aren't in the business of saying what terms people 'should' use. In fact, 'the mainland' is commonly and consistently used (at least here in Hong Kong) in exactly the way this article describes. Earthlyreason 08:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ma Ying-jeou is not a Hong Konger

Last I noticed, he was using his ROC passport, not his Hong Kong SAR passport to travel. I really don't see how Ma is Hongkonger. Citation for this?--Jiang 08:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add that. But I re-wrote the chingrish of the person who did, and after reading the pages mainlander and ma ying-jeou, I reverted Instantnoods removal of it. I'm not all that familiar with the man at all, other than reading here. A quick google search did turn up that "political rivals accusation that he was a 'Hong Konger' and not Taiwanese," [1]. So obviously some people do claim he is. Maybe the other user is Taiwanese and disagrees politically with Ma and wants him considered a Hongkonger. To me, it illustrates that (some) Taiwanese consider Hongkongers to be mainlanders and that's an important addition to the article. SchmuckyTheCat 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Average Hongkonger are not considered by Taiwanese to be Mainlanders. Ma was born in Kowloon, with little, if not no, connection with Hong Kong other than his place of birth. And that's the only reason he's called a Hongkonger by pro-independence politicians, e.g. Chen Shui Bian, who said Ma was " 香港腳走香港路 " (going Hong Kong's way with Hong Kong feet) in an interview. — Instantnood 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly a fringe view. Ma spent a total of one year in Hong Kong, and his parents were not permanantly settled there. I am removing the reference since one article consisting of political mudslinging does not constitute verification that people truly identify Ma as a Hong Konger. If I tried to call John McCain "Panamanian" I would be promptly reverted.--Jiang 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that it is fringe, political insults often are. The point that the article should make then is: 1) that politicians use the "mainlander" designation in an insulting way to imply divided loyalties and 2) that there are Taiwanese that call Hongkongers "mainlanders". SchmuckyTheCat 22:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Point (1) is not made through the example of Ma Ying-jeou and point (2) is irrelevant because Ma Ying-jeou is not a Hongkonger. Actually, I would argue that neither terms (waishengren and daluren) are actively applied to Hongkongers at all. The sentence "Political opponents of Kuomintang politician Ma Jing-yeuo have used his Hong Kong birth to disparage him as a mainlander." does not make sense because it is not his HK birth that necessarily makes him a mainlander, but his family's origins in Hunan (both his parents were from Hunan and fled to Taiwan at the end of the Chinese Civil War). On the flip side, Lien Chan was born in Xian, but is not usually called a "mainlander" because his father (and his father's family) were from Taiwan and fled to the mainland during the Japanese colonization. Ma Ying-jeou's birth is irrelevant here: had he been born in Taiwan, he would still be called a mainlander on acct of his family origins.--Jiang 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(no section title)

"The term Mainlander can also refer to dàlù rén (大陸人, literal meaning: "Mainland person(s)"), meaning the people who live on the Mainland now and the very small number of people who have emigrated to Taiwan recently." This passage does not make sense. Apley. 4-28-2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.94.156 (talk • contribs) 08:01, April 29, 2006 (UTC).

Well, it makes some sense to me, though I agree it's not exactly well-written. Aran|heru|nar 09:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

English term "Mainland China" considered inappropriate in PRC

The term "Mainland China" implies that there exists another "Taiwan China", leading to the existence of "Two Chinas", which is considered inacceptable by the PRC government.

The politically correct English term is "the Chinese Mainland" or "the Chinese Motherland". These are the terms that you will hear on the government controlled Chinese Central Television (CCTV). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooxuexue (talk • contribs) 22:49, May 3, 2006 (UTC).

regarding cross-strait relations, they use "the mainland" or "the Chinese mainland" as it were a political entity synonymous with the central people's government, such as "15 new policies announced recently by the Chinese mainland to benefit Taiwan compatriots".--Jiang 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this (17600) convincing enough? — Instantnood 14:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hainan

Probably should also be some mention of Hainan, which is considered part of "Mainland China" politically (if not geographically) 82.35.13.34 19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it mentioned in the map? :-D This term is rarely defined and comprehended geographically, by the way. — Instantnood 21:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


References and sources

The administrator demand for references and sources is too severe. Many of those highlighted points are merely part of the basic definition. The expression is in widespread usage, so it's hard to do more than provide examples. (But some statements do need backing up, just not all of them.) Earthlyreason 08:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Should Taiwan be mentioned?

