Talk:Mainland China/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Mainland China. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Great Han Tribe-Stan"

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

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

-- Roadrunner

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

Rmd redundant text

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

The text removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of the term mainland China

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed redundant text

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

Edits by Huaiwei

In this edit, Huaiwei replaced "semi-formal" by "informal", and added "usually".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---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)

The analogy sounds logical, but it's disregarding the situation in reality. 中國大陸/中国大陆, or more recently 中國內地/中国内地, is more or less the standard and official way to call the PRC excluding Hong Kong and Macao, no matter within mainland China itself or elsewhere. — Insta ntnood 18:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extent of mainland China

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

Like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extent of claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(see Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy)

Proposed revision

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

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

Not really much, except for the new text I've mentioned (which might be subject to dispute), the notion of the term being political-geographical rather than geographical, and the disambiguation of neidi. You can see a diff page here[3], although it's not very intelligible. -- Alassius (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

How about this[4]? -- Alassius (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Alassius. I have made some rather minor changes [5]. And frankly I have never heard about Zǔguó Dàlù. :-) — Insta ntnood 14:19, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I kept liang'an guanxi and neidi because I think these are relevant terms that are by themselves not sufficiently intricate for separate articles. It is perfectly ok if you want to find a nicer place for them, e.g. put liang'an guanxi into Political status of Taiwan. As for the notion of preferred usage, I would rather say it is an observation than a mandate (perhaps a rephrasing like "these are recognized as the preferred neutral terms etc. etc." would be less suspicious?). Beijing[6] uses "mainland and Taiwan", Chen Shuibian uses it[7], Lien Chan uses it, but Beijing[8] and Lien would probably not use "China and Taiwan". People (in Taiwan) do use "China and Taiwan": they (e.g. Lee Tung-hui) use it to make a point. People who do not wish to make a point will likely choose "mainland and Taiwan". This is what is meant by political correctness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought this was obvious... See [9], [10], and [11]. In Chen's speech [12] he used China once and mainland twice refering to the PRC, only the former was cluster bombed by Beijing's propaganda.

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

I have attempted a new version here. Having not fully understood Huaiwei's objections I cannot assert that a solution has been found. So please do not hesitate to put forth your opinions. -- Alassius (talk) 18:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think one of the objections Huaiwei made was that Taiwanese politicians use "mainland" not always for reasons of political correctness, but because the ROC doesn't recognize the existance of the PRC diplomatically. Because they don't recognize the PRC's existance, they use the term "mainland" to avoid using the term "People's Republic of China", a government they don't recognize. --Yuje 22:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that was his real motivation. In fact I have this funny feeling that he is opposing for the sake of opposing, i.e. he is trying to disprove rather than prove. So I removed the references to political neutrality, albeit reluctantly, to see what he will accept.

Furthermore, I do not believe that argument is sound. It might have been the case in 1970s, but as soon as the pro-indenpendence people started to use China for their purpose, the term became loaded: the KMT now have a stronger reason not to use China, much stronger than the reluctance to recognize PRC -- which they do, now, to a certain degree. It also cannot explain why the Pan-Green parties, who definitely wants to recognize the PRC, would use mainland. Nevertheless I have updated the article to reflect this idea.

Huaiwei does have a good point, in that the Wikipedia, at least for political matters, should not be prescriptive. The problem is, as an encyclopaedia the line between descriptive and prescriptive can be thin, and is often only a matter of rephrasing. It is important to know that just because it can be written authoritatively, does not mean it has to be, and this is no excuse to avoid the problem completely. -- Alassius (talk) 30 June 2005 07:24 (UTC)

do you mind people editing your proposal? Also, there is an objection that anti-PRC parties in HK use the term because it helps them maintain the illusion that HK is seperate (or even independent) from the PRC. What was merely convenient has now become politicized. SchmuckyTheCat 23:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you said is totally wrong. The phrase "mainland China" or "mainland of China" is used by everybody. Pro-CPC politicians use it, pro-democracy politicians use it, and government officials use it. It is used in laws of Hong Kong. It is also used by the government of Hong Kong in press releases, as well as by the central government in Beijing when it needs to differentiate itself from Hong Kong and Macao.

