Talk:China proper/Archive 1

Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan
What about Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan? By the way, where does this term come from. Is it a generally accepted one? - Olivier


 * I've seen this phrase in literature several times.


 * It doesn't include TW for sure. Not sure about HK and Macau. --Menchi 11:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Inner Asia
So I came here, redirected from Inner Asia. Fine. But dismissing Inner Asia as a confusion of Central Asia is not cool. The term "Inner Asia", introduced by Hungarian-born Louis (Lajos) Ligeti and introduced to the U.S. by D. Sinor (Univ. of Indianna), is a widely recognised term in those parts of the world for the region stretching from the Caspian to Manchuria, from the Altai to the Himalayas. It may be preferable to the term "Central Asia" which means many different things to different people. --Iceager 06:00, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Former provinces
''For every province, there is a xunfu (&#24033;&#25771;), a political overseer on emperor's behalf and a tidu (&#25552;&#30563;), a military governor. In addition, there is a zongdu (&#32317;&#30563;) general military inspector for two or three provinces together. ''

''For Outer Chinese regions of Fengtian (now Liaoning), Jilin, Heilongjiang, Xinjiang, and Mongolia, the military leaders are generals (&#23559;&#36557;) and vice-tudong (&#21103;&#37117;&#32113;), and civilian leaders are heads of the leagues (&#30431;&#38263;). ''

Is this still the case, or should it be in the past tense? Markalexander100 11:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Past tense it should be. Thanks for noticing. --Menchi 11:19, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

China proper does NOT include TW for sure.If Taiwan is included, Manchuria , inner mongolia , and taibet must be included. Let me show the evidence, in 19 century the great scholar and officer of Qing empire, &#39759;&#28304;[wei yuan](1794~1857), also said Taiwan is not included in China proper in his writings.So someone is talking a lie out of political modivation. -anon


 * Does Wei Yuan automatically count as the only and paramount authority on the definition of China proper?

Do you, RAN ,has any example to show us TW is part of the historical heartlands?


 * The article clearly states that one traditional definition of China proper is the area covered by the 18 provinces of the Qing Dynasty. Since Taiwan was a part of Fujian province, which was in turn one of the 18 provinces, thus Taiwan is, by at least one definition of China proper, a part of China proper.


 * I don't agree to this. For example, some part of Manchuria is incorporated to province of Inner mongolia by people's republic of China out of some political reason,but we can not consider this part as part of Inner mongolia geographically. -anon


 * You don't have to agree. The point here isn't to agree, it's to gather up all of our arguments and put them together as a complete, NPOV article. In any case, the definition of China proper uses the provinces of the Qing Dynasty, not the provinces of the PRC; the provinces of the PRC clearly have nothing to do with the concept of China proper; the provinces of the Qing Dynasty did. The extent to which they did is of course open to debate. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 07:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

WAIT a minute,ran.part of Manchuria was also incorporated into Inner mongolia in Qing empire. If this part of Manchuria can not be consider as part of Inner mongolia,in the same logic why should taiwan part of Fujian?


 * You're welcome to introduce other definitions into the article, of course (say, the area administered by the Ming Dynasty), but that would in turn be just another traditional definition. In other words, Taiwan would not be a part of China proper under that particular definition, which is just one definition out of several possibilities.


 * You have to realize that this is a controversial topic, with plenty of wiggle room for everyone to define things in the way they like it. If you want to achieve NPOV, then all of those views have to be reflected. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 07:17, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Move here until we can reach some sort of consensus


 * However Taiwan was still not part of China proper.For example, some part of Manchuria is incorporated to province of Inner mongolia by people's republic of China out of some political reason,but we can not consider this part as part of Inner mongolia geographically.

Roadrunner 07:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That's one line of argument, and should be reflected as just that in an NPOV article &mdash; but not as indisputable fact. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 07:40, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * here province of Inner mongolia I mean is Inner mongolia Autonomous Region -anon

ran, show me evidence which official books of Qing empire considered TW as part of China proper and not considered manchuria or mongolia as part of China proper at the same time.


 * But how would I know what to look for, if the only Chinese translation for "China proper" is "yishiba xingsheng" in the first place? Perhaps you should show me that text by Wei Yuan first, so that I know what term I'm supposed to be looking for. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 08:11, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

http://edu.beida-online.com/data/data5.jsp?db=sanjiao&id=gejx18

&#20294;&#26159;&#20154;&#20204;&#27010;&#24565;&#36824;&#26159;&#30456;&#24403;&#27169;&#31946;&#30340;&#65292;&#29978;&#33267;&#26159;&#33258;&#30456;&#30683;&#30462;&#30340;&#65292;&#23601;&#26159;&#33879;&#21517;&#30340;&#23448;&#21592;&#21644;&#23398;&#32773;&#20063;&#22312;&#25152;&#38590;&#20813;&#12290;&#20687;&#39759;&#28304;&#65288;&#65297;&#65303;&#65305;&#65300;&#65293;&#65297;&#65304;&#65301;&#65303;&#65289;&#36825;&#26679;&#19968;&#20301;&#26480;&#20986;&#30340;&#23398;&#32773;&#21644;&#24605;&#24819;&#23478;&#20063;&#26159;&#22914;&#27492;&#12290;&#22312;&#20182;&#30340;&#33879;&#20316;&#20013;&#65292;&#8220;&#20013;&#22269;&#8221;&#19968;&#35789;&#26377;&#26102;&#26159;&#25351;&#25972;&#20010;&#28165;&#26397;&#65292;&#21644;&#20170;&#22825;&#30340;&#29992;&#27861;&#24050;&#32463;&#23436;&#20840;&#19968;&#26679;&#65307;&#20294;&#26377;&#26102;&#21364;&#21482;&#25351;&#20256;&#32479;&#30340;&#8220;&#20013;&#22269;&#8221;&#33539;&#22260;&#65292;&#21363;&#20869;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#30465;&#65292;&#32780;&#19981;&#21253;&#25324;&#33945;&#21476;&#12289;&#35199;&#34255;&#12289;&#38738;&#28023;&#12289;&#26032;&#30086;&#12289;&#19996;&#21271;&#21644;&#21488;&#28286;&#22312;&#20869;. Let me translate this for all of you."but the concept of China is very ambiguous, even the famous officers and scholars are no exception". for example, wei yuan(&#65297;&#65303;&#65305;&#65300;&#65293;&#65297;&#65304;&#65301;&#65303;&#65289;,a excellent scholar and philosopher ,thought that "central empire(china)" refer to the whole qing empire. but sometimes he meant only traditional region of china,which meant china proper(inland/inner mainland eighteen provinces),and it dosen't included mongolia,tibet, qinghai,Xinjiang,manchuria and TAIWAN. interesting enough, he didn't think TAIWAN is part of china proper because Taiwan is NOT part of "inland eighteen provinces despite it associate with Fuijiang province.

Why? because seriously speaking, TAIWAN at that time was temporarily "entrusted and controlled" by Fuijiang province for convinence concerned.


 * Sadly, the writer of that article is in error when he/she writes that the eighteen provinces did not include Taiwan, for the simple reason that they indeed did. (Would you like to explain to me how Taiwan, a circuit of Fujian, was any different or more "temporary" than any other circuit in Fujian or anywhere else in China?) If we define "China proper" as "the 18 Qing provinces", then Taiwan is part of China proper.

SADLY RAN, WEI YUAN SAID "THE MAINLAND eighteen provinces" did not include Taiwan,and Of course TAIWAN IS NOT on the mainland, you idiot.

Let me give you a example,ran.

http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/geo/outer.htm

don't panic,ran. Yunnan and Guizhou are considered as outer China. However, they are within eighteen provinces. Now tell me, ran, do you still stick to your sucking historical knowledge?


 * Perhaps the writer means, instead, that Wei Yuan is using "zhongguo" to refer to the "traditional sense" of China in the sense of China under the Ming Dynasty or previous dynasties. In that case, then Taiwan would not be a part of China proper, because Taiwan was not administered by the Ming Dynasty or any dynasty before the Ming.

don't keep lying,ran.What Wei Yuan meant is exactly "the historical heartlands of china". Maybe we can find an American or an european who understands chinese to tell you what he meant.


 * Once again, let me get this clear: there are two competing definitions of China proper here, one that uses the vague but intuitive boundary of Han Chinese dynasties, and one that uses the precise but mechanical boundary of the 18 Qing provinces. The former does not include Taiwan, the latter does. Which one you pick depends on your political views. An NPOV article should reflect both views. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 09:12, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ran, you are wrong because QING EMPIRE define the historical heartlands of china as "&#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#34892;&#30465;"(inland/inner eighteen provinces),not only eighteen provinces. so that's why Menchi said china proper doesn't include TW for sure.

tell me ,ran.why the qing empire forbiden the migration from Fujian to taiwan when they are the same province? IF taiwan is naturally part of Fujian ,why later qing epire established a new province of taiwan? we should adapt the viewpoint of qing empire because china proper is about his 18 province.ok, ran,It is your turn to show me evidence which official books of Qing empire considered TW as part of China proper and not considered manchuria or mongolia as part of China proper at the same time.

I strongly protest that taiwan is part of Fujian province. The qing empire obeviously treat Fujian and Taiwan differently.I have to say Taiwan is NOT incorporated into Fujian, and that is why officers like Wei Yuan considered taiwan as outer china like mongolia. Qing empire even wanted to withdraw from taiwan at first because it felt taiwan took too much money to maintain.And that's why I said "temporarily "controlled"(or you can say entrusted) by Fuijiang province for convinence concerned",because they may withdraw from taiwan at any time! Ran never give a evidence.Maybe ran's country is used to teaching them lying as what they said in the Goguryeo issue despite all their ancient official historic books considering Goguryeo as a foreign country.(OK,even if taiwan is part of Fujian province, TW is still not part of China proper according to wei yuan)

-- anon

Would you like to collect your points together and put them down in an organized format first before I respond? Right now your various lines of thought are scattered all over the place in a bewildering, unreadable format. Please, it's hard on the eyes.