The definition of mainland China says:-

"...is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area currently governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), including off-shore islands."

Taiwan is commonly known that it is not governed by the PRC. Should it even be mentioned at all? I wouldn't personally.--Pyl (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people have the impression that Taiwan is part of China. And there are maps made by otherwise reliable sources that show Taiwan as part of the PRC. So yes, the clarification is necessary. Readin (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

?????

"Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area currently governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), including off-shore islands." Why would the term "Mainland" include the islands? That's contradictory isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.165.147 (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a political term, not a geographical one. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Contradiction

The opening two paragraphs say:

Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area currently governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), including off-shore islands. In English speech and writing, the distinction is not always made, and a reference to "China" is an implicit reference to the PRC.

The term usually does not include the two Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau, and the term never includes Taiwan, which the PRC has never controlled.

This needs some rewording and clarification as it can't both be true that "mainland China" refers to areas currently governed by the PRC and that it doesn't refer to HK and Macau.

As I understand it, or have seen it used, in the context of HK-Macau, "mainland China" always excludes HK and Macau. But in the context of Taiwan, the usage depends on what is being discussed. When discussing the politics of relations between Taiwan and China, "mainland China" refers to the PRC and thus includes HK and Macau. While if you're talking about economics, travel, or other non-political topics, "mainland China" doesn't include HK and Macau. Readin (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the same problem and I tried to change it. Look at it now and see if it's more accurate. Colipon+(T) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Pretty good. I fixed one typo and I changed the description of Taiwan as "currently" under a separate government. Saying Taiwan is not "currently" part of PRC is incomplete and even misleading or POV as it implies Taiwan was or will be part of PRC.Readin (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The said term is misleading only when you choose to interpret it that way.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"de facto" and UN

The ROC controls Taiwan. There is no need to get redundant by saying "de facto". The subject of the article is not the Political Status of Taiwan, nor is it the UN's POV on that status. We need to be clear why "mainland China" never includes Taiwan, but we don't need to get into a long debate over whether the PRC's claims to Taiwan are legitimate or whether Taiwan rightfully be enslaved by her imperialistic neighbor across the strait. It is enough to explain that Taiwan is not considered part of "mainland China" because it is not governed by China, and for NPOV purposes to mention that China claims Taiwan. Readin (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We have to represent a neutral point of view. Taiwan is only de facto governed by the ROC, but de jure governed by the PRC. I will reinstate that part, but I will leave out the rest on the UN. Jkliajmi (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
From Merriam Webster "de jure" 1  : by right : of right 2  : based on laws or actions of the state <de jure segregation>
To say Taiwan is controlled by PRC "by right" is unquestionably a violation of NPOV. Even to say it is governed by the PRC "based on laws of the state" is problematic because it is unclear in this case which state your talking about. Certainly by the laws of the state that governs Taiwan, Taiwan is not governed by PRC. And unquestionably Taiwan is not governed by PRC by action of any state. Readin (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The terms de facto and de jure are inappropriate here, because of the catch-22. Each state regards itself as the de jure government of China, and the other as the de facto government of the part of China they don't control.

macdaddy

The term de facto is very appropriate here for distinguishing the claims being made versus the realities on the ground. The de facto situation - who really has boots on the ground and is able to exercise their authority - is that the PRC governs China (or "mainland China and Hong Kong" as they would call it) and the ROC governs Taiwan. That's not POV that's just simple reality that both countries acknowledge in various ways.
You're right that both the ROC and PRC make claims on each other's territory, and each in their own law is the de jure government of "all of China" as they like to define it. But the term de jure can still be useful so long as we are careful how we use it and describe whose point-of-view is being described when necessary.Readin (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of mainland China

I think the current opening sentence is wrong. For the purpose of this discussion, I will reproduce here, as follows:-

"Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area that is culturally and legally associated with the territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC) currently under the direct political control of Beijing."

Hong Kong and Macau are also under the direct political control of Beijing. They are not under any indirect control at all. Their Basic Laws are PRC law, and the political system of these two SARs are granted by these Basic Laws.

I think we should change the sentence to:-

"..... the People's Republic of China (PRC) where a socialist system of economy is implemented."