The term is not used to create such an illusion as you suggested, but quite the opposite, comparing to saying, for instance, "PRC and Hong Kong (or Macao)", saying "mainland China and Hong Kong" implies Hong Kong is part of China, together with the mainland. I am sure you have read some of the sources where the phrase is used that I cited in the previous debates you once involved in. Please don't say something which is obviously not the case. — Insta ntnood 00:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) (revised 00:12, Jun 24)

Not true. Everyone in HK uses the term mainland. Using the phrase "Hong Kong and the mainland" doesn't imply that HK is seperate or indendendent, while the phrase "Hong Kong and China" or "Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China" does. The latter two are more inaccurate because HK is part of (The People's Republic of) China --Yuje 00:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

That is because both of you are speaking from the HK perspective. The usage of the word HK is also used outside of HK, and yes, not all of them explicitely suggests HK's independence from the rest of China either. HOWEVER, as an international pedia, this site has to recognise the fact that the term can and has been used by autonomous-minded HKers or other factions who are reluctant to recognise Beijing's sovereignty over the two SARS. "Everybody" may use it in HK, so it was claimed, but do all users use it with no political undertones? Opposition of the term "Mainland China" over that of the "PRC" comes about when inidividuals like instantnood choose to use it to refer (explicitely or otherwise) to the country of the PRC. I do not dispute its usage if it were to be used in a "Mainland China and HK" scenario. However, notice the PRC finds it perfectly ok to use "PRC and HK (China)/HK SAR". Afterall, that is the naming convention used in international organisations/sports events!--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Whenever I used "mainland China" I referred to the PRC-administered territories minus Hong Kong and Macao. I have never explicitly nor implicitly used "mainland China" to refer to the entirety of the sovereign State of the PRC. Please stop saying something untrue. By doing so you're making uninformed readers have bad impressions on me and on other contributors who share similar position. — Insta ntnood June 29, 2005 11:57 (UTC)

I speak based on my impression of you, which in turn is of coz based on the history of your edits. I have not seen many others who would consistently prowl to the furthest corners of wikipedia and attempting to segregate information on HK and that of the mainland. Whether my impressions are true or not can only be proven by your actions....and not a whiny paragraph like the one above.--Huaiwei 30 June 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Can you produce any examples, in which the use of the word "Mainland China" implies the PRC's non-sovereignty over Hong Kong? The HK government itself uses it. For example, "Arrangement for entry to Hong Kong from Mainland China" from HK's own immigration department. [13] Care to explain the political overtones underlying this sinister and splittest use of the term "Mainland China"? Is the HK government denying sovereignty now? Fact is, "Mainland China" is an uncontroversial tone. The ROC uses the term "Mainland China" in Guidelines for National Unification. [14] For that matter, the Foreign Ministry of the PRC uses "Mainland China". [15] Surely the PRC isn't trying to usurp its own sovereignty? The undertones of political groups expressing certain views come from their political views, not their use of "Mainland China". The PRC, ROC, and HK all do not find the use of this term objectionable. The current book I'm reading just happens to be Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs, From Third World to First, and he uses the word "Mainland China" on a couple of occasions, too. The only people I've seen objecting to the term are some *ahem* rather overzealous Wikipedia editors.--Yuje June 29, 2005 12:51 (UTC)

The examples you use to imply its acceptance quite misses the point. I have argued that the term can be used to imply political apathy/nuetrality, but at the same time, can also be used for political means (of which nuetrality is also one of them...haha). Saying this and that party uses the term dosent mean anything substantial here, other then the fact they "uses" the term. Do their usage signifiy political nuetrality? When I was in Taiwan, I heard on the news commentaries with the words "Zhongguo", "Zhonghua" and "Dalu" in one sentence. What are you going to conclude from this then? Meanwhile, I have hardly ever seen any source insisting that the term "dalu" is nuetral in all instances. The only people I've seen promoting the term are some *ahem* rather overzealous Wikipedia editors. --Huaiwei 30 June 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Are you proposing that this viewpoint of yours should be incorporated in this article or not? If you do, you must prove, I quote from Jimbo Wales, that it is either "in the majority" and "substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts", or "is held by a significant minority" and "name prominent adherents". And before you ask, yes, mainland is in the majority, and as this is a usage problem the best reference would be its numerous appearances in media, government papers, daily parlance etc, which the many Chinese editors here would gladly testify for and help you to find. And they have done so.