Also, considering that I left "my country" (I'm assuming you mean the PRC) at an early age and basically received no schooling there, I wonder what you mean by them "teaching" me what to believe. My beliefs are the result of thought on my part, and I do not appreciate your doubting of my independent capacity to think. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 03:24, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know when "China proper" was used in English for the first time? It's about late 18 century because Britain started to try to establish diplomatic relationship and get familiar with China at that time. "China proper" is not created from nothing. The concept of "China proper" actually comes from the definition of historical heartlands of China by Qing empire, and that is &#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#30465;. (&#20839;&#22320;=mainland,&#21313;&#20843;=eighteen,&#30465;=province.)

Ran, you should go to consult Encyclopaedia Britannica and do some homework before you express your opinion. I don't want to bother your independent capacity to think, but you seems to try to define it by yourself without any proof to support your viewpoint.Isn't it ridiculous that a professional English encyclopedia adopt the definition of a non-native speakers of English of his own?

Wow. It's cooking here. Let's let the politicians do the quarreling. Has anybody thought of leaving all the historical and political definitions by some scholar or politician behind and think of it in a geographical sense? We would have pretty defined boarders in the East and southeast (Ocean), the West (Tibetan plateau), in the north the boarder would be the desert. In the south...hmm...some jungle maybe. Or just take the Boarder, but then it gets political again.

By the Way ... I think the term "China Proper" only exists in english. Have you seen a link at the left side which links this page to the same article in another language? no. So i think maybe it is quite ridiculous to make such a fuss about all this.

The same problem exists with the term "southeast asia" "southasia", blablabla...it seems that every scholar defines his/her own boarders. It depends on the context he/she writes about. --kirschner--


 * well y would inner MONGOLIA be part of china proper? isnt inner mongolia part of mongolia that come out of end of the yuan dynasty? OTOH, where is the argument that FuJian (from qing on back) isnt part of china proper? y would the island of taiwan, as part of the FuJian province, not be in china proper? just b/c two dying dynastys had found it such a good place to escape to it is not part of china? wat would the view be once taiwan is brought back into china? ppl have some mestedup POV. if taiwan is not part of china proper, is the statue of liberty part of the continental united states?

and can sb remove the repeating parts of this talk page? its already 55 kb1698 2005 October 31 20:53 (PST)

As a point to the anon, the relation of Taiwan to Fujian before provincialhood would be no different than a territory administered by the US before statehood, with agreements with the aborigines equivalent to the US agreements with various Native American tribes.

Inner Mongolia
There is a problem here. Inner Mongolia *was* ruled by standard provincial administrations during the Qing dynasty. It wasn't until the PRC, that non-provincial administrations were set up.

Roadrunner 07:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't... Inner Mongolia was ruled under leagues and banners. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 07:40, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Question about term 18 provinces
Was that ever used historically? If it wasn't (and I don't think it was) it should be mentioned that it wasn't.

Yes, but Qing empire used &#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#34892;&#30465;(inland/inner/mainland eighteen provinces) to represent the historical heartlands of china, not only "eighteen provinces".

I have a idea maybe we should redefine "china proper" as official 15 province of ming empire.Why not? Outer china(&#37002;&#30086;) was used by qing empire to in contrast with the original china proper which is similar with official 15 province of ming empire.here is the proof:

http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/geo/outer.htm

don't panic,ran. Yunnan and Guizhou are considered as outer China,and they are not part of official 15 province of ming empire. However, they are within eighteen provinces.Now tell me, ran, do you still stick to your sucking historical knowledge?

OK, let's get it straight.Is China proper a political term or geographical term ? If it is a geographical term, there is no way to include taiwan in China proper because TW is a island far from mainland. If it is a political term, there is a term used by qing empire called "&#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#30465;", which means "inland/or inner 18 provinces". Here is the proof: http://edu.beida-online.com/data/data5.jsp?db=sanjiao&id=gejx18

(sorry it is the same link, but a short while ago I didn't translate it right and ignore a very important word.) &#20294;&#26377;&#26178;&#21371;&#21482;&#25351;&#20659;&#32113;&#30340;&#8220;&#20013;&#22283;&#8221;&#33539;&#22285;&#65292;&#21363;&#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#30465;&#65292;&#32780;&#19981;&#21253;&#25324;&#33945;&#21476;&#12289;&#35199;&#34255;&#12289;&#38738;&#28023;&#12289;&#26032;&#30086;&#12289;&#26481;&#21271;&#21644;&#21488; &#28771;&#22312;&#20839;&#12290; translation:sometimes "china" only means the traditional area (historical heartlands) of china,which means "inland/inner/mainland eighteen province".it dosen't included mongolia,tibet,qinghai,Xinjiang,manchuria and TAIWAN.

Here I have to emphasize the word "inland/inner/mainland", and that's why the Qing officer didn't consider taiwan as part of the traditional area of china(China proper).

can anyone rewrite this article? There do exist a chinese word for China proper(&#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#34892;&#30465;) ,because they have the same meaning:the historical heartlands of china.

I have to say it is really ridiculos to consider taiwan as the historical heartlands of china. Take a look at the map of Chin dynasty more than 2000 years ago.Fujian has been part of china for more than 2000 years since Chin dynasty, while taiwan was part of manchu empire only for about 200 years. Let alone Vietnam was part of china for about 1000 years. If taiwan is the historical heartlands of china, then vietnam is surely the historical heartlands of china. So the original definition is not right because the true definition of china proper is "nei-di-shi-ba-xing-sheng"(&#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#34892;&#30465;=mainland eighteen provinces). Instead of correcting the wrong definition, some guys like ran tries to mislead readers on purpose ,and this really disgusted me.

Honestly speaking ,China proper is an english noun, and therefore we should ask native speakers of English, especially Sinologist. If you ask any Sinologist familiar with history of China whether Taiwan is included in China proper or not, I am sure the answer is definitely "NO".

Ran, we define China proper as "&#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#34892;&#30465;"(=mainland eighteen provinces). If you don't agree to this ,we wait for your debate.

Well, I has a question about the term 18 provinces. As far as I am concerned, I know that 1911 edition Encyclopaedia Britannica described China proper as 18 provinces, but Taiwan was part of Japan at this time. Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1894, and therefore we have to know what Encyclopaedia Britannica before 1894 edition say about China proper. -- Anon

I suggest everyone go to a library and consult the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The term "eighteen provinces" we are talking about actually comes from 1911 edition Encyclopaedia Britannica http://50.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CH/CHINA.htm "China i proper or the Eighteen. Provinces (Ski h-p a-shfng) occupies the south-eastern part of the empire. It is bounded N. by Mongolia, W. by Turkestan and Tibet, S.W. by Burma, S. by Tongking and the gulf of that name, S.E. by the South China Sea, E. by the East China Sea, the Yellow Sea, Gulf of Chih-li and Manchuria. Its area is approximately 1,500,000 sq. m." However Taiwan was part of Japan in 1911, and therefore we should look it up in older edition before Sino-Japanese War(1894-1895). After checking it up in the library ,every edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica before 1894 I can find tells me that China proper does not included Taiwan. So I am sure the writer of the original article got confused with the time scale. He mistook the definition of 1911 edition Encyclopaedia Britannica for the definition of China proper all the time. In a word, the article needs to thoroughly re-edited.

Chinese translation for China proper
The article says that there is no direct translation for the term "China proper" in the Chinese language, so I think we should adopt the viewpoint of native speakers of English,not the viewpoint of native speakers of Chinese.Ross Terrill,a sinologist from USA, states that China proper is in contrast with the peripheral parts of the Chinese empire in his writings. And according to him the peripheral parts of the Chinese empire include Xinjiang,Tibet,Manchuria,mongolia and Taiwan. So in this way we can clearly understand what belongs to China proper and what does not. -- Anon


 * please sign your posts and arrange them chronologically. It's very confusing otherwise. The way you had it looked like Olivier said those things. --Menchi 03:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know when "China proper" was used in English for the first time? It's about late 18 century because Britain started to try to establish diplomatic relationship and get familiar with China at that time. "China proper" is not created from nothing. The concept of "China proper" actually comes from the definition of historical heartlands of China by Qing empire, and that is &#20839;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#30465;. (&#20839;&#22320;=mainland,&#21313;&#20843;=eighteen,&#30465;=province.)

Ran, you should go to consult Encyclopaedia Britannica and do some homework before you express your opinion. I don't want to bother your independent capacity to think, but you seems to try to define it by yourself without any proof to support your viewpoint.Isn't it ridiculous that a professional English encyclopedia adopt the definition of a non-native speakers of English of his own?


 * Er... doesn't that definition further strengthen my point? In the 18th century Taiwan was indeed a part of Fujian, which was in turn one of the 18 provinces.


 * In any case, I've always worked from the material that I see in the article and talk page, right in front of me, and so far, everything and everyone is telling me (including you!) that China proper = the 18 provinces. Since nobody has provided anything that could challenge that definition (save a secondary source that quotes Wei Yuan and is in itself somewhat confused about definitions anyway), I don't see how or why everyone seems to be opposed to what I'm saying.


 * Oh, by the way, neidi IS NOT "mainland". Nei + di literally breaks down to "inner land", or more loosely, "heartland". -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 05:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not heartland. Maybe we should find an american or an european who undestand chinese to tell you what it means. On the other hand, if you can read chinese papers, you will find both Taiwan and mainland China's papers often call mainland "&#20839;&#22320;"=Neidi. -- anon


 * Oh c'mon, let's not get ridiculous. Neidi, as a single expression, is a modern term that idiomatically refers to China excluding Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, and is relevant only to the modern political situation. Before this situation came into place, neidi must have had its literal meaning, i.e., two separate words meaning "inner land". Surely you are not going to suggest that "neidi" had the same idiomatic meaning as today back in the Qing Dynasty? It would be pretty amazing if the Qing Dynasty could predict that, in the year 2004, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau would not be under the same political structure as "neidi", but Hainan, Qingdao, and Weihai would, and thus be able to arrive at (amazingly) the same, idiomatically, specific-only-to-the-current-situation meaning for "neidi" as we do!

I am not sure whether Hong Kong or Macau is part of China proper or not like Menchi because they are too close to mainland. But I am sure Taiwan is not part of China proper because it is obviously far from Mainland.