A socialist system of economy is the most unambiguous way to differentiate mainland China from capitalist Hong Kong and Macau (or Taiwan by way of the PRC claim).--pyl (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Pyl, first, thanks for bringing this to the talk page, rather than making the change - I really appreciate that. As for the substance of your comment, I think the focus of the article (or at least the lead sentence) is not to differentiate between the PRC and Hong Kong or Macau, but rather to differentiate a geographic area on the Asian continent from offshore parts (ie. the ROC) not under the PRC's control. So, rather than including the description of the PRC's economy, we should just trim the sentence to say:
"Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area that is culturally and legally associated with the territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC) currently under the direct political control of Beijing."
Hopefully that might reduce any confusion between the PRC/Hong Kong/Macau and the ROC. -- Folic_Acid | talk  19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Removing "direct control" would be a problem as the definition would no longer exclude HK and Macau, which are generally not considered part of mainland China. I don't understand Pyl's concern with the "direct control". The PRC makes laws directly for mainland China. It says "Factory A should stop producing during the Olympics", and the order is followed. With HK, the PRC almost always acts through a second level in the form of the Basic Law and the HK government. It is a level of indirection in control even if it is not a restriction on the control.
Perhaps another way of saying it would be "Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area that was culturally and legally associated with the territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC) prior to the 1997 and 1999 handovers of Hong Kong and Macau."
Or simply "Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the areas other than Hong Kong and Macau that are the territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC)." Readin (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(out dent for easier reading)

Direct political control is an ambiguous term, that's my issue. "Basic Law" is an instrument of direct political control that Beijing uses on Hong Kong, as far as I am concerned. It is a PRC law after all.

Then there is an issue of conflicting definitions. Look at this opening paragraph:-

"Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area that is culturally and legally associated with the territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC) currently under the direct political control of Beijing. This means that the term usually does not include the two Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau."

The first sentence, with readin's interpretation, defines that "mainland China" does not include the SARs. Then you have the "usually does not include" in the 2nd sentence. Does it or does it not include Hong Kong or Macau?

If we are giving a definition, we need to be precise. Should we find a way to merge the two sentences so the definitions are no longer in conflict?

Maybe, we can start with readin's definition here?

"Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the areas other than Hong Kong and Macau that are the territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC)"

When those old nationalists in Taiwan say "take back the mainland", they may mean a mainland that includes Hong Kong and Macau (SchmuckyTheCat's example in talk:Hong Kong). But this usage is so old and outdated I don't think we should pay undue attention to it. And really, they always say "the mainland" instead of neutral term of "mainland China". I don't know of any usage of "mainland China" that includes the two SARs myself. Maybe we can remove "the mainland" from the opening sentence and give it a separate definition elsewhere in the article.--pyl (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say the area currently under the jurisdiction of the PRC "excluding Hong Kong and Macao"??Colipon+(T) 21:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should just do that.--pyl (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
As alluded in the discussion above, the "mainland" do not always exclude Hong Kong and Macau thou. The above statement is thus incorrect from the word go, and certainly not helped since much of this article is unreferenced anyway.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you give examples of any usage of "mainland China" that includes Hong Kong and Macau? As I said above, I don't know of any (other than the obsolete old KMT usage). Thank you.--pyl (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Obsolete as it may be, that usage has existed. Considering that Taiwan routinely refers to the PRC as simply "mainland China" for the sake of using a more "politically neutral term", to say it always excludes HK and Macau means Taiwan is not recognising Beijing's sovereignty over the two SARs each time it is used, and I do not think that is what the sentence is trying to suggest here?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The current definition says:-

"Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area that is culturally and economically associated with the territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC), usually excluding the Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau. The term also never includes Taiwan, which is claimed by the PRC, but is currently under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (ROC). The term in the Chinese language may or may not include Hainan Island, which is geographically separate. In Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao, the term is a politically neutral method of referring to the Mainland region."

I think we can change it to:-

"Mainland China or Continental China, is a neutral geopolitical term synonymous with the area that is under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC), usually excluding the Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau. The term never includes Taiwan, which is claimed by the PRC, but is currently under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (ROC)."

This way, we allow for the queries that mainland China sometimes includes HK and Macau (although I don't see any real usages yet but I am happy to give it the benefit of doubt). This also excludes the unnecessary clarification of Hainan in Chinese usage. I also removed "the mainland" as it is not a political neutral term. It implies that Taiwan is part of China. We can talk about "the mainland" later in the article. The proposed paragraph is more concise, easier to read and there is no conflict of definition any more.--pyl (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"The mainland" should remain in the lead. It may be an out-of-date term, but it clarifies a term still used and a political position still held by old men who still hold political office. It's a necessary inclusion to understand slogans from the last half-century. Some mention of Hainan should exist later in the article just for clarification because it is a common question. The rest seems like a good edit to make a shorter easier definition. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree that we can discuss Hainan later for the sake of clarification.
I think we can do "the mainland" later as well though because the proposed definition says "mainland china" is a neutral geopolitical term" and "the mainland" is not. We can specify later in the article that "the mainland" is a POV term for "mainland China" as it implies that Taiwan is part of China and this term is more likely to include HK and Macau when it is used.--pyl (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Or just remove "neutral" from the lead, because some uses of "mainland China" are neutral and some are not, it depends on the speaker and the context. "the mainland" is used neutrally as well as non-neutrally. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