I find your lack of understanding disturbing. You seemed have not grasped the idea, in addition to its spelling, of political neutrality. Popularity alone does not entail neutrality, or Beijing's definition of China will be the most neutral term we have. Acceptance among people with contradictory ideologies does. Mainland China is not neutral in all instances. Indeed Pan-Green radicals do argue that it is not appropriate. Correspondingly there are people on the mainland, the kind that would suggest a Tokyo or Taipei Massacre, who think mainland is redundant and even be offended by it, just because the term implies Taiwan is an equal to all other provinces and regions combined. Do these people make mainland China less neutral? Yes. They do make the term less-than-perfectly neutral. Then again we do not live in a perfect world, and there simply does not exist a term that is more neutral than mainland China. Your observation is the real irrelevance here, unless you can use it to prove Zhongguo has a wider acceptance in Taiwan, and even that you still have a long way to go to prove that China, or whatever words you happen to love, is a more neutral terminology. -- Alassius (talk) 1 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

No I don't, for the page should not be treated as in user space but as a prototype of this article. Having said that, I do hope potentially controversial modifications would firstly be bring up for discussion here. The whole point of having a separate page is to avoid an edit war isn't it? -- Alassius (talk) 30 June 2005 07:24 (UTC)

My comment to Alassius' proposal: Thanks for working to improve the article. As far as I know in Hong Kong the term is used formally. "Mainland China" and "中國內地" are the standard terminology used in all official context referring to the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded. It is used on government documents, press releases and laws. "大陸" is the informal term used colloquially, while "Mainland China" is used as the English equivalent for both the informal ("大陸") and the formal ("內地") term in Chinese. — Insta ntnood 00:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Even at this juncture, after months of dispute, the term's "formality" remains under dispute. Show us that the term is consistently used in international organisations, as well as the PRC government (and not by that small sprinkling of examples), and then we can move on.--Huaiwei 29 June 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Below is a very rough test on Google. I've chosen the websites of the government of some countries and some notable international organisations to do the test.

Site

"mainland China" -"Hong Kong" -Macau -Macao -Taiwan

"mainland China"

site:eu.int

21

121

site:who.int

16

95

site:wto.org

0

17

site:gov.cn

355

711

site:gov.hk

593

12400

site:gov.mo

15

751

site:state.gov

20

302

site:gov

593

9070

site:gov.uk

37

314

site:fco.gov.uk

0

21

site:dti.gov.hk

2

8

site:gov.sg

4

57

In addition, the following links are searchings from the Hong Kong law database for pages where the phrase "mainland of China" is used: 66, 12. This search on the WorldLII gives 954 hits.

It should be noted that the PRC is member of many international organisations with the name "China" or "People's Republic of China", while for some of these organisations, which Hong Kong and Macao are also individual members and sent their own delegations, the delegations with the name "China" or "PRC" represent only the mainland, in other words, they are mainland delegations. — Insta ntnood June 29, 2005 11:57 (UTC)

The same search above done to omit repeated entries:

Site

"mainland China" -"Hong Kong" -Macau -Macao -Taiwan

"mainland China"

site:eu.int

12

109

site:who.int

13

68

site:wto.org

0

14

site:gov.cn

269

509

site:gov.hk

12

94

site:gov.mo

7

456

site:state.gov

13

147

site:gov

196

400

site:gov.uk

24

21

site:fco.gov.uk

0

21

site:dti.gov.hk

2

7

site:gov.sg

4

51

It seems from the pattern of hits above, that the term "Mainland China" is much more often used if the SARs are also being mentioned, as we would expect for an informal reference to a country.--Huaiwei 16:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How did you omit the repeated entries? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 16:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Click till you reach the last page of searches. Its not 100% foolproof, but it certainly helps in removing the tonnes of mirror sites and similar texts copied whole-sale in multiple sites.--Huaiwei 17:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It actually reads "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar (note:not "repeated") to the 94 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.". — Insta ntnood 17:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