 * And try not to accuse me of not being Chinese... considering your strident views expressed so far, I probably feel a lot more Chinese than you do. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 05:41, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me tell you again,China proper = the 18 provinces is the definition of 1911 edition Encyclopaedia Britannica.However Taiwan was part of Japan in 1911.
 * 18 provinces is a very loose definition, and I can understand why you get confused. But the fact is the fact. I also suggest you study the official historical document of Qing if you can, and you will find Qing emperor always considered Taiwan as a undeveloped island.I will give you more evidence if you need it. -- anon


 * More evidence would be good. But once again, remember that we're trying to define the term "China proper" here. If you're going to show me evidence in Chinese, shouldn't you first tell me what the term "China proper" is in Chinese? Because if China proper does not include Taiwan, then surely, "neidi shiba xingsheng" surely isn't the correct definition. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 05:54, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

You obviously dosn't get what I mean."neidi shiba xingsheng"=mainland 18 province. Are taiwan on the mainland? Of course not. I remind you again,"China proper" is not created from nothing. The concept of "China proper" actually comes from the definition of historical heartlands of China by Qing empire.I don't mind you feel a lot more Chinese, but you cannot twist the history.Let alone Encyclopaedia Britannica has told us It does not include Taiwan.I know in the viewpoint of chinese, they claims mongolia was part of China during Yuan dynasty, althought China was merely a part of Mongol empire at that time.Isn't it ridiculous? Now let me give you another example. After the Sino-Japanese war, the minister plenipotentiary of Qing empire who signed Treaty of Shimonoseki,&#26446;&#40251;&#31456;,described Taiwan in this way,"the birds don't cry,and the flowers are not fragrant. It is a undeveloped land and a island of many disease.It dosn't matter Qing ceded Taiwan to Japanese."

By the way,I am not sure whether Hong Kong or Macau is part of China proper or not like Menchi because they are too close to mainland. But I am sure Taiwan is not part of China proper because it is obviously far from Mainland.

I don't know why the statement "China proper does not include Taiwan" is deleted. It is also ridiculous to compare Hong Kong or Macau with Taiwan.Take a look at the map of Hong Kong or Macau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hk-map.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Macau_sm02.gif

Most part of Hong Kong and large part of Macau are actually on the Mainland! The area of the Islands of Hong Kong or Macau is only about 10~20 square Km ,and the distance between them and mainland is only about 1~2Km.

Now take a look at the map of Taiwan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Taiwan_map_large.gif There is NO part of taiwan on the mainland and the shortest distance between it and mainland China is about 130 km. The area of Taiwan is up to 36000square Km. Someone dosn't do homework and just guess on his own. Isn't it ridiculous that a professional English encyclopedia adopt the viewpoint of a non-native speakers of English who dosn't do homework?

I will translate neidi=hinterland. Anyone disagree?

There is another evidence.Let's see the geographic definition again.

"It is bounded N. by Mongolia, W. by Turkestan and Tibet, S.W. by Burma, S. by Tongking and the gulf of that name, S.E. by the South China Sea, E. by the East China Sea, the Yellow Sea, Gulf of Chih-li and Manchuria."

It says E. by the East China Sea, the Yellow Sea, Gulf of Chih-li(Bohai Sea). It dosen't say E. by Pacific ocean or Philippine Sea which is on the eastern side of Taiwan, and everyone knows that Taiwan strait is part of East China Sea or South China Sea. So it is very obvious that China proper does not include Taiwan.

Besides, after consulting many encyclopedias I gradually pick up the definition. At a later time I will show some maps and give the whole picture of the boundary.I


 * Uh... did you read what I said about neidi? When used in Chinese, it is used to refer to China WITHOUT Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan, meaning that it is a term specific to the current political situation. The Qing Dynasty could not have possibly had the same meaning for this term.


 * Also, your strange equation of "neidi = Mainland China = mainland" is ridiculous. For starters, "Mainland China" is a POLITICAL term, referring to the areas under the political control of the PRC; "mainland" with a small m is a GEOGRAPHICAL term, referring to parts of any continent. Islands like Hainan, Zhoushan, or Chongming aren't on the mainland of the continent of Asia, but they are part of Mainland China. Your weird argument that Hong Kong and Macau are part of neidi because they are GEOGRAPHICALLY a part of the Asian continent simply doesn't wash.


 * And finally, that definition is obviously a quote from INSIDE the article that we're trying to edit. I wouldn't exactly consider it as giving me "evidence" or "sources". -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 02:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Now let me start to introduce the actual boundary of China proper. There is no doubt the concept of "China proper" actually comes from the concept of historical heartlands of China in Qing empire, but now I will give a clear boundary of China proper. First of all, the eighteen provinces are only a very roughly description. Let me start from Tibet and show everyone why it is only a roughly description. Here I will show two maps: (I suggest readers save it in computer and enlarge all maps by 200% )

http://www.armysky.com/bbs/UploadFile/2004-3/200433182845653.JPG

It is a map of Qing in 1820.(map A) notice the left-lower green area of the map. It is the tibet province, North bordered by Xinjiang and Qinghai, East bordered by Sichuan province.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_tibet.gif It is a map of Historic and Cultural Tibet(map B)

If you compare this two maps, you will find the western part of Sichuan province is included in Historic and Cultural Tibet. If anyone doubts about this, let us see what 1911 edition Encyclopaedia Britannica said about it.

http://25.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TI/TIBET.htm "&#8220;TIBET, or THIBET, a country of central Asia. It is the highest country in. the world, comprising table-lands averaging over 16,500 ft. above the sea, the valleys being at 12,000 to 57,400 ft., the peaks at 20,000 to 24,600 ft., and the passes at 16,000 to 19,000 ft. It is bounded on the N. by Turkestan, on the E. by China, on. the W. by Kashmir and Ladak, and on the S. by India, Nepal and Bhutan. It has an area of over 1,000,000 sq. m., and an estimated population of about 3,000,000, being very sparsely inhabited.&#8221;"

1,000,000 sq. m.= about 2560000 square km. Tibet Autonomous Region+Qinghai=only about 2 million square km. No doubt Encyclopaedia Britannica means Historic and Cultural Tibet that include the western part of Sichuan province. If this is not enough, let us see Cambridge History of China, late Qing period(1800~1911) volumn 10. The map of "&#8220;Tibet in 19 century&#8221;"in chapter 2 is exactly the same as Historic and Cultural Tibet.

So the conclusion is: the principle of eighteen provinces dose not work here, and that is why I say it is only a very roughly description. Next, I will show you the actual north boundary of China proper.

Let me show you another map: http://www.armysky.com/bbs/UploadFile/2004-3/200433022564758.jpg this is also a map of Qing in 1820.(map C) (I suggest readers save it in computer and enlarge the map by 200% ) Does anyone notice the border between Gansu (purple area on the right side of Qinghai(yellow)), Shaanxi(green area on the right side of Gansu) and Mongolia? The border is exactly along the great wall of China! Let us go eastern, and we see the Shanxi province(orange area) and Zhili province (green area now Hebei). Here we find something interesting. The north part of Shanxi province and Zhili province reach beyond the great wall, and there are inner and outer two great walls in Shanxi province!

Now let us see Cambridge History of China, late Qing period(1800~1911) volumn 10. The map of"&#8220;Mongolia in 1820&#8221;"in chapter 2 shows the south border of Mongolia is exactly the great wall of China including the outer great wall in Shanxi province! As for Xinjiang, the map in this book does not draw the actual border between Xinjiang and China proper because it is short. But basically it is around the western end of great wall, Jiayu Pass. In the direction of northeast of Qing, it is Manchuria. I will give you the definition from Encyclopaedia Britannica.

http://91.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MANCHURIA.htm "&#8221;More definitely, it is bounded N. by the Amur, E. by the Usuri, S. by the Gulf of Liao-tung, the Yellow Sea and Korea, and W. by Chih-li and Mongolia.&#8221;"

Here it seems that Encyclopaedia Britannica dose not consider"&#8220;willow palisade&#8221;" as the south border with China proper, and Cambridge History of China adopts the same viewpoint as well. You can see the map of "&#8220;Manchuria in 19 century&#8221;"in chapter 7, Cambridge History of China, late Qing period(1800~1911) volumn 10.

Finally, let us talk about Taiwan. As what I said before, the eighteen provinces are only a very roughly description. On the other hand, the geographic definition of China proper is always the same, and it is especially helpful when we think about the territorial seas of China proper, which is a clear natural boundary. "It is bounded N. by Mongolia, W. by Turkestan and Tibet, S.W. by Burma, S. by Tongking and the gulf of that name, S.E. by the South China Sea, E. by the East China Sea, the Yellow Sea, Gulf of Chih-li (Bohai Sea) and Manchuria."

If Taiwan were part of China proper, it would say"&#8220;S. by Tongking and the gulf of that name, S.E. by the South China Sea, E. by the Philippine Sea, East China Sea, the Yellow Sea, Gulf of Chih-li.&#8221;"Obviously it does not say E. by the Philippine Sea.

If this is not enough, again let us see Cambridge History of China, late Qing period(1800~1911) volumn 11.In chapter 2, on the subject of "&#8220;the invasion and expansion of great powers toward the vassals and frontiers&#8221;of China", Cambridge History of China lists Ryukyu islands(Okinawa), TAIWAN, Korea, Manchuria, Xinjiang, Vietnam and Tibet(sorry after checking it again Tibet is not listed. that is my fault). Through this we can make sure China proper does not include Taiwan.

I know history well,especially Chinese history. My intuition tells me this is wrong when someone says Taiwan is included. But I don't know how to express at first. However,later I decided that I have to teach some cheaters a lesson.

What else do you wan to say,Ran? Do you ever do any homework? NO. And who want to twist the history?Ran.

Retrocession
Previously, I put in an paragraph to neutralize the claim "retrocession" of Taiwan which is an POV. I did not touch the orignal text to keep the original author's content intact. I agree that paragraph about sovereignty was a bit awkward there. I am fine with it if you that part was taken away. But since half of the article was about Taiwan, I thought the paragraph with a bit flavor of international law on the topic of sovereignty was not too off. And this would neutralize the POV "retrocession". However, if that paragraph is taken away, then I believe the POV, retrocession, has to go. Either way is fine with me. Both stay, or both go. :)Mababa 01:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think China proper is used to justify separatism, but it is a fact. There also exsisted "Germany proper" before.

http://81.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GE/GERMANY.htm GERMANY (Ger. Deutschland), or, more properly, THE GERMAN EMPIRE (Deutsclzes Reich), a country of central Europe. The territories occupied by peoples of distinctively Teutonic race and language are commonly designated as German, and in this sense may be taken to include, besides Germany proper (the subject of the present article), the German-speaking sections of Austria, Switzerland and Holland.