While I appreciate the initiative to trim the paragraph down, I must caution against the removal of references to Hainan and other offshore islands of the PRC. A truly "nuetral" term is one which is based on geography, and not politics, so based on strict geography, the Chinese mainland or Continental China should refer to the PRC minus all of its offshore islands. This is clearly not the case, which is why this must be mentioned. In fact, "neutral geopolitical" sounds self-contradictory as it stands.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to keep "the mainland" and remove the word "neutral". It is not necessarily neutral, though we use it as it is as close as we can reasonably get. Perfect neutrality is generally impossible with repect to issues that involve Taiwan and China, so we need to do the best we can and sometimes compromise to avoid making text too long and unreable (by, for example, replacing every instance of "mainland China" with a definition explaining exact boundaries). I'm sympathetic to keeping the references to Hainan but I admit I know little about it. Readin (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the word "currently" from the statement about Taiwan not being controlled by China as the word suggests a temporary status, breaking NPOV. "has never" was less POV as it stated a truth without making any suggesting any speculative future conditions.
"under the jurisdiction" is strange and awkward wording. It sounds like their is a single government that has granted power (i.e. "jurisdiction") to local governments. Although after looking up the word, ("the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law") it looks like it has a very similar definition "sovereignty", which some would call POV from the other direction. What's wrong with simply "controlled" or "governed"? Readin (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback guys. They have been constructive.
Jurisdiction is a legal (and proper) term. A state has two things, sovereignty and jurisdiction. The Chinese sovereignty according to the two governments is not divided after the Chinese civil war (hence "one China"), but the jurisdiction has. 'Govern' can imply having both sovereignty and jurisdiction, and as sovereignty is disputed, we can't neutrally use 'govern'. 'Control' can imply illegitimacy, ie military control, militia control etc.
The definition has it stand does not remove any offshore islands or Hainan from "mainland China". As long as the islands are under the jurisdictions of the ROC or PRC respectively, they are included in the definition. If Hainan is sometimes removed from the definition in Chinese usage, then I think we can talk about it later in the article for the "interesting to know" factor. The definition shouldn't mention it. This is an English encyclopaedia and we cater for our readers' needs. Just to clarify, the following is the statement that I am removing from the current main text as a result of my proposed statement:-
"The term in the Chinese language may or may not include Hainan Island, which is geographically separate." (statement to be removed)
After considering all the feedbacks, I think we can remove the word neutral but reinsert the term "the mainland". I also removed the word "currently" per Readin's suggestion. The proposed paragraph is:-
"Mainland China or Continental China or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term synonymous with the area that is under the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC), usually excluding the Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau. The term never includes Taiwan, which is claimed by the PRC, but is under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (ROC)."--pyl (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some defintions from Merrian-Webster:

  • Sovereignty - supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control
  • Jurisdiction - the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the PRC and ROC agree that "supreme power over a body politic" is not divided, that neither the PRC nor the ROC exercise supreme power within their arias. And you're also saying that the PRC and ROC agree that "the ... right... to interpret or apply the law" is divided, such that the ROC belives the PRC rightfully rules China, and the PRC agrees that the ROC rightfully rules Taiwan. That is completely opposite of what how I understand teh positions of the two governments. Of course, this distinction you're making is harder to follow given a second definition for one of the words (emphasis added):

  • Jurisdiction - the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate.

So if the PRC believes the ROC has jurisdiction over Taiwan, then the PRC also believes the ROC is a sovereign state.