A week ago, I asked for examples, in which usage of the term "mainland China" is considered objectionable by any of the governments involved. Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV, but in addition, we also need factual accuracy. Several instances of neutral usage by all sides have been already been provided, but no examples of objectionable usage. So far, the only objections recieved, those from Wikipedia editors themselves, lack notability. I'm not saying that this might not exist, but surely we must at least see some examples so we can explain on Wikipedia how it's objectionable and what the objectionist viewpoints are?

As far as I can tell, these are the summarized the views of mainland China by the various involved governments. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

What is Mainland China?

Hong Kong usage
- Hong Kong and Macau usage is probably the least controversial (in HK and Macau, at least) of all the governments involved. All political parties, whether pro-Beijing or not, use them, and the term itself is part of everyday vocabulary and common in media like television and film (Infernal Affairs III, for example). Prior to 1997, 大陸 simply meant the PRC. Post 1997, it meant the areas of the PRC excluding the SARs.

ROC usage
- In general, the ROC avoids equating China=PRC in official documents and texts, though this use has been promoted in recent times by pro-independence politicians. Official publications tend to be very carefully worded to avoid equating China=PRC (more common pre-1990's). Uses such as "China-Taiwan relation" tends to be avoided. When the PRC is named in official printed statements, scare quotes are used. Instead, CCP (中共) or mainland are used. A usage might be "mainland China-Taiwan relations". Why? Several different motives:
  - Pro-unification groups view Taiwan as a part of China, therefore avoid exclusively equating the PRC as all of China. (Chiang-Kai Shek era, modern pro-unification groups)
  - The PRC takes the same view, and a usage like, "Taiwan and China" implies that Taiwan isn't part of China. Therefore drawing a hostile reaction from Beijing.
  - The ROC does not recognize the existence of the PRC.
    - In the past, this was because of the One China Policy and the ROC held the position that it was the sole legitimate ruler of China.
    - Now, such a usage might draw a hostile reaction from Beijing because (pick one):
      - Two Chinas: Recognition of the PRC by the ROC would imply "Two Chinas" contrary to the One China Policy held by both sides, imply the two are seperate states, and trigger a hostile response from Beijing.
      - One China and One Taiwan: Recognition of the PRC might alternatively imply that, by acknowledging the One China Policy, and equating PRC="One China", Taiwan (ROC) is not part of this one China. Beijing is also opposed to this.
- The English term "mainlander" is also used to refer to those Taiwanese who originated from the 1949 population that retreated from the mainland to Taiwan. This term is largely seperate from the discussion of 中國大陸, and included in the article for disambiguation.

PRC usage
- Similar to ROC usage, the PRC avoids equating PRC=China. This is because it views itself as the legitimate ruler of all of China, Taiwan included. Thus, the term mainland China is used to perhaps emphasize that the mainland is part of a greater whole that includes Taiwan. The PRC doesn't recognize the ROC, thus can't name it (preferring "Taiwan authorities"). It also avoids usage like "China-Taiwan relations" because that implies Taiwan isn't part of China. "China-Hong Kong relations" also implies that Hong Kong isn't part of China.

Extent of Mainland China

Everybody agrees that Taiwan and other areas controlled by the ROC aren't part of mainland China
Are Hong Kong and Macau part of mainland China?
- According to the HK government, no. HK's immigration and customs handles travel to and from mainland China, for example.
- The ROC also seems to regard the SARs as not being part of mainland China. For example, a report issued by the Mainland Affairs Council titled "Analysis on Hong Kong Media Reports of Military Threat from Mainland China" [16]. However, I'm not sure if this view is shared by people of all political viewpoints in Taiwan.
- The PRC also seems to view HK and Macau as not being part of mainland China. Several official documents have been cited already. I don't remember seeing a usage in which mainland China includes the SAR.

