Talk:China proper

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bathrobe 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As an afternote, I might add that official denial of a division between China Proper and peripheral regions can be regarded as controversial in itself. For instance, the Chinese government uses this position to give itself a free hand in swamping ethnic minority territories with Han Chinese, somewhat similar to Indonesian transmigrasi. Mention of "controversy" solely from the notion that "China Proper" offends the Chinese government and the nationalistic feelings of Chinese is quite POV. The other side of the "contoversy" should also be stated.
 * Bathrobe 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * User:Bathrobe


 * It is true that the Chinese government does not use the term "China proper". But, it seems, this does not mean that there is no legal or administrative difference between what corresponds roughly to what has traditionally been called "China proper", and most territories outside it. In China there are five autonomous regions which have a status somehow different of the 22 provinces. And roughly, although not exactly, those autonomous regions cover the same areas which traditionally have been concidered as being outside "China proper". In some old encyclopediae it is stated that "China proper" is the territory of current China except for Tibet, Xinjian, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. Manchuria has no special status but it is divided onto three "normal" provinces. However, the three other territories outside "China proper" are the same as the three largest of the five autonomous regions. Indeed there are two more autonomous regions, Guangxi and Ningxia, which perhaps traditionally have been included in "China proper", but they are rather small by area, compared to the three others lying outside it. -FKLS (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The concept of China proper itself is an ideology. It's an ideology of outsider westerners who want to see China divided up and weakened, and see these territories as the most easy pickings. That's why the concept existed in the imperialist age, westerners wanted to divide these regions off and absorb them into their own state or make them into puppet border states.173.67.18.125 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is correct, and clearly many Wikipedia editors are incapable of self-awareness about their own ideology in that regard. 2601:86:300:1AC0:1108:874F:260D:3140 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

How can one nation represent 56 nations? This doesn't make sense when one group dominates so totally, and especially when so-called minority groups like Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Mongolian, Korean and Russian have independent states that represents these people properly. I've heard many Han people call minority groups like Tai, Manchus and Tibetans not 'proper Chinese' before. At Beijing Olympics, all the ethnic groups were masqueraded by Han Children! Defeats the purpose, non? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are engaging in a strawman argument by casting the argument against proper China as something *only* the Chinese government and people who subscribe to the Chinese governments ideology would make, when that's not the case at all. I would challenge you to find a single person educated in Chinese history in America who would deny the legitimacy of China's administration of Manchuria or other border regions of China. You are just trying to cast it as the sole position of the Chinese government because of the Chinese governments unpopularity, it makes your argument easier to make.108.131.79.70 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)