This does not fit without I understand the situation. And you also want to claim that "govern" is not neutral because govern "imply having both sovereignty and jurisdiction". So when we talk about "local governments", "state governments", "county governments", "city governments" and "student body governments" we're implying that all those entities are sovereign? Does you honestly believe that calling those entities "governments" implies in some way that they are sovereign? Readin (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the definitions of the terms by looking up a non-legal dictionary. "Sovereign" and "jurisdiction" can be seen as similar but they are different. They are hard terms to explain by just a few words, but I will give you examples and I hope you can understand the differences. If you have further queries, I would suggest that you research into law books on public international law (not private international law).
Both governments maintain that the Chinese sovereignty was not divided as a result of the civil war. That is, the sovereignty of China is exercised by only one government. This is where "One China" is from. Most governments in the world agree that the Chinese sovereignty is exercised by the PRC, but some governments agree that the Chinese sovereignty is exercised by the ROC. There is only one seat in the UN because the Chinese sovereignty is not divided. On the other hand, the Korean sovereignty is divided into North Korea and South Korea.
Jurisdiction is scope where the national laws reach. If a foreigner commits a crime in mainland China, the ROC will not try the person with ROC's criminal laws. Similarly, if a foreign company fails some contractual obligations in Taiwan, the PRC courts will not hear the matter. I didn't use citizens as examples as I don't want to go into the concept of "Chinese citizen".
In respect of the word 'govern', if you read my previous statement again, you will notice that I said it can imply a government having both sovereignty and jurisdiction. I didn't say that it always does, but the possibility already makes the term "govern" ambiguous. Under international law, a government in order to govern has to have both sovereign and jurisdiction. The PRC will dispute that the ROC has the soverignty to 'govern' and vice versa. Also, in this case, we are talking about central governments. I don't think we need to bring in local or state governments into this: local and state governments are authorised by the central government to act.
I hope that has clarified your queries. The word jurisdiction is the proper and unambiguous word to use for states and governments.--pyl (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood the definitions of the terms by looking up a non-legal dictionary. Wikipedia is not a legal document nor is it intended as a source strictly for lawyers.
I don't think jurisdiction is such a difficult word that common people will have problems to understand. I say common people will assume that jurisdiction means sovereignty. It is not the case in law, but even with this erroneous assumption, the main purpose of defining mainland China is achieved, as the definition accurately draws a division between the two areas without having the PRC complaining about the definition being unneutral.
Similarly, if a foreign company fails some contractual obligations in Taiwan, the PRC courts will not hear the matter. Has anyone tried?
I don't think that's an act that any lawyers would advise their clients to do, unless they want to be disbarred.
In respect of the word 'govern', if you read my previous statement again, you will notice that I said it can imply a government having both sovereignty and jurisdiction. I completely disagree with you there. The word "govern" makes no such implication and that is why it is used at all levels of government. I've provided a reliable source for the standard meanings of these words. A legal definition is fine for a legal reference book or a legal pleading, but this is neither of those. Readin (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said, we are talking about central governments. I find myself repeating. "Govern" can imply having both sovereignty and jurisdiction. That's why the PRC never calls the ROC a government, they say the "Taiwan authority" instead of the "Taiwan government".
Readin said:-
"A legal definition is fine for a legal reference book or a legal pleading, but this is neither of those."
The fact that you didn't know the accurate definition doesn't mean the definition doesn't exist. Please don't use your personal experience to reflect on the definition. In this case that we are facing, I don't think using the word "jurisdiction" is intentionally legalistic or making the definition hard to read. It is just the accurate word. Please don't belittle or disregard the accurate definition because you don't know it is the accurate one.
If you insists on use "govern", use govern, but it is a wrong word and it makes the encyclopaedia looks amateur.--pyl (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just did a quick search and note that the following articles have correct use of the terms 'jurisdiction' and 'sovereignty':-

Political status of Taiwan

"Currently, Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and some other minor islands effectively make up the jurisdiction of the state known as the Republic of China."
"The ROC claims to meet all these criteria as it possesses a sovereign government exercising effective jurisdiction over well-defined territories with over 23 million permanent residents and a full fledged foreign ministry."
"Therefore, the PRC believes that it is within their legal rights to extend its jurisdiction to Taiwan, by military means if necessary."
"The Democratic Progressive Party states that Taiwan has never been under the jurisdiction of the PRC, and that the PRC does not exercise any hold over the 23 million Taiwanese on the island."

China and the United Nations

"They emphasize that the PRC government has never held jurisdiction over Taiwan and that the United Nations has never taken a formal stance regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan."

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

"Opponents of ROC admission to the UN argue that the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China with Taiwan islands as part of it. The representation of Taiwan islands is already included in Chinese representation in the UN. However, since in reality the PRC holds no jurisdiction over Taiwan, this interpretation is controversial."