As far as I can tell, a big part of the dispute over the use of "mainland China" comes from the contentious Political status of Taiwan, so might as well give a short summary of that, too.

What is One China?

(Cold War) Beijing view: The PRC is the sole legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan.
(Cold War) Taipei view: The ROC is the sole legitimate government of all China, including the mainland.
US view: People on both sides of the straits acknowledge themselves to be part of (their own definition) of One China. (left deliberately ambiguous)
anti-Taiwan independence view: China is a geographical-cultural entity, which people on both sides of the straits are part of.
pro-Taiwan independence view: One China = the PRC. Under this definition, Taiwan is not part of One China.
Two China view: One China is a fiction, the ROC is a sovereign country, two legitimate countries exist named China.

Ok, I think I listed a good number of the different viewpoints held by both sides. Hopefully this goes somewhere in finally coming out with a finished revision of this article. I personally think Alassius has put in a lot of good work, and his current revision is already pretty good. --Yuje July 8, 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the summary Yuje. I also agree that Alassius proposed revision is a very good one, exept saying the term is unofficial. It is the terminology used in many official contexts. :-) — Insta ntnood 20:20, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

It appears we have achieved a certain amount of serenity here. I have made some, hopefully final, refinement to my revision [17]. Gentlemen, please kindly bring forth your comments and advices. Should there be no objection in two week's time, I will proceed to propose that this revision shall be adopted into the main namespace. -- Alassius (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much Alassius. I've found something interesting that the term 內地 is used in the laws of mainland, for instance: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Sometimes 大陆 or 祖国大陆 is also used [23] [24]. It also seems to me that "mainland China" serves as the English equivalent for both 中國大陸/中国大陆 and 中國內地/中国内地, and 大陸/大陆 and 內地/内地 carry similar, if not equal, meaning in formal and official contexts. Further, the world "mainland" is also used in official English translations of the laws: [25].

I am not sure what 內地 in informal usage is to do with the entertainment industry. And in fact as far as I know there's no situation where the term "mainland China" is used to cover Hong Kong and Macao. Hong Kong and Macao are always excluded. Why is it necessary to say " in most context "?

On the other hand, we should also talk about the usage of the word "China" in western media to refer to mainland China that excludes Hong Kong and Macao, for instance " A Hong Kong court has found 16 Falun Gong followers guilty of causing a public obstruction during a protest outside China's main office in the territory. ", " The organisation is outlawed in China, but there are no laws against it in the former British colony. " from BBC [26], and " Taken together, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan will collectively generate almost as much design activity this year as Japan " from Reuters [27] — Insta ntnood 14:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear how Taiwanese would use mainland. If I remember correctly, someone from Taiwan has stated in one of the discussions that he himself was not certain whether he would include the SARs when he uses mainland. The entertainment industry of Hong Kong is, according my research, the pioneer of usage of neidi as an alternative of dalu and coincidentally pioneer of Hongkongnese culture. As for your last suggestion, it may be more suitably put in the China article along with explanations of discrepancies between Chinese and English usage. -- Alassius (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I have actually presented my findings above on the position of the ROC government, and the usage of the term with the absence of Hong Kong and Macao. From what I experienced it is not the entertainment industry, but the Hong Kong Government as well as some mainland officials, who used "neidi" in place of "dalu". From my research "neidi" is used by the Hong Kong Government, and in laws of the mainland. A few years before the transfer of sovereignty "neidi" was almost unheard in Hong Kong, after that it has become the official terminology. The entertainment industry is actually following rather the pioneering. (Though they might happen to be pioneers in promoting its usage, as they're influential to ordinary people.) As for the usage of "China" meaning "mainland China", that's actually not discrepancies between languages. Vincent Cheng, the HSBC Asia Pacific chairman, when speaking to the press in Cantonese, said 中國 to refer to mainland Chinese market. The same happens in printed matters such as ads, reports, contact information of products. Even an article on the government website uses 中国经济 and 中国内地经济 interchangeably [28]. Despite these I agree with your proposed treatment to put it in the China article. — Insta ntnood 20:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would advise that this discussion be put on hold when an arbcom is still on-going. My stand on this issue has continued to stand, and yes, I am still opposed towards any attempts by this page in "formalising" the words in question.--Huaiwei 14:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You may oppose formalising the term, but you cannot deny the fact that it is used for formal and official purposes. — Insta ntnood 14:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I dont deny that. State leaders have used vulgarities in their official statements too, but I dont see them becoming any more formalised.--Huaiwei 15:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If laws and inter-customs territory agreements use it, is it formal and official then? — Insta ntnood 16:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