As for Taiwan, It is hardly to say the entire land is part of Qing ,the manchu empire.Let's see The Mutan Village Incident in 1874.

For the declared purpose of resolving the long-standing problem of Taiwan aboriginal attacks upon Japanese seamen stranded in Taiwan territorial waters, in May of 1874, Japan sent a contingent of 3600 soldiers to Taiwan under the command of army Lt. Gen. Saigo Tsugumichi. Following the punitive expedition against the aborigines, the Japanese established friendly relationships with them, presenting them with Japanese ceremonial banners and seals for use in subsequent official communications. Japan&#8217;s pretext for sending this Japanese expeditionary force was as follows: First, in December 1871, a Miyako Island boat sailing from Naha encountered a storm at sea on its return voyage. It was cast onto the southeastern coast of Taiwan near Payao Bay. Of the 66 crewmen who were so fortunate as to land there, 54 were killed by aborigines from Kaoshihfo and Mutan villages. Subsequently, in March of 1873, while on a trading voyage four seamen including ship&#8217;s captain Sato Rihachi from Oda Prefecture (present-day Okayama Prefecture) were also blown by a storm to the vicinity of Mawuku in eastern Taiwan, where aborigines made off with their clothing. Although the Japanese authorities at first sought to resolve this problem through diplomatic channels, nevertheless, as in earlier instances of European and American ships stranded in Taiwan, the Qing authorities continued to deny responsibility, based on the principle that &#8220;those are uncivilized people on the outer fringes of civilization.&#8221; Consequently, under the premise that &#8220;the Qing Empire is unable to deal with this sort of affair,&#8221; Japan sent troops to Taiwan for punitive action against the island&#8217;s aborigines.

We notice that "the Qing authorities continued to deny responsibility, based on the principle that &#8220;those are uncivilized people on the outer fringes of civilization.&#8221;", which means it didn't think this place as part of it. Besides, if you see many maps of that time in foreign countries, you will see the actual territory of Qing on Taiwan is only west part of the island near the western coast, not the entire land.Thus it is not correct when some chinese claim that the entire land of Taiwan was part of Qing. We remember that chinese often distort history by overthrowing What their ancient official books said to justify their political claim, but anyone who familiar with history just won't buy it.


 * Nice paragraph. Thanks for sharing with us!!Mababa 09:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mongolia and Taiwan
Mababa:

Your recently-inserted point of view that "Mongolia should be in China Proper more than Taiwan" does not fit either of the definitions of China Proper that were given in the Taiwan section. The two definitions were:


 * 1) That China Proper = the traditional area of Han Chinese dynasties. That would include neither Mongolia nor Taiwan.
 * 2) That China Proper = 18 provinces. That would include Taiwan, or the western parts of Taiwan, or partially the western parts of Taiwan, but it would definitely not include Mongolia.

To insert your point of view, you will need to give a third, supported definition of "China Proper", different from both of the above, that would include Mongolia but not Taiwan.

-- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 03:13, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, after I read the long thread, I finally realized that the idea of China proper defined here was not based on how long one territory was administrated by China but based on either the territory of Han or the 18 province divisions of Qing. It never came to me that 18 province to be the base of the China Proper, and I really have to say it is awkward to see that. Incuding a savage land to the Qing-China proper is certainly weird, just like you would not pile up garbages into your own garage. I will see what can I find to support my story. Thanks for your suggestion.Mababa 03:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After I have done a bit of research on internet, I realized that China proper is really a changing idea differeing from dynasty to dynasty based on the context of the articles. There are also definition based on how populated the area and makes the most populated eastern area counted as China proper. Restricting to only the two definition here is really not reflecting the perception in the real world. Furthermore, the idea China proper varies with time. Since Qing cessioned Taiwan to Japan before the dynasty demised, I would argue that Taiwan ceased to be part of the 18 province defined here. If one really look at the artcles about late Qing and early Republic, one would learn that the China proper(a.k.a. 18 provinces) really does not include Taiwan which was part of Japan Proper at that time.

&#24403;&#26102;&#38761;&#21629;&#23478;&#20204;&#30340;&#31574;&#30053;&#26377;&#8220;&#19978;&#19979;&#20004;&#31574;&#8221;&#65292;&#19978;&#31574;&#26159;&#38761;&#21629;&#25919;&#24220;&#25910;&#22797;&#28385;&#28165;&#25919;&#24220;&#30340;&#20840;&#37096;&#39046;&#22303;&#65307;&#19979;&#31574;&#26159;&#38761;&#21629;&#25919;&#24220;&#25910;&#22797;&#20013;&#21407;&#21313;&#20843;&#20010;&#27721;&#26063;&#20154;&#30465;&#20221;&#30340;&#20027;&#26435;&#65292;&#25226;&#28385;&#33945;&#30086;&#34255;&#8220;&#20986;&#21334;&#8221;&#32473;&#21015;&#24378;&#65292;&#20197;&#25442;&#21462;&#20182;&#20204;&#23545;&#38761;&#21629;&#30340;&#25903;&#25345;&#12290;&#20197;&#21069;&#28165;&#25919;&#24220;&#21482;&#20934;&#35768;&#27721;&#26063;&#22312;&#21313;&#20843;&#20010;&#20869;&#22320;&#30465;&#20221;&#23621;&#20303;&#65292;&#36825;&#21313;&#20843;&#20010;&#30465;&#26159;&#30452;&#38582;&#65288;&#27827;&#21271;)&#12289;&#27827;&#21335;&#12289;&#23665;&#19996;&#12289;&#23665;&#35199;&#12289;&#28246;&#21335;&#12289;&#28246;&#21271;&#12289;&#24191;&#19996;&#12289;&#24191;&#35199;&#12289;&#27993;&#27743;&#12289;&#23433;&#24509;&#12289;&#27743;&#33487;&#12289;&#27743;&#35199;&#12289;&#31119;&#24314;&#12289;&#22235;&#24029;&#12289;&#38485;&#35199;&#12289;&#29976;&#32899;&#12289;&#36149;&#24030;&#21644;&#20113;&#21335;&#65292;&#20851;&#22806;&#30340;&#28385;&#27954;&#65288;&#19996;&#19977;&#30465;&#65289;&#12289;&#35199;&#34255;(&#38738;&#28023;)&#12289;&#33945;&#21476;(&#20869;&#22806;&#33945;)&#12289;&#26032;&#30086;&#26159;&#19981;&#20801;&#35768;&#27721;&#26063;&#38543;&#20415;&#36801;&#20837;&#23621;&#20303;&#30340;&#12290;&#24403;&#26102;&#38761;&#21629;&#20826;&#20154;&#30340;&#8220;&#37326;&#24515;&#8221;&#24182;&#19981;&#22823;&#65292;&#8220;&#39537;&#36880;&#38801;&#34383;&#12289;&#24674;&#22797;&#20013;&#21326;&#8221;&#30340;&#30452;&#25509;&#30446;&#30340;&#23601;&#26159;&#22312;&#21313;&#20843;&#20010;&#20869;&#22320;&#27721;&#26063;&#20154;&#30465;&#20221;&#20013;&#24674;&#22797;&#27721;&#20154;&#30340;&#20027;&#26435;&#65292;&#38761;&#21629;&#21482;&#35201;&#24674;&#22797;&#20102;&#20869;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#30465;&#30340;&#27721;&#20154;&#20027;&#26435;&#23601;&#26159;&#25104;&#21151;&#65292;&#35199;&#34255;(&#38738;&#28023;)&#12289;&#33945;&#21476;(&#20869;&#22806;&#33945;)&#12289;&#26032;&#30086;&#21644;&#28385;&#27954;&#65288;&#19996;&#19977;&#30465;&#65289;&#30340;&#20027;&#26435;&#37117;&#21487;&#20197;&#25918;&#24323;&#12290;&#23459;&#32479;&#19977;&#24180;&#27494;&#26124;&#36215;&#20041;&#26102;&#65292;&#36215;&#20041;&#20891;&#25171;&#20986;&#30340;&#38761;&#21629;&#20891;&#26071;&#26159;&#8220;&#21313;&#20843;&#26143;&#26071;&#8221;&#65292;&#36825;&#8220;&#21313;&#20843;&#39063;&#26143;&#8221;&#23601;&#26159;&#20195;&#34920;&#20869;&#22320;&#21313;&#20843;&#20010;&#27721;&#26063;&#20154;&#23621;&#20303;&#30340;&#30465;&#20221;&#65292;&#21518;&#26469;&#20063;&#26377;&#20154;&#31216;&#20854;&#20026;&#22823;&#27721;&#26063;&#20027;&#20041;&#30340;&#26071;&#24092;&#12290;

Thus, arguing Taiwan to be part of China proper based on an obsolete definition of 18 provinces is really anachronistic. The early revolutionists (Mao, Sun) on China has already recognized that Taiwan was not part of the China proper(a.k.a. 18 provinces) and actively proposed Taiwan independent from Japan. Why the modern people failed to recognize that??!!Mababa 04:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Topic aside, thanks for the link. Highly interesting read, it was. :)

I agree that the current article seems a bit contrived, in order to bring together a lot of different views and apparent contradictions. One of these days I might rewrite it again. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 04:28, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

There is another different view point on the idea of China Proper

According to a recent paper by Professor Wachman of Tufts University, the CCP excluded Taiwan from maps, colored Taiwan out of postage stamps and made references to Taiwan only in association with "other Asian peoples who may be rallied in the fight against the Japanese". The ROC's control over Tibet and Outer Mongolia was lost after 1911, yet these areas were still considered part of China proper and were reflected as such in maps and rhetoric - Taiwan was not. Mababa 06:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The arguments that you inserted are still arguments that Taiwan is not a part of China, not that Taiwan is not a part of China proper. This is an article on China proper, not China. Please put those into political status of Taiwan. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 00:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved your Japan image into political status of Taiwan. Also, I've thought over this again, and I think that the entire section is misguided. There is no separate dispute over whether Taiwan is a part of China proper or not. Instead, the dispute is on whether Taiwan is a part of China. And the two camps think this way:


 * 1) Taiwan is a part of China. So is Tibet, Xinjiang, etc. There is no such thing as "China proper".
 * 2) China proper is the part of China that China properly should have. Therefore Tibet, Taiwan etc. aren't a part of it.