Anti-Secession Law

"Opinion polls indicated a widespread opposition to the law among the general public. Some questioned whether Beijing has the authority to issue such a law as Taiwan is not under the PRC jurisdiction"

So 'jurisdiction' is not a rare word for Wikipedia articles.--pyl (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the opening paragraphs of this article. If there are any issues, I am happy to discuss here.--pyl (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

map

The map shows mainland China (excluding HK), HK, and Taiwan. However only two of those areas are sometimes considered part of "mainland China". Taiwan should be removed from the map. Readin (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood that to be what the map means -- the yellow is "Mainland China," the green is not, and there is an inset showing Taiwan so that you can see that they are different colors -- also, I think it's there to show that Quemoy is not part of mainland China either. But that was just my reaction -- might be confusing to others, since it's not well-marked.118.71.10.146 (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalised or uncapitalised?

I've always understood that, similar to "Central" in "Central Europe", "Delta" in "Mississippi Delta", "Lower" in "Lower Silesia", "Greater" in "Greater Manchester", where an area is well-known, it should be capitalised. Here's what the AP style editor has to say:

"• Geography, addresses (state names, regions: Mideast; Northwest; northeast Minnesota; 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.; Fifth Avenue ...)

Q: If we're speaking about regions of the state, should it be South Louisiana, North Louisiana and Central Louisiana? A: Lowercase the compass point - central Louisiana -- unless it's a widely known section, as in Southern California or South Florida. " Wiki also says this:

"In general, the first letter is capitalized for well-defined regions, e.g. South America, Lower California, Tennessee Valley

This general rule also applies to zones of the Earth’s surface (North Temperate Zone, the Equator). In other cases, do not capitalize the points of the compass (north China, south-east London) or other adjectives (western Arizona, central New Mexico, upper Yangtze, lower Rio Grande) Capitalize generic geographic terms that are part of a place name (Atlantic Ocean, Mt. Muztagata, River Severn) Otherwise, do not capitalize a generic term that follows a capitalized generic term (Yangtze River valley) Use lower case for plurals of generic terms (Gobi and Taklamakan deserts); but "the Dakotas" Only capitalize "the" if it is part of the (short-form) formal place name (The Gambia, The Hague vs. the Netherlands, the Sudan, and the Philippines) Upper case: East Asia, South-East Asia, Central Asia, Central America, North Korea, South Africa, the North Atlantic, the Middle East, The Arctic, The Hague, The Gambia"

And the Wiki style guide also says this:

"Regions that are proper nouns, including widely known expressions such as Southern California, start with a capital letter. Follow the same convention for related forms: a person from the Southern United States is a Southerner."

i.e., where the geographical area indicated is a well-known one, it should be capitalised in its entirety. Therefore it should be "Mainland China", not "mainland China". FOARP (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Per previous usage, "mainland China" is not capitalized. It isn't a proper noun. It isn't typically capitalized by sources. It isn't typically capitalized in other articles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