My prime minister onced had a talk entitled "Cosmopolitians and Heartlanders", discussing about the "inward-looking" and "globally-minded" "breeds" of Singaporeans. We have had organisations, events, and even television shows with the word "heartlander" in it. Does that make it a term suitable for use in, say, a census by the Singapore Department of Statistics? All these while, you only contention that the term is official is still based on its use in official speech, in the names of organisations, and so forth. Yet, you continue to be unable to show us if the word Mainland China is ever used overwelmingly to represent the PRC in international organisations, events, or in international publications. Why is this so if the term is "formal", "official", and technically more accurate?--Huaiwei 16:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please. Wikipedia is not a religious society. Having a sentiment is not a sufficient excuse for filibustering. You must explain and support your ideas if you want them to be accepted.

ArbCom members are not omniscient. What they can see is the behaviour of Wikipedia users, and what they can decide is how things should be done in Wikipedia -- not what things are in real world. These are very different scopes, and one may actually suggest that the latter should be used to infer the former. The reverse is not true. Instandnood's inappropriate crusade does not make mainland China an inarguably official terminology like England, nor does your belief stop Chinese people from using the word, nor will an ArbCom resolution from an English Wikipedia which hardly has any influence in China. What the fact is, on which I have been concentrated, is simply not relevant to what is happening on Wikipedia, and you, of all the people, should not impede the recognition of a fact because it may facilitate a behaviour which you may detest.

Having said that, I will opt support for a motion in favour of restraining Instantnood if you ask me to, in a suitable manner. Personally I would rather stay away from it. I have seen too many holy wars to get excited anymore. My time is better spend on, if not Wikipedia, my own projects. -- Alassius (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Alassius. What I cannot understand is the strong resistance to facts, to a degree that these people are labelling others crusaders and launching holy wars. Little opposition was faced when the naming conventions was drafted, not until when it had to be enforced and implemented. Had there not been such unreasonable resistance there would have been much more meaningful time for meaningful tasks. Edits by other contributors, including that of administrators, have been reverted by Huaiwei and her/his long time ally SchmuckyTheCat, despite acknowledging the other party have actually refrained from edits related to the disagreements. — Insta ntnood 20:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The term "mainland China"

obviously no one in china refers to china as "the mainland". most chinese refer to china as "guo ne". if you look at the term mainland itself, it was probably coined by an islander of some sort. you can compare this to the u.s.. who in usa refers to mainland usa as mainland usa? hawaiins. so basically what we;re doing is allowing an offshore island who represents a minority of the entity to have naming rights. how much sense would it make to call mainland usa, mainland usa? it makes a whole lot of sense if youre hawaiin, but other than that, it sounds foolish. some of the posters on here have mentioned the idea of diferentiating between the sars (hk macau) and the prc. i am going to draw another comparison from usa. usa also has regions that are specially administered, such as indian reservations, yet no one refers to mainland usa except for hawaiins and maybe alaskans. this should be kept the same way with china. there is no reason for anyone to refer to the prc as mainland except for the taiwanese, and even then, you cant really use that argument because taiwan doesnt consider themselves chinese anymore. so basically now, there is only one china.

even if you wanted diferentiate the difrence between the prc and the roc, it still makes more sense to refer to each as the roc and prc instead of mainland china and offshore china. how much sense would it make to refer to taiwan as offshore china each time? the term mainland china should be accepted informally but never formally. - Chinoiserie 08:48, September 16, 2005 (UTC)