If you already support the concept of "China proper", you're not going to argue that "Taiwan is a part of it and Tibet is not". It's theoretically possible for you do to that, but in reality, few people would. Either you think Taiwan is a part of China (proper or not), or you think that Taiwan isn't a part of China (proper or not).

So the dispute should be at political status of Taiwan, not here. I've rewritten the paragraph to reflect that. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 01:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the material I inserted in is a clear argument: Taiwan ceased to be part of China proper.

What I believe is that the idea China Proper is such a volatile concept which changes from time to time. Using the definition of the 18 provinces to bring Taiwan into China proper is problematic itselves, since the definition of the 18 provinces has already changed as time moved forward. At the end Qing dynasty, Taiwan was out of the definition of 18 provinces already.

I have no objection to put Taiwan to be part of 18-provinces or China proper during the Qing Dynasty. I actually put a map on to the article!!! However, a new concept of 18-provinces or China proper already emerged at the end of the Qing dynasty which retained most of the area except Taiwan.

As the article pointed out at the begining:

as it implies that some of China's territory is not as "proper", which can be used to justify separatism, a highly reviled concept.

It would be misleading to use the obsolete definition at certain point but neglecting the new development. Insisting on the definition at the eary Qing dynasty and hiding the new public perception in the republic era after the Qing dynasty would make readers wonder if we intentionally made it as a political propaganda. You have removed the part discussing the new definition of the 18 provinces. I do not think it is fare to the Taiwanese or to the general public readers.Mababa 01:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What did I hide? The "extent" section still describes how vague the concept is; The "Taiwan" section still describes different points of view. The article does not endorse any one definition. And anything more detailed about Taiwan specifically should rightly belong to political status of Taiwan.

The reason why I removed the entire dispute is because I think it was basically manufactured as a result of an earlier dispute between me and an anon. (See above) There is no such dispute out there in the general world. Either people think that China = everything and that "China proper" = China, or they think that China = China proper + colonies which should be independent (like Taiwan). There is no separate dispute about whether "Taiwan should be a part of China proper" or whether "Taiwan is part of the 18 provinces" outside of us few people in Wikipedia.

Also, how about this: I'll make the "eighteen provinces" a "guideline" rather than a "definition" for China proper. No one is seriously going to rigidly &#20725;&#30828;&#22320; &#25945;&#26781;&#20027;&#32681;&#22320; define "China proper" as strictly the 18 provinces anyways. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 01:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have just read the new article and everything looked quite neutral. I have to say that you did a good jub. Bravo!!


 * Thanks. :)

I believe the topic of China Proper really should be isolated from the current political debate. Since the concept of China Proper was also used to justify separatism or non-separatism, which makes the definition inevitabley political, I would like to propose to include the change of defintion during the republic. In this way, the article would be really reflecting what the contemporary people used to think, instead of something being manipulated or scewed by political groups. And China Proper would be kept as an article about pure and clean history. How about this?? :) The political status of Taiwan should be resolved only on the interpretation of international law and has nothing to do with the idea, China proper.Mababa 01:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, but the very concept of "China Proper", including its very validity, is a political debate, so it's really hard to make it an article about pure and clean history... in the end it can only talk about different people's views and so forth. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 02:03, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, I really think that the material you put in about the change of definition should belong in political status of Taiwan, because it is about whether Taiwan is a part of China. I apologize for deleting what was evidently quite a lot of work... :( and I strongly encourage you to put what you have into political status of Taiwan. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 02:08, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly but respectfully disagree with you about the way you plan to treat the progression of the definition. I agree that it delt with the question about whether Taiwan is a part of China. But the core of it was about the idea of China Proper!! And we should not left this part of the history specifically about China Proper being left out!! I would consider to put it into the political status of Taiwan. On the other hand, I strongly encourage you to put them back to China Proper.Mababa 02:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've made some changes. What do you think? -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 02:35, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Nice work! I really appreciate your effort. It looks great here. I hope you won't mind if I come back sometime later and make things even more palatable to me and then you can make other changes to bring it back to an angle you prefer. You might have known what I want to put in already.

Out of curiosity: Do you think China Proper as a political topic? If you think so, then you arguement that the definition progression paragraph should be moved to political status of Taiwan won't hold and we should equally treaty different political opinions here. However, if you do not think so, then puting the definition progression paragraph here would be merely treating historical material and there should be no problem at all. I see your effort and I am sure that you want to impartially treat the article. I am sure that we can reach a neutral point on this topic. (Let's pray for it.)

One more thing. I realized that you say one of the photos I uploaded to be copyrighted. I wonder what should I have provided? Or how can this be determined? The map seemed to be old already. Perhaps you can redirect me to one of the pages on this topic.Mababa 02:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Asia Times photo is copyrighted for sure -- check their website, they state it under their policy.

The 1875 map might be copyrighted too, since it seems to be a promotional picture for a company. (You might want to check Copyrights.) Which is a pity, because I like that map. :D

And yes, I think China Proper is a controversial topic, and I guess you can call that "political". But the controversy is not "what China proper includes", it is "whether China proper exists". One side says "no, the Proper China is Greater China which includes Taiwan", while the other side says "yes, it includes only the parts China has always had, and all the other parts like Tibet, Taiwan etc. are just colonies". I don't think people then go on to dispute about whether Taiwan is a part of China proper.

This is the great thing about NPOV.... under any other circumstances (say a political forum), we'd be bashing each other's heads in already. :D Let's continue working on this and make this as NPOV as we can. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 04:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely China Proper does exist because it was firstly used in europe in 17th century and never changed.If you say China Proper is Greater China which may also include singapore, it is just the viewpoint of some chinese like Ran who has poor knowledge about history and desperately tries to twist it.

It looks like I've done what you've always wanted to do: put Taiwan into the first paragraph. ;) (With NPOV rephrasing, of course.)

Btw, Mababa, do you go on the Chinese Wikipedia? It has somewhat of a Mainland bias and really really needs Taiwanese contributors. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 04:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I almost burst into tears. I am speechless and so moved. You have made my day. Thank you Ran. I think the current article is neutral and fair. This is the article for China Proper, not Taiwan proper. If I ask more, I would be the one fussing. Thank you again for your work and also your invitation for Chinese Wiki. However, coming to English Wiki is already a luxury for me. Iam not sure if I can afford more time to participate there now. Maybe some time later. :) It was a pleasure working with you on this topic and find us agreeing with each other. I wish you have a nice thanksgiving day. ;) Mababa 00:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, Mababa. After several fruitless disputes I've had in the past I'm happy to have gotten some of the knack of NPOV writing. And a great Thanksgiving day to you too ;) -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 05:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

China Proper is not a controversial topic at all. This is the same case with Germany proper. As what I have shown ,Germany proper was not a controversial topic at all although German empire still took possesion of those non-Germany proper territories at that time. Those non-Germany proper area was indeed under extensively germanization in 19th century, but that didn't make "Germany proper" disappear nither. Today "Germany proper" is hardly used and almost disappears because nowadays Germany does not has any territory outside Germany proper. Yes,maybe one day China proper will disappear as you wish, Ran.--anon

Does anyone find in the map "The Eighteen Provinces of China proper in 1875" Gansu province in the northwest also embraced large chunk(probably even the entire land) of Xinjiang? It is a little bit strange.I think We need a more detailed map.

Map
China proper includes Liaoning but excludes Ningxia? That's not the extent of the original 18 provinces. Ningxia was a part of Gansu during the Qing Dynasty. -- ran (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

When different people say "China proper" (if they do at all), they mean different things. The problem with the current map is that it mixes up two different definitions of China proper into one map.

There's a historical definition of China proper, which is based on the eighteen administrative provinces of China proper that existed during the Qing (Manchu) dynasty. This China proper does not include Manchuria, Mongolia (Inner + Outer), Xinjiang, and Tibet. Nor does it include Taiwan, after Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895 (before 1895, it did). The eighteen provinces were the focus of early Chinese revolutionaries who sought to establish an independent state free of Manchu rule. But these eighteen provinces do include the entirely of Sichuan province (including the northwestern, Tibetan part), because that was already a part of Sichuan at a time. It should also include the area around Xining, Qinghai, because that was a part of Gansu at a time. It should not include the northern part of modern Hebei province, because modern Hebei now extends outside the Great Wall.

There's also an ethnic definition of China proper, based on the areas inhabited by Han Chinese. By this definition, northwestern Sichuan is indeed properly excluded, but the southwestern part of Gansu province and the northwestern part of Yunnan province are also ethnic Tibetan areas claimed by Tibetan exiles as a part of Tibet rather than China Proper. In fact, much of southwestern China, including large swathes of Guizhou, Guangxi, and Yunnan provinces, are not Han Chinese. In contrast Manchuria should be included, as should much of Inner Mongolia.

In short, the map appears to follow the historical definition of China more or less, except at the Sichuan-Tibet border, where it follows the ethnic definition instead, but not at the Gansu-Tibet border or the Yunnan-Tibet border. At the Hebei-Inner Mongolia border it follows neither historical nor ethnic definition, but instead the modern provincial boundary, which doesn't have either historical or ethnic basis.

In summary, the map as it stands right now is not really "NPOV", but it's POV in a peculiar way in that it seems to mix up several POV's together, and appeases none of them. I apologize for being nitpicky here, pointing out things that are just a few pixels either way, but this being such a sensitive topic, I'm sure that other nitpickers will come after me and they will spot more things.

As for the solution: I propose that this map be split into two:


 * 1) One will be modified from the present map, to represent the 18 provinces of China Proper during Qing China.
 * 2) The other will represent the present-day distribution of Han Chinese in China.