cultural usage in Taiwan

The article contains some information about the history of the term and its usage in Taiwan. Does anyone know about "neidi"? I ran across some interesting information on this blog Kafkaesque Life. I believe the information is probably correct however the blog is obviously not reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Does anyone know about this distinction between dalu and neidi, and does anyone know where we might get a reliable source for it? Readin (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your link was broken; here is the fix. In contraposition to the blogger, I don't agree that neidi implies that Taiwan - if contrasted to neidi - is part of China more than dalu. It's like saying "the Netherlands vs. the German hinterland". Ambiguous until clarified. Actually, in the politicization of this term around cross-strait relations, we forget that both dalu and neidi imply some sort of separateness from the rest of China, because you are not treating Taiwan on par with any province, but with almost the entire country.
I was listening to a podcast by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (despite its name, a front organization for secessionists) and the narrator was talking about searching the Chinese-language internet for information on his pet project. Uyghur girls, he claimed, were being lured to "mainland China" ostensibly to work in factories, but in reality to be impaled upon multitudes of Han phalluses to eradicate his people by miscegenation. Okay, the political point was a little crazy, but I did find it interesting how he used "mainland" to contrast with southern Xinjiang, since normally we think of it from the eastern seaboard perspective. I think he was probably translating "neidi" in his mind, since "dalu" couldn't possibly make sense.
Oh, you wanted reliable sources? The closest I could find for now is this editorial from eTaiwanNews, which unfortunately isn't admissible. But it tells us that the term "mainland China" (neidi) is formally defined in the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangements with Hong Kong and Macau. Confusingly, according to the editorial, neidi includes both SARs, but according to our CEPA articles, it does not. Shrigley (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Any idea what a literal transation of "neidi" would be? Readin (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say "inland China". But when I went to consult published sources (see below), I saw that this translation is used only to contrast with western Chinese areas, and not to Taiwan or Hong Kong, for which a more popular translation for "neidi" is "mainland China" (too many to list).
  • Goldstein, Melvyn C. (2007). A History of Modern Tibet: The Calm Before the Storm: 1951-1955. Vol. 2. p. 248. One obvious option—transporting food by yak caravan from inland Chinese areas (tib. nang sa; ch. neidi), such as Sichuan or Qinghai—was not immediately feasible.
  • Zhou, Minglang; Hill, Ann Maxwell (2009). Affirmative Action in China and the U.S.: A Dialogue of Inequality and Minority Education. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 135. Virtually all the neidi graduates returned to Tibet. Only 5 out of 180 interviewed said that they wanted to stay in inland China to work.
  • Billé, Frank; Delaplace, Gregory; Humphrey, Caroline (2012). Frontier Encounters: Knowledge and Practice at the Russian, Chinese and Mongolian Border. Open Book Publishers. p. 41. Punishment was severe for any violations of borders [by the Mongols], trspassing either into "neidi", that is, inland China, or into other's territory.
  • Goldstein, Melvyn C.; Jiao, Ben; Lhundrup, Tanzen (2009). On the Cultural Revolution in Tibet: The Nyemo Incident of 1969. University of California Press. p. xiii. Because it is politically incorrect for Tibetans in China to refer to the non-Tibetan parts of the People's Republic of China as "China," since that implies to some that Tibet and China are separate entities, the Chinese term neidi, meaning "inner" or "inland" (tib. nangsa), is normally used. We will translate the term as "inland China".
  • Zhu, Zhiyong (2007). "Foreword by Gerard A. Postglione". State Schooling and Ethnic Identity: The Politics of a Tibetan Neidi Secondary School in China. Lexington Books. p. xvi. In the first year, one quarter of all [selected Tibetan] junior secondary school students were sent to Neidi (inland China) where they completed their basic education and many went on to Neidi vocational senior secondary schools.
  • Bulag, Uradyn Erden (2010). "References". Collaborative Nationalism: The politics of Friendship on China's Mongolian Frontier. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 259. Li, Pengnian, and Renyuan Wan, eds. 1992. Jiushi Banchan Neidi Huodong ji Fanzang Shouxian Dang'an Xuanbian [Selections from the archives concerning the ninth Panchen's activities in inland China and the restrictions on his return to Tibet]. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue Chubanshe.
  • Guo, Wu (2010). Zheng Guanying: Merchant Reformer of Late Qing China and His Influence on Economics, Politics, and Society}. Cambria press. p. 130. This essay was written as a response to an article in the No. 1 issue of Yinghuan zhilue monthly affiliated with the Shenbao, titled "Neidi lunchuan jinzhi yi" [Comments on the development of steamship in inland China].
Shrigley (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
By "literal translation" I was wondering about each character. I think I can guess though. Is it "inner land" with "nei" being "inner" (like in "neiku" for inner clothes?) And I'm pretty sure "di" is land. Is that correct? Readin (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The Goldstein reference seems to support my guess. Readin (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

...."Neidi" is used when talking about HK and Macau, and "Dalu" is used when the topic is Taiwan. This usage was officially announced and clarified by the PRC government a few years ago. (But I can't find a link to it now, thou.) Hayyzz (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Coined by KMT?

The lede currently claims that the term "mainland China" was coined by the KMT. Is there any evidence for the KMT having coined the term? I wouldn't be surprised if it (the English term) had first been used by Western analysts before being adopted by the KMT. Google books show it first appearing around 1942: Google ngram viewer Phlar (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV violation relating to the choice of terms

The following phrase crops up under the heading of 'political use':

Government organizations and official and legal documents in Taiwan, including the Republic of China Constitution also use "the mainland" to refer to mainland China, since the ROC government has never recognized the founding of the PRC and because its Constitution does not allow the existence of another state within its territory, constitutional amendments made in the 1990s had to refer to the area occupied by PRC as "mainland", since it is officially considered still part of the ROC territory but just enemy occupied. In contrast, the pro-Taiwan independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and people who have more political or historical awareness of the Taiwan issue may prefer to use the term "China" instead, referring to the PRC, to imply that Taiwan (ROC) is separate from China.

