Talk:Greater China

Examples
Since the term is controversial as to its coverage and even legitimacy, I think it'd better provide examples of the usage. I haven't found examples that include Singapore. If there are any out there, please add them to the page. Thank you. --LiuJiageng (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, I see the term used often with regard to travel due to the corona-virus outbreak. Meaning some special handling of people who have visited "Greater China" recently. In those contexts, I think it is intentionally vague and has no irredentist or any other political intent. It is simply a vague shorthand to avoid having to write out so many place-names. Whether it is used often enough to deserve its own Wikipedia page is another question. Jlhollin (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There are pages for this term in 23 different languages so it should deserve an English page.--LiuJiageng (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Greater China
How about this picture of a statue of Chiang Kai-shek with two maps of China behind him? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the definitive boundary of China. A photo which features that person is even more off-topic. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know if there's anything specific wrong with the map. On Wikipedia, you edit and then discuss. You're so anti-Chiang Kai-shek you can't let a historical map be presented on the page? Sounds like Baidu Baike logic, not Wikipedia logic. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Policy WP:Consensus says: "If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the issue." You are trying to add a photo which features a controversial person.
 * This term is ambiguous and some people even consider that the term includes Singapore. Please desist from adding any map until we have a consensus. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My edit is a map of Greater China. Wikipedia is not about blunting controversy. Please desist from removing maps of Greater China. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any map of Greater China including Singapore? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you keep reverting the article to your version without caring about consensus, you will be reported for disrupting Wikipedia. This article is about a term whose definition is ambiguous, we don't have a consensus on adding a map yet. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to protect my account from spurious claims of edit warring, I must totally disengage from this discussion. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please desist from defaming an editor whose opinion is different from yours. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "Greater China" is truly a term that is solely used to describe a broader cultural region. The reason? Well, this article exists — East Asian cultural sphere (Sinosphere). In fact, the real "Chinese cultural sphere" includes not only China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau but also Japan, N/S Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, etc. So, what is "Greater China", in actuality? It is simply the irredentist claims of either the PRC or the ROC based on the historical territory of the Qing dynasty (though, there are differences between the two claims since the PRC has renounced Outer Mongolia, Outer Manchuria, and various minor territories, whereas the ROC hasn't). All territories within Greater China were once part of the Qing dynasty or were claimed by the Qing dynasty with little opposition at the time (such as eastern Taiwan). If various individuals want to evoke a sense of a "Chinese cultural sphere", then the term "Sinosphere" is probably much more appropriate to use than "Greater China". "Greater China" is an irredentist term referring strictly to territorial sovereignty, whereas "Sinosphere" refers to China's historical, social, cultural, political, military, economic, etc. sphere of influence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:Lead
Thanks User:LiuJiageng's concern.

WP:LEAD:It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a WP:neutral point of view.

Clearly, current lead written by User:LiuJiageng from China doesn't meet standards of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reciprocater (talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating on what you see as "clearly"? A term exists for what it is used to mean. --LiuJiageng (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A term exists for what it is used to mean. I strive to make sure every contentious articles meets WP:V especially WP:RS:"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." --Reciprocater (Talk)  07:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. "Greater China" is a term, so its most important contents is what it means: "a word or expression that has a precise meaning," not who described it.