-- ran (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I'll try to make these maps ASAP. As for now, I'll put some clarification on the map description. As for the ethnic definition of China proper, the distribution in which era should be use. There have been huge migrations of Han Chinese into historical Tibet region, and large scale "disappearance" of Tibetans. I suggest we use a pre-1960 distribution. deeptrivia (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into a big debate here, but:
 * 1) Since 1949, the region whose demographics has really shifted in favour of the Han Chinese is Xinjiang, not Tibet: according to official stats, the proportion of Han Chinese in Xinjiang has risen from under 10% to over 40% in these past few decades;
 * 2) Han Chinese migration into Tibet has altered the demographics of a few key cities (e.g. Lhasa, Nyingtri) and a few regions (e.g. the Chaidam Basin), but the vast majority of the land area of the Tibetan plateau remains non-Han Chinese;
 * 3) The majority of Tibetan loss of life happened during the Great Leap Forward, which killed 20 - 40 million people nationwide, the vast majority of which was Han Chinese;
 * 4) How would you find reliable data on 1960 demographics in any case?

In short, the 1960 date will precede demographics changes in Tibet, but it does not account for similar changes (namely, swamping by Han Chinese) that had already started in Xinjiang (from early 1950's on) or Inner Mongolia and Manchuria (from 19th century on) or, say, Taiwan (17th century on). Moreover, the demographic changes that have occurred in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria and Taiwan have all been (to date) far more drastic than what has happened in Tibet. So I don't think we should be selecting a date just so that we can sidestep demographic changes in one region, even though such data would poorly reflect demographic flux in other regions and would be hard to obtain in any case.

So I think it would be fine to use present-day distributions for the second map. If you worry that it will make Tibet look Han Chinese -- by and large it will not. The Chaidam Basin will look Han Chinese, and so might a few spots (Nyingtri, Lhasa), but the vast majority of land will be ethnic Tibetan.

-- ran (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very valid practical points, which I had overlooked. Great work with adding more maps. Regarding Sichuan, the western parts of it belonged to the Amdo province, which has traditionally been a part of Tibet. The dashed lines I have drawn through the province roughly correspond to the borders of Aba Tibetan Qiang Autonomous Prefecture and Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, which make up most of western Sichuan. deeptrivia (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the area (Aba + Garzê) was also a part of Sichuan province during the Qing Dynasty. The area was partitioned by the Emperor Yongzheng in 1724 among Lhasa, Sichuan and Yunnan, according to this article from the Japanese Wikipedia, resulting in the tripartite division of Kham that has lasted since. -- ran (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Gah!! This article is becoming a serious mess. So what I'm thinking about, is that instead of having the current sections of "extent", "term in Chinese", and "Taiwan", all of which are increasingly repetitive of each other, we can have two separate sections corresponding to the historically-based and culturally-based concepts of China Proper, respectively. (And perhaps a third section, for "China Proper = China", or even "China Proper > China" for those irredentists that want Mongolia back.) This way the maps would have somewhere to go as well instead of being stacked on top of each other with little explanation.

-- ran (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove term

 * Indeed, the historical evolution of China from a historical core to a later, larger entity is an indisputable fact.

It's hardly indisputable.

Roadrunner 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ermm... well. The PRC is certainly larger than Tang China which is certainly larger than Qin China which is certainly larger than Shang China. It's not like China assumed the borders of the ROC, Mongolia and Tuva and all, since the days of Shennong and Huangdi. -- ran (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of "China proper" in the article
After reading the second paragraph, the start of the third seems completely out of place. It's using the term "China proper" itelf, which was deemed controvertial before; furthermore, the same paragraph states that the term is considered offensive by some. It sounds pretty much like "The use of the term 'Gypsy' is controvertial as some Gypsies consider it pejorative"; this would be obviously inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'd like to reword the sentence, but I don't know how to; only deleting the word "proper" wouldn't work.--cloviz 01:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anyway around it and the word Gypsy is not a good analogy. "China proper" is a widely used term for the core provinces of China. I know that this article states that some people consider the use of the term China proper "controversial" or "offensive", but it doesn't say who finds it controversial, which makes me think that this a clear case of a Weasel word. The word "proper" has nothing to do whether whether the territory of China is "proper" or not, instead it refers to the core of China as distinct to its perifery. For instance, in Finland there is a region called Finland Proper - no one is disputing that the rest of the country belongs to Finland. Likewise, people talk about Lesser Poland proper, France proper, England proper, London proper, etc.--Niohe 02:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Finland proper is an official region; "London proper" or "France proper" are not defined terms, they are just pairs of words that come handy in some situations and that's why we don't have articles for them. The use of "China proper" is more relevant because it's controvertial and even hard to manage. You should note that many citizens of the PRC disregard historical or anthropological matters on defining their country under the name "China", which they believe to be bound to their current state. Therefore, using the term "China proper" as an accepted word suggests a POV on the issue. I think your last changes improved the neutrality of the article.--cloviz 03:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

removal link to chinese wiki 中国本土
reason,china proper and 中国本土 have the different definition,one of the definition refered to all the territories of China.Ksyrie
 * Please don't be pedantic, the treatment of 中国本土 is as close we can get to a discussion on China proper in Chinese.--Niohe 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to make any no-go edits,in chinese wiki,there are at least two main definition of 中国本土,while one correspondants to china proper,another means the territory of china,so I found it not suitable to give the interlangue link to 中国本土,only if in China proper there are also the corresponding two definitions.Ksyrie
 * Stop deleting useful zh-links because they don't satisfy your perfect standards of 1:1 correspondence between different language versions in Wikipedia. Your acts are stumblingly close to WP:vandalism.--Niohe 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Be patient,I didn't intend to make any nationalist changes.The reason why I moved the link to 中国本土 is that, the topic in china proper and the topic in 中国本土 are not the same.That'a all,we cann't interlink two language version of wiki without the same topic.So if you really want to keep the chinese link 中国本土,you can either modify the article of China proper or 中国本土 to make the two article do tallk of the same topic.Furthermore,I acknowledge your idea don't satisfy your perfect standards of 1:1 correspondence between different language versions in Wikipedia.,But in our case,the definition of 中国本土 is too far from China proper.sometimes,we tolerate some small uncertainty ot nuances between different language wiki.But for 中国本土 and China proper,there are a big discrepancy.So I just suggested in chinese wiki to split 中国本土 in two articles,one corresponded to chinese daytimes used meaning ,one to China proper.Are you Ok?Ksyrie
 * No, I'm not satisfied and I think you should be patient and not delete useful links. The heading of 中国本土 clearly states "目前有大致有两种观点：一种观点（多为中国大陆民众）认为中国本土即指中国领土，一种观点（多为台湾）认为中国本土与英文的China Proper相当，指的是内地十八省的范围. 在汉语字义上理解，中国本土指中国本有的土地、领土. " This is a close as we get, we don't need to rewrite the articles right now to establish a link between Chinese and English Wikipedia.
 * you sentence cann't make sense,since you have clearly understood the 中国本土 have the ambiguity of definition,people will automatically conclude that china proper and 中国本土 are not the same.So I just wonder that why you insisted on linking two differnet article?what is your finally aims to link two different articles?This can only cause confusion in understanding.Give me your reason,pleaseKsyrie
 * You just reverted WP:3RR and I'm reporting you to an administrator.--Niohe 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the last time: there is absolutely no need for 100% correspondence, or 一一对应 as you call it on Chinese Wikipedia. In case two topics do not cover each other entirely, the link is there to facilitate translation and creation of new, more precisely defined papes. Please refer to Interlanguage_links for more info and restore your deletion. You risk being blocked for WP:3RR violation.--Niohe 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If China was a proper federalist place, instead of relaying on such centralist power, than non-Han ethnic groups might consider themselves Chinese too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

List of Army Fortresses in Japan proper

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

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

Tang Dynasty is not Han
The Tang were a synthetic dynasty, which was more Central Asian than Chinese to begin with and still very Central Asian even in its decline. The concept of Han Chinese Dynasties is a poor one and I recommend its removal from the "China Proper from the Historical Perspective" section. Elijahmeeks 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Han people lean towards homogeneity and conformity, not diversity and debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't China (which is Han areas) basically a colony of 'got pawnd' by Mongolians and Manchurians?? Only revisionism includes them as dynasties in the Chinese narrative, and makes seem like Genghis was a Chinese guy who actually conquered half of Eurasia!? Which would make China during 'Yuan' stretch from Hungary or something? Why not include that in then, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * China is not equivalent to Han areas and calling it a colony of 'got panwd' by Mongolians and Manchurians shows gross ignorance on your side. The article for China Proper is well-sourced besides. Educate yourself instead of complaining about revisionism. Lathdrinor (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Debatable boundries of China proper
John Keay uses the term 'cradle of China' to refer to the provinces around Shandong, to be that of the original homeland of the Han. The southern provinces of the 18 perhaps could be consider historically non-Han but over many centuries were asslimated into the Chinese state.

Places like Hebei, northern Shaanxi and Beijing were ancient lands of non-Chinese up until the medieval period, even some areas were the Yellow river flows. If you consider the 'Great Wall' was only really of importance in Ming Dynasty, (before it was just random earthmounds) wasn't this then the (international) border between Han and Mongolian (and other nomadic peoples) states? Think about Beijing in this context, it was only established place of significance under the Liao (Khitan people), Jin (Manchurian) and Yuan (Mongolian nation) empires, they made Beijing what it was. If Kublai Khan hadn't shifted the Mongolian capital more south to Dadu (Beijing) would the Ming Chinese have held in such importance to make it their later imperial capital? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wasn;t southern territories like Yunnan, Guizhou and Guangxi independent at different times through history? Even Guangdong wasn't under a central Chinese power or dynasty from time to time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hebei, northern Shaanxi, and Beijing were all territories of the Han Dynasty. I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to them being ancient lands of non-Chinese up until the medieval period. They were certainly controlled by non-Chinese at various periods of history but so were other provinces of China. The Northern Dynasties, for example, controlled all of northern China from ~300 AD to ~600 AD. So is northern China not within China proper because it was ruled by non-Chinese? The logic does not fly. China proper in Western usage refers simply to territories that have been inhabited primarily by people identifying themselves as Chinese and who speak a Chinese language in the last few hundred years. The territory of the Ming is the archetypal example of China proper. China proper is not equivalent to the 'original homeland of the Han,' but even in case it were, it had to have included the territories of the Han Dynasty by definition, and thus Hebei, northern Shaanxi, and Beijing. Lathdrinor (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

This is very scholarly, but to speak of when the concept appeared in the "Western world" is rather POV because it suggests that the distinction did not exist in the "Chinese world". In fact, while the name "China proper" may not have existed in Chinese, the concept certainly wasn't made up by Westerners; it was implicit in Qing governance. While the Qing adopted the mantle of a Chinese dynasty, the Lifan Yuan was a peculiarly Qing institution that explicitly placed large swathes of Qing territory outside of "China". Qing policies on the immigration of Han Chinese into outer territories were also based on a distinction between Han Chinese territories and those of other ethnic groups. Surely this section should make some reference to this. The fact that China no longer recognises the distinction does not invalidate it as a historical concept. Bathrobe (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


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


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


 * Incidentally, I'm a little sceptical of your source by the Chinese scholar Gang Zhao (Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century). The sentence "The Chinese people never returned to the position that China was the property of the Han people" sums up the problem. We need a lot more than one Chinese scholar setting out to prove the official position that "China now sees itself as a multi-ethnic state". Who are the "Chinese people"? The Han Chinese? The Tibetans? The Mongols? The Uighurs? Do they all subscribe to this idea? If you could demonstrate that a majority of (for argument's sake) Tibetans didn't subscribe to this position, then essentially Gang Zhao's case is null and void. I don't think that a consensus position among the dominant ethnic group (however big their majority) proves that all ethnicities are happy with this formulation. Bathrobe (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I don't like removing information. But the information that you inserted had obviously been put in there to cavil at the thrust of the article and was totally against logical structure or flow. I scratched my head about where to move it on more than one occasion but could see no obvious place for it to go. It really belongs further up in the article, or possibly in another article, not randomly placed in the Implications section. Bathrobe (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bathrobe:If one can prove that the Qing regarded Tibet and other areas as "part of China", then there is some justification for China being in there.