All analogies aside, here's the problem: How should we paraphrase something like "trade between Hong Kong and (the rest of the PRC except for Macau) increased during 2001". If we were to say "trade between Hong Kong and the PRC has increased", we would be suggesting that Hong Kong was not part of the PRC in 2001. Is there any acceptable shorthand form for describing this situation? --MarkSweep✍ 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"Trade between Hong Kong and the [[mainland China]] increased" is an appropriate saying for 1995 as well as 2005. It's not an appropriate saying between say, Korea and the PRC, because there is no disambiguation of China necessary when discussing Korea. SchmuckyTheCat 18:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

(response to Chinoiserie's comment at 08:48, September 16) With these analogies the term in this case may sound weird, but it has been the conventional and deep-rooted term to refer to the rest of the PRC. Its usage was not originated in English. In fact the full titles of CEPA are Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement [29] and Mainland and Macao Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement [30]. — Insta ntnood 16:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

One has only read the footnotes 1 where uses "Mainland" (in quotes) as shorthand, not official: In the “CEPA”, the "Mainland" refers to the entire customs territory of China. - 66.235.28.63 02:50, September 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the above sections and see how the term is used officially. — Insta ntnood 07:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

That is because till now, it is obvious some of us cannot agree what we mean by "official" usage. Any definitions at this stage?--Huaiwei 13:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiweiagree to most POV collected data, except it's a big too long here <after stretching all techical points> and your NPOV is still U r a newbie who have not been to enjoy mainland so go there and shoot some fantastical pics!Morally Happy to Obligate 06:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Norman Oh not fr. NUS peer or wikipedia except sgwiki a.k.a alien! may U can come and us visit us more oft..add-to it U know , how? go see plse! - Norman Oh 06:48, October 5, 2005 (UTC)

Original Article POV

I have written the first draft and to date others have improve/edit/add-to all within the context of this topic Mainland China. The context usage of "mainland China " is from an old migrant POV in reference to "home- my town area, or my Country - China, the Mainland!". That is my understanding and corrects me if I am wrong! In the Geographical and Political considerations by wikipedians herein, there is some evidenced disagreements which can never be resolved <Taiwan or ROV etc> I wonder if such any modern political changes should be included with the context of the original usage by other oversea migrants who first coined the word "Mainland China" as referring to their own context.Morally Happy to Obligate - Norman Oh 17:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Continental"

Something about a Wikipedia article main title including "mainland" just doesn't seem right. It doesn't feel right, it doesn't look right, and it just reeks of "Small Island" mentality (no offence intended). People don't refer to the main body of the US as "mainland US", and in the UK the term "mainland Britain" is used typically by people living on groups of remote islands (hence the term "Small Island" mentality) in places like the Western Isles or the Scilly Isles to refer to "that place other than here" (the preferred term for the British mainland is "Great Britain" - this excludes all islands as well as Northern Ireland). Listed in the article is the alternative translation "continental China". The US excluding Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the dependencies (sometimes called the "lower 48" states) are typically referred to as the "continental United States". France and Germany are typically referred to as being on "continental Europe" (except in the UK, where those eurosceptics with the Small Island mentality refer to it as "mainland Europe".

Since it is more important to convey a meaningful translation than a literal one, would anyone object to adpoting "Continental China" to refer to PRC minus Hong Kong and Maca[ou], as a term that still fits the translation of the term used on zh: but doesn't sound so "Small Island"? Chris talk back 21:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As an English speaker I agree "mainland" sounds a bit literal and "small island mentality", comparing with calling Great Britain "mainland UK", or the Lower 48 "mainland US". Nevertheless the term has entered English for a relatively long period of time, and is now in popular use. Even the PRC government uses it. International English press uses it too, such as BBC, CBC, The Times, TIME Magazine, and CNN. In German the equivalent term is "Festlandchina" or "chinesischen Festland", and in Portuguese it's "Continente Chinês" or "China Continental". — Insta ntnood 07:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)