The current lead, which says the term is "firstly described by some Chinese scholars" (in 2016) runs exactly the opposite to the History part that reads "The English term subsequently re-emerged in the 1980s"--LiuJiageng (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The part on Taiwan
The island of Taiwan is under the effective jurisdiction of the Republic of China, which officially claims to be the sole legitimate government of the entire China according to its constitution. As such, the phrasing “it gives the impression that Taiwan is part of China” is problematic and awkward. I propose two ways to improve this statement: either change “China” to the “People’s Republic of China”, or to explain the phenomenon that is Taiwanese nationalism that some islanders who do not identify with the ruling Republic of China support. This issue is about political orientation that extends beyond the mere divide of islanders and mainlanders in Taiwan. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, this Constitution was imposed on Taiwanese after 1949 by authoritarian government. People have been forced to accept that. It's not really a Constitution born through a domocratic process. --Reciprocater (Talk) 17:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A constitution need not be born through democratic process to be legally valid. The fact is that Taiwan is under the rule of the Republic of China since 1945, and the expression “it gives the impression that Taiwan is part of China” is problematic from the official/constitutional point of view of the Republic of China. Again, whether or not a constitution is adopted through democratic procedures has nothing to do with its legality. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, what you say makes sense. I appreciate your insight. But I think the expression “it gives the impression that Taiwan is part of China” is in line with WP:OR. --Reciprocater (Talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding on to my point, explaining the Taiwanese nationalism and Taiwan independence movement does not violate the WP:NPOV policy. In fact, I’m quite sure it provides essential information to the debate regarding why some Taiwanese do not identify with their government, the Republic of China, or why they do not consider Taiwan a part of Greater China. Simply stating “gives the impression that Taiwan is a part of China” is factually inaccurate (according to ROC constitution) and misleading for an encyclopaedic entry. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Whereas WP:NPOV is bound with WP:Verification. You may wish to find some WP:Reliable sources that focus on Greater China that also directly support your points. Thank you! --Reciprocater (Talk)  17:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-NPOV?
Perhaps you may wish to restore an earlier version supported by the WP:Consensus? Also, may you explain your edit summary that says "non-WP:NPOV" ? I appreciate your time and consideration. --Reciprocater (Talk) 04:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My reading of this talk page so far lead me to conclude there is no definitive consensus for or against your additions, so I chose by default to restore the last revision before them. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 04:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Silence_and_consensus, there did have consensus. --Reciprocater (Talk) 04:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS: "Except in cases affected by content policies or guidelines, most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. " Therefore, may you consider again to revert your latest edit on this article to reflect the consensus which would be a better dispute resolution, please? I appreciate you taking time to take part in the discussion! --Reciprocater (Talk) 04:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, was voicing concerns on your Taiwan additions as late as yesterday. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 04:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, Talk_page_guidelines: "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. " So I assumed Morrisonjohn022 good faith at best. So could you please restore the article to the earlier version? --Reciprocater (Talk)  05:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This was phrased so poorly that I did not understand any of it. You did not address his concern, and resumed inserting the exact language that he cautioned against. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OR and I already explained to the respected good faith editor above. Regards. --Reciprocater (Talk)  05:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not explicit enough...You restored some Taiwanese don't believe themselves to be a part of greater China as it gives impression that Taiwan is part of China (it isn't even in the amcham.com.tw source I read), when explained why that is terrible phrasing here. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is Morrisonjohn's version: "However, some Taiwanese do not consider themselves to be a part of Greater China due to the rise of Taiwanese nationalism and Taiwan independence movement." The problem of this version is that it assume Taiwanese originally identified themselves as Chinese at the early age, which is not accurate. --Reciprocater (Talk) 16:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the intent of Morrisonjohn's formulation and there is no such logical implication. Your typification "originally identified themselves as Chinese at the early age" literally implies they have both 1) heard of the term "Greater China" at an early age 2) and either supported the term or identified as Chinese in the sense of 中國人 at an early age . There is no WP:RS so far that has demonstrated both 1) and 2).
 * There is another group which you overlooked, but will not explain for now unless asked. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, are you Morrisonjohn?--Reciprocater (Talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that isn't convincing, as you inserted your own (illogical) interpretation of Morrisonjohn's formulation above. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, originally identified themselves as Chinese at the early age" doesn't show up in the article. Why're you asking me to provide WP:RS to support my phrasing in the talk page for communication purpose? --Reciprocater (Talk)
 * as you inserted your own (illogical) interpretation of Morrisonjohn's formulation above. Well, Morrisonjohn didn't say that... --Reciprocater (Talk) 16:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As what CaradhrasAiguo has mentioned, the interpretation of my edit by Reciprocater is not in line with my intent. I believe the phrasing I used in my edit does not convey the ideas as interpreted by Reciprocater. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The correct Chinese translation of the phrase Greater China
I noticed that someone is confused about the Chinese translation of the phrase Greater China. The word "China" here should be translated as "中华" (Zhōng Huá, imply cultural China) instead of "中国" (Zhōng Guó, imply physical China). A similar example is the phrase "Chinese Taipei", the correct Chinese translation is "中华台北" (Zhōng Huá Tái Běi), not "中国台北" (Zhōng Guó Tái Běi), the latter version would imply that Taiwan is a part of China. So, the correct Chinese translation of "Greater China" should be "大中华" (Dà Zhōng Huá), not "大中国" (Dà Zhōng Guó, literally "Bigger China"). I have never seen an English or Chinese article written about "Bigger China" or "大中国" (Dà Zhōng Guó), it is either China or Greater China. If you google "Greater China", all the articles will refer the phrase to "大中华" (Dà Zhōng Huá) instead of "大中国" (Dà Zhōng Guó).