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


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


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


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


 * The Mongols could surely  read all those treaties. You have thousands of ethnic groups around the world without their states and with their own interpretations of their history, but what a treaty says is clear even if you don't like it.
 * And the 1906 treaty respecting Tibet only mentions China and Great Britain. Read it here:[|Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet]. Rate 12 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * If you want to consider what the Qing themselves thought, then there is a lot to cover! There is the kind of options open at the time (gaining the Mandate of Heaven and taking tianxia were the parlance of the day, not establishing independent sovereign states), their special relationship with the Mongols, their total segregation from the Han Chinese (set apart in special areas of the city, intermarriage forbidden), their ban on Han Chinese settling in outer territories, the role and status of the Lifanyuan, the cultural and political policies adopted in Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, and the West, their insistence on establishing boundaries and control, their insistence on placing Manchus in all government departments, the superficial maintenance of the Manchu language as an equal of Chinese, historical changes as the dynasty progressed, and much else besides. These are all things that can be interpreted in many ways. One example is the Chinese academic insistence that the Manchus became totally assimilated to the Chinese. This meshes well with the view of the Qing as a "Chinese" dynasty and the Zhonghua minzu as a view of ethnicity within Chinese history, but it glosses over considerable aspects of reality as it was experienced by the Manchus themselves. Bathrobe (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me? Or to 209.183.18.76? --Pengyanan (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, edits are coming so thick and fast I misplaced my edit. With regard to what you say, I'm not sure what we should be looking for. Let me cite an example. The Mongolians call China Хятад. The Inner Mongolians call China Дунд улс. The rationale is that Хятад refers to the country of the Han Chinese; China as a multi-ethnic state should be Дунд улс (central country). This tells me that there is definitely a prior-existing consciousness of China (meaning China proper) as a different entity from Mongolia, even under the Qing. I have seen a paper on the Mongolian consciousness of their country and how it has been manipulated in modern times, which I will look for. I don't think that the absence of a Chinese equivalent negates the historical validity of "China proper". (I found these articles and books, interesting, but not the one I'm looking for:, , , and .) Bathrobe (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For your information, there is a Chinese equivalent: Zhongguo Benbu (中国本部). See the relevant sections at zh:中国本土. --Pengyanan (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only problem with 中国本部 is that it looks like an imported or externally imposed concept, not a inherent local concept. Bathrobe (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also guess so although I cannot find evidences to prove whether it is an inherent local concept or imported one. But no matter whether it is imported or not, this Chinese concept deserves a place in this article, doesn't it? --Pengyanan (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


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

I added a reference to Wei Yuan's use of the term "Zhongguo," which Joseph Esherick translates, in this context (and in this context only, presumably) as "China proper." ch (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Qing fully identified all their territories as "China"
The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Dzungaria in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state. When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in the Ten_Great_Campaigns, they proclaimed that their land was absorbed into "China" in Manchu written documents. In many other Manchu records they refer to their state as China and as Manchus as inhabitants of China, and when they refer to the Qing in conparison with other lands, they use "China"
 * 1
 * 1, 2, 3, 4
 * 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

In light of these sources, it is quite difficult to justify the excessive POV pushing by User:Bathrobe in the above sections. Methinks Bathrobe doth protest too much, no? When the Manchus themselves clearly state that their territories- even specifically named territories like Dzungaria in Xinjiang- were part of China (Dulimbai Gurun)- and made clear the they regarded themselves as inhabitants of China, and used "Dulimbai Gurun" to refer to the Qing Empire in Manchu versions of international treaties like the Treaty of Nerchinsk (the Latin version of the treaty also said "China", not "Manchu Empire")- and people like Bathrobe continue to push an agenda and falsely claim that this is all modern "Chinese nationalism".... Rajmaan (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, just glancing at the discussion, he is using English and making valid points and you are simply dumping unedited masses of unfiltered Google Book searches. a) Don't do that, as b) It makes you look like the agenda-pushing one to be ignored. — Llywelyn II   09:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, the first link is the primary article which I am referring to- . It talks about how the Qing identified all its territories (Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet, Manchuria) as part of China 中國. The other google searches I put in here are ancillary. As for agenda pushing, Bathrobe's points are not valid because his comments aren't directed any any particular user's behavior- in essence Bathrobe wrote a long screed attacking "Chinese nationalists" and the Chinese government to WP:SOAPBOX about his own political views on China. Bathrobe offered almost no sources for his assertions, the entire paragraphs of his initial rant are totally unsourced political bashing. I clearly summarized and elucidated the main point of the main source above and even named the specific campaign against the Dzungars where the Manchu said that their land was absorbed into Dulimbai Gurun (中國).Rajmaan (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you did and I had to go through and clean it up to make it read as though it were prose. You're welcome.


 * But thank you for improving on your style in your responses below. You're still quite far off point: ignoring the -language use of the term to make  points for apparently political reasons looks quite bad and rather worse than Bathrobe. But it could be that you're confusing the existence of an article about this concept as endorsement of that concept. It isn't. We talk about what it is and then discuss how some conceptions of it are (apparently) not supported by the historical record. We don't create strawmen and then pretend it doesn't exist because that would be politically inconvenient for people you may support. —  Llywelyn II   15:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't comment on the existence of the article or the content of the article (although I proceeded to edit the article with the sources I listed), I was commenting on Bathrobe's comments and attitude and that's why I named Bathrobe specifically. If you look at Bathrobe's edit history, he appears to be have been on a personal crusade against "Chinese nationalists" and look at the content he specifically took issue with. The content basically says precisely what I explained- the Qing considered their state as Zhongguo ("中國") and then Bathrobe proceeds to delete it, saying While the Qing may have regarded themselves as a Chinese dynasty, the 理藩院 demonstrates that they did not regard all of their territories as "Chinese". Interpolation distorts the picture.. Since Bathrobe apparently knows the Chinese language judging from his other edits I can only assume he was deliberately confusing 中國 with 漢. And his userpage directly bashes " Chinese nationalists" and he has been on other articles like the Yuan dynasty article attacking perceived "Chinese nationalists" as well for the same "reason" on here with the Qing, because the PRC calls the Yuan dynasty as 中國 and Yuan Emperors as 中國人 (which is then translated into English as "China" or "Chinese", which makes it falsely appear as though the PRC is claiming that Mongols are Han or that they were Sinicized. The PRC and all people in China acknowledge that the Yuan emperors were ethnic Mongol). The same thing with the Yuan dynasty and Mongol Emperors is that the Yuan Mongols also referred to all the Yuan territories as 中國 and Genghis Khan adopted the Chinese style dynasty name 大朝 in 1217 for the entire Mongol Empire decades before Kublai Khan adopted 元朝 to just refer to Yuan territories.


 * I believe it is a PRC government policy and the policy of scholars in China to translate 中國人 as "Chinese people" and 漢人 as just "Han people". On the other hand, western scholars translate 漢人 as "Chinese people" and never refer to ethnic minorities like Manchus as Chinese. People who know some basic Chinese know the difference between the two, and know how the PRC translates it vs western scholars. Bathrobe never addressed it even when the ip contributor 209.183.18.76 here tried explaining that.


 * Look at Bathrobe's response to the ip 209.183.18.76 explaining that the Qing identified all its land as Zhongguo and all its subjects as Zhongguo zhiren. Talk:China_proper He totally ignores the ip's point about Zhongguo and even attacks the ip for "inserting distracting rebuttals of what was written in the previous paragraph" (since the ip's argument about zhongguo was presented in response to Bathrobe's original comment.) Bathrobe did not assume good faith, he attacked 209.183.18.76's point of view and sources as a "Chinese" interpretation (despite the fact that Elena Barabantseva is not Chinese, neither is Joseph Esherick ), accuses 209.183.18.76 of POV pushing, patronizes 209.183.18.76 and makes a snide remark on his perceived ethnicity-Maybe it sounds ok in Chinese, but it sounds very offensive in English, and on Talk:Yuan_dynasty he repeatedly attacks "Chinese" nationalists and defends an ip address who insults China as "losers", and attacks "Chinese nationalists" on his own userpage.


 * I agree to move past this discussion about user conduct and talk about the article content in the below section.Rajmaan (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Federalist
If China was a proper federalist place, instead of relaying on such centralist power, than non-Han ethnic groups might consider themselves Chinese too!
 * Do not soapbox on Wikipedia. Lathdrinor (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not not-English on Wikipedia. — Llywelyn II   09:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Lathdrinor's statements is in clear English. WP:SOAPBOX is a violation of wikipedia policy.Rajmaan (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lathdrinor's statement (singular) is not clear English. He was verbing a noun and referencing a local Wikipedia policy without capital typography or link. Cf. . That said, I objected to his unhelpful and unfriendly tone. He's quite right that the original editor forgot to include more detail on how to improve the article in a reliable and neutral fashion. — Llywelyn II   15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If verb-ing "soapbox" is illegitimate, verbing "not-English" is many times moreso.108.131.79.70 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
I understand there is a controversy tag at the top of this page, which somewhat explains the over-careful phrasing in the present article. The article itself isn't terrible.