I am not an expert on this issue at all. BUT: The bolded section seems like an NPOV violation; the text makes an explicit judgement that the people who draw this distinction are better informed. I am therefore improving it!

Nazdakka (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph should explain context dependency

The lead section talks almost exclusively about the use of "mainland China" in the context of the relationship between Taiwan and China. It is only much later that the use of "mainland China" in contrast to HK/Macau is described. There is also mention somewhere that "mainland China" usually doesn't include HK/Macau.

I think we need to say clearly, in the first section, that the definition of "mainland China" is context dependent. When talking about political relations between Taiwan and "mainland China", it simply means the PRC and does include HK/Macau. When talking about immigration or culture, it doesn't include HK/Macau. Readin (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mainland 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Hello. I want to ask for that can my source[1]be used on this article? Shahanshah5 (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Early China - A Social and Cultural History. Cambridge University Press. p. 4. between the southeast Mainland and the island of Taiwan inhabited by the various groups of the Austronesian-language-speaking people

Background -- Military action against Taiwan

In the section "Background", the article states "Until the late 1970s, both the PRC and ROC envisioned a military takeover of the other.". (Which implies that the PRC no longer envisions a military takeover of the ROC.) I believe that this statement is somewhat inaccurate, or incomplete. Since, in recent times, the PRC has been ramping up military development, has been running "invading Taiwan" drills, has been brainwashing its citizens with anti-Taiwanese sentiments, and has been spouting endless rhetoric about how it will invade (and "reclaim") Taiwan "any time now". So, I don't see how any of this can possibly indicate that the PRC no longer envisions a military takeover of Taiwan/ROC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Mainland area

I opened Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names provided by CaradhrasAiguo and I appreciate it. Whereas WP:UCRN happens to apply to article title only rather than article content.

User:CaradhrasAiguo, may you please elain your move? Thanks! --Reciprocater (Talk) 02:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I used WP:UCN as a practical appeal to the fact that very few outside Taiwan would be confused about the usage of "Mainland China" as opposed to "Mainland Area" in that map. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
the fact that very few outside Taiwan would be confused about the usage of "Mainland China" as opposed to "Mainland Area" in that map.[citation needed] ? --Reciprocater (Talk) 02:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The very fact that the article is at "Mainland China" and not "Mainland Area", and the body sourcing cites "Chinese mainland" (not "Mainland Area") in the context of the Second Sino-Japanese War. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please provide the exact reference here? --Reciprocater (Talk) 02:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
It is at the end of the first sentence in the Background section, see Cambridge University Press: [1] CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
{{verification needed}}?--Reciprocater (Talk) 03:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
In fact, Your partly provided reference further proved that Chinese mainland doesn't comprised Taiwan. --Reciprocater (Talk) 03:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The book information is here, but do you really expect an editor to pay US$ 36 for an e-book? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:PROVEIT:The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material,...--Reciprocater (Talk) 03:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, it's weird you provided a thesis discussing 【The Two Koreas and the Great Powers】 as opposed to Mainland China. --Reciprocater (Talk) 03:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't add or restore said material, The Two Koreas and the Great Powers was added here by Shahanshah5. Per WP:AGF I am assuming they quoted the book verbatim / faithfully. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable for you to stop reverting to the version that happens to fail verfication until the said editor has successfully addressed the problem in question. Regards. --Reciprocater (Talk) 03:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Otherwise, it might be considered WP:GAME. I hope you would understand. Best. --Reciprocater (Talk) 04:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "...imperial Japan launched its invasion of the Chinese mainland in the 1930s" The Two Koreas and the Great Powers, Cambridge University Press, 2006, page 43.

Third opinion

  • Although removals like this and this are debatable, I still agree with Reciprocater here. CaradhrasAiguo, your arguments seem to be based on either your personal opinion or by insufficient sources, like a message board or an e-book that one would actually have to pay to view (and with the latter, if we'd have to pay, how do you even know there's a source in there to back up your claim?). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Erpert: Thank you for responding that promptly. Re: the message board, I tagged it with {{bsn}} because the island province of Hainan is not contiguous with the continental landmass and it deserves a mention. As to the "e-book", again, this was added on 9 Dec 2018 by a since-inactive user, who also posted above asking about another Cambridge University Press book, so I will assume they have a competent handling of this part of the published literature. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
That e-book wasn't from you? Oh. I apologize. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mainland_China/Archive_2&oldid=1136981982"