That said, the lead to this article is presently openly ed against its own existence and is to the point of violating. It's not "confusing" or "un-Chinese" that this idea existed: it simply described the situation the Europeans found on the ground&mdash;a massive empire (Qing) which simultaneously controlled what the Europeans considered China (Han lands) along with various frontier districts of questionable affiliation (to wit, Thibet/Tibet and Tartary/Mongolia and Manchuria). I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful or caveat such a loaded issue (China's been a very self-consciously multiethnic state since the Republic), but it's simply untrue that this concept only existed among Westerners during the Qing; it's simply untrue that "there is no fixed extent" as a bald phrase should be allowed in the lead; it's simply untrue that the Han had no sense of their own lands as something distinct from the wastelands of the north and west. This needs to be pushed back the other way a bit. — Llywelyn II   09:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not the controversy. There is no controversy that a different administrative system existed. There is no controversy of "questionable affiliation", its acknowledged that they were governed according to different systems although both were firmly part of the Qing. The issue is the terminology used. The Qing used China 中國 (Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun) as a name for the entire empire, including Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Manchuria. Dulimbai Gurun is the direct Manchu translation of 中國. "China" is used to refer to Qing territory in Manchuria in both the Manchu and Latin version of the Treaty of Nerchinsk, its used to refer to Qing territory in Outer Mongolia the Treaty of Kyakhta (1727), and repeated in multiple Qing documents and pronouncements by the Qing Emperors that Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang are part of 中國 (Dulimbai Gurun). The Qing Emperors explicitly rejected identifying 中國 (Dulimbai Gurun) as referring to Han lands only, and included both Han and non-Han areas of the empire in it. To specifically refer to Han areas governed by the Ming dynasty province system, the Qing used 內地 (interior region) or 內地十八省 (interior region Eighteen provinces), while it called non-Han areas like Tibet and Mongolia as 外藩 (outer feudatory) or 藩部 (feudatory region).


 * The Qing used the term 中國之人 (Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun i niyalma), translated as "Chinese people" to refer to all inhabitants of the Qing, regardless of ethnicity. This is not 漢人, which refers only to ethnic Han Chinese. However in English both 中國之人 and 漢人 are translated as "Chinese people" with no qualifiers. 中國之人 (Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun i niyalma) means "Middle Kingdom person" and has no ethnic connotations at all.


 * On the other hand, Europeans and westerners called neidi 內地 as "China proper". This lead to confusion and accusations of "Chinese nationalism", when people note that correctly, the Qing themselves did not use "China" 中國 to refer exclusively to Han areas and say that 中國 refers to all of the Qing Empire.


 * That is the same issue with 中國之人. People correctly note that the Qing identified all its lands as 中國 and regarded Manchus and Mongols as 中國之人, and it gets translated as "Chinese people", and other people jump on them and accuse them of being "Chinese nationalists" or pushing "Chinese government POV", as if they claimed Manchus and Mongols are 漢人, which nobody in China ever claimed. 中國 has no ethnic connotations. It simply means "Middle Kingdom" and is regarded as the equivalent word to "China". There is no such country as 漢國 "Han Chinese State".


 * China does not deny the existence of 內地 and 外藩. China itself uses 中國 to refer to itself today and calls everyone who is a citizen as 中國人 "Chinese people" including Manchus, Inner Mongols, and Tibetans. The only people who have issues with this are those pushing a political agenda and trying to force an ethnic connotation of 漢 onto 中國.


 * Manchuria was not used as a name for the area by the Qing and Manchus, see Manchuria. Manchuria is a Japanese invented place name. The Qing referred to the area as 三東省. Another case of non compatible foreign terminology.


 * There is also the case of exceptions in the rules regarding the outer feudatories. Bathrobe said something to the suggestion that all of them were off limits to Han settlers, which is not true. The Qing forbade ordinary Han and Mongol civilians from crossing into each other's areas and settling. This applied to Inner and Outer Mongolia, the Tarim Basin (southern Xinjiang aka Altishahr), the northeast and Tibet. However, the Qing from the start made an exception for Dzungaria (Northern Xinjiang) and allowed massive Han settlement in Dzungaria after conquering it even though it was outside of 內地, since the Qing exterminated the native Dzungar Oirats in a genocide and the land was left empty. The Qing also ran Dzungaria in a similar manner to Han provinces although not making it a province. The Qing also gradually lifted the ban on settlement in other areas, Han were allowed to settle in the Tarim Basin after the 1820's when Jahangir Khoja attacked. It lifted the ban on settling in the Northeast after the Russians annexed Outer Manchuria, and lifted the ban on settling in Inner Mongolia after the Boxer Rebellion.Rajmaan (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * [Further:]


 * There is a politically motivated accusation that "China" 中國 Zhongguo, Dulimbai Gurun, was only used by the Qing Emperors to refer to the Han inhabited 18 provinces (essentially former Ming territory), and that Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and the Northeast were not considered part of 中國 by the Qing, and that Qing and 中國 were not synonymos but that 中國 was only a smaller part of the Qing, and that 中國之人 Dulimbai gurun i niyalma only referred to Han people 漢人.


 * This view goes on to state that it wasn't the Qing who considered non-Han lands as part of 中國, but that only after the Qing was overthrown in the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, that greedy Han Chinese nationalists wanted to steal the non-Han territories in Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and so claimed 中國 referred to all those areas during the Qing and started claiming Tibetans, Mongols, and Manchus were 中國人 while that was never used by the Qing. And then come accusations of Chinese government distorting history. And so people claim that the PRC government is a liar and trying to promulgate the view that all areas were 中國 to stop independence movements.


 * What actually happened during the Qing was the exact opposite. It was Manchu Qing Emperors proclaiming that all of the Qing Empire, including Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and the northeast were part of 中國, and that all peoples of the Qing empire were 中國之人 including Mongols, Manchus and others.   While in fact it was Han Chinese literati who tried to argue the opposite and tell the Manchu Qing Emperor that Xinjiang, Mongolia and Tibet were not part of 中國 and that he should not consider them part of 中國 and not annex them. Secret Ming loyalists Han held to this view, because they did not view the Qing as legitimate and wanted a return to the old Ming borders.  The Qing Emperors overrode their objections anyway and used 中國 to refer to those areas and justify the Qing's annexation of Xinjiang.  Dzungaria in Xinjiang was proclaimed by the Manchus as annexed into Dulimbai Gurun (Zhongguo). ,


 * This has no impact on the fact that the Lifanyuan existed and the Qing governed those areas in a different administrative structure. Because 中國 does not mean Han, and has no ethnic affiliations or connotations with Han. The Qing viewed 中國 as a multi-ethnic entity and 中國之人 as multi ethnic people, hence that gives lie to the claim that the ROC and PRC were the ones who changed the meaning of 中國 to multiethnic just to claim non-Han lands.Rajmaan (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your (very long) reply and for fixing your referencing style, but it continues to simply show how very far off the mark your treatment is. You are well-meaning but you very much need to review (address the main topic of the namespace) and  (articles at a namespace should be the one most users would expect to see at the namespace, reflecting the most, -language usage for that namespace).


 * In fine, this is not an article about 中国 and its use solely in Chinese and Manchurian sources: It is an article about China and its use in English and international ones. Those terms are very, very similar but (as you prove at great length above) they are not synonymous. The non-existence of a “中国” distinct from the “大清帝国” (or even “中华民国”, which you don't address) has absolutely no bearing on the existence of a "China proper" distinct from the "Empire" or "Republic of China". There very much was and is such an English-language conception and this is the article for discussing it. Its origin from and differences from 內地 should be noted. Points about its validity and formal legal status and the political delicacy involved are to be made (with citations to RS): the shift from Han chauvinism during the resistance to the Ming giving way to multiethnic aspirations under the early Republic and later People's Republic to more recent Han immigration to the outer provinces is essential to understanding what modern China is. At the same time, specious claims that the term has no validity or use presently or historically; that it has not been and cannot be translated; or that it was limited to Western scholarship of the Qing Empire should not be countenanced. — Llywelyn II   14:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit: Unless your point was "That controversial tag is there because the PRC disagrees with some forms of and scholarship concerning this concept but you're totally right that the current lead section has and  problems". If so, cool. I absolutely agree that the topic is controversial; the Qing considered their empire to be an empire; and Bathrobe's distaste for half of the controversy (China's) has no bearing on its existence. (We should mark this up however we mark up similarly hot-button issues, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.) In that case, would you like to be the one to fix the intro? I'm somewhat apprehensive of doing it myself and having to go through the bureaucratic process of dealing with edit warring from whoever created the current lead. —  Llywelyn II   15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on China proper. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325231543/https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao%20-%20reinventing%20china.pdf to https://webspace.utexas.edu/hl4958/perspectives/Zhao

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiethnicity under the Qing
''The topics above are the main ones which need to be addressed in the current article. The following is an added reply to what I think Raj was trying to address with some of his discussion above. I won't try to split out the part of his reply that addresses this specifically, since it's threaded through the rest of his reply to the important points being made about the article's and y  which continue to need improvement.''

When I said "China's been a very self-consciously multiethnic state since the Republic", I did not mean to imply that the Qing did not consider their state to be a unity and to have many ethnicities: they did and it did. (In fact, in Chinese, it's inconceivable&mdash;except among dissidents, traitors, and rebels&mdash;that 中国 could be different from 大清帝国 since it simply means "government of the middle lands". Absolutely, there wasn't a separate Han-ethnicity state during the Qing Empire... but no one ever claimed that's what "China proper" meant.)

What I was (attempting) saying was that the Republic made a very-conscious effort that the state (as a whole) was multiethnic. The Qing very much considered themselves to be Manchu rulers over multiethnic subjects. It's a related point to the one you make about 中国 but it's a separate one. (There's an exception to be taken here, too, I know: there was an entire parallel Chinese apparatus to the bureaucracy. That doesn't change that the Manchu were a thing apart and above under the Qing in a way that the Han very self-consciously tried to avoid once they began setting up the Republic.) — Llywelyn II   15:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)