I hope I've explained this translation problem clearly. 2001:8003:9008:1301:780A:CF5:F4B:EC87 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know what are you talking about? I am sorry, but I am not bilingual proficiency neither Wikipedia is a language forum. --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't think your explanation really help foreigners distinguish between "China" here should be translated as "中华" (Zhōng Huá, imply cultural China) instead of "中国" (Zhōng Guó, imply physical China).. --Reciprocater (Talk)  09:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chinese Taipei literally refers to "Taipei of China". Using different domestic translation to convince Taiwanese of their difference is controversial. From a foreigner standpoint, they're the same because they all read "China". --Reciprocater (Talk)  09:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When one thinks of China, one will link to China and Chinese which are not representative of Taiwan chiefly composed of Han people who migrated to the Formosa in 16th century by the time China is not even established yet. --<span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk)  09:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a Chinese Singaporean here, let's ignore Taiwan for awhile since Greater China is more than just Taiwan. What the IP editor says essentially is correct. "Greater China" is a concept that the Chinese culture being more dominant in locations/regions/countries outside China as noted in the article here. Hence, using the more cultural term, 大中华, would be more appropriate than 大中国 as the latter may denote that China has significant political and/or economic control over the said locations/regions/countries. As for Google Translate, it is known to make mistakes as Google Translate relies on user inputs to correct machine generated translations which are usually transliterations. In some sense, Google Translate is not WP:RS, since it depends on user inputs and that's why even when we translate articles from sister wikis to English wiki here, we don't accept machine translations most of the time (I have done 2-way translations for EN-ZH, and one-way from FR to EN. I use machine translated sentences as tool to write the final content in the targeted language). There are thesis and dissertations out there will the term mentioned in both English and Chinese (i.e., the title here: Tourism Demand Modeling and Forecasting: A Review of Literature Related to Greater China 旅游需求建模与预测—关于大中华区的文献述评, with the bold words/characters my emphasis for you to pick out the translation). I hope this helps.robertsky (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but the source you provided here might not be an independent, secondary reliable sources because it's grouped under Original Articles. --<span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Taylor & Francis Online peer review every paper submitted in this journal, even if it is an "original article". I suppose that qualifies it for WP:RS. See https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?show=instructions&journalCode=wctr20#peers. (Did you even check on entry requirement for the journal?) Take it to WP:RSN if you want to discuss on the reputability of the journal and/or paper. robertsky (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Lancet also reviews every primary research they publish. So it's about the property of the source itself.--<span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk) 18:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Original article" is simply a type of research paper that journals generally accept. From Springer:
 * "This is the most common type of journal manuscript used to publish full reports of data from research. It may be called an Original Article, Research Article, Research, or just Article, depending on the journal. The Original Research format is suitable for many different fields and different types of studies. It includes full Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections."
 * (source: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/writing-a-journal-manuscript/types-of-journal-articles/10285504)
 * By your logic, we would be invalidating a lot of cited sources, be it from Taylor & Francis, Springer or Lancet throughout Wikipedia. robertsky (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How to tell if it is a secondary source? <span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk) 18:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read up on No_original_research. It contains the answers you seek. You are rather new here, aren't you? robertsky (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, anyway, I was just concerned about the fact that foreigners can't distinguish 大中华 from 大中国. I was just curious about the reliablility of your source but I am not doubting that some people translate greater China to 大中华.  I just hope the article can help readers to distinguish 大中华 from 大中国 and reflect their difference in spite of the identical phrasing. Cheers. <span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk)  18:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for projecting your concerns for the foreigners? 1. If the foreigners have an issue, they can always ask in the Talk page. Unfortunately, an IP editor, and a few other editors here have to explain to you the imaginary foreigners here. 2. We can always point readers to the Chinese wikipedia article, which is listed in the sidebar under Languages for the same effect actually: 大中華. robertsky (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , If the foreigners have an issue, they can always ask in the Talk page. This is not the purpose of Talk page. We can always point readers to the Chinese wikipedia article, foreigners can't read Chinese. <span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk) 18:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the talk page is to iron out any issues such as your misunderstanding of the term (as perceived by, IP editor, and myself honestly), which indirectly clarifies which Chinese term to use. And like you say foreigners can't read Chinese. Why are you so hard up on 大中华 vs 大中国 then? From the conversation here, it is clear that you have understood the differences. As for why the general preferences for one term over another, this is something that should be examined by, preferably a language scholar in a published paper. Until then, I suggest refraining including anything about the preference in the main article as it would construe as WP:OR. robertsky (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your misunderstanding of Greater China has caused many problem on your version of this article. You said that " In recent era, this term is often employed by those who are determined to push forward the reunification of China and Taiwan by advocating the 'superiority of Chinese culture'". However, Google has a position called "managing director of Greater China sales and operations", translated as "大中华区总裁" . IBM has a position called "chief of Greater China Group" , translated as "大中华区总裁" . Microsoft has a position called "Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Microsoft Greater China Region" , translated as "大中华区CEO" . Apple has a position called "Vice President and Managing Director of Greater China" , translated as "大中华区董事总经理" . Are you sure that Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM are all determined to push forward the reunification of China and Taiwan? In my understanding, "Greater China" is the geographic area that shares commercial and cultural ties to the Han Chinese. I believe in that this definition is the definition used by Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM and other multinational corporations because it was translated by them into the cultural China "大中华" rather than the country China "大中国". PE fans (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't bully the newbies for fun. I fully agree with what the IP editor said about the proper translation of Greater China. First of all, Taiwan has accepted both Chinese Taipei (English) and "中华台北" (Chinese, pinyin: Zhōng Huá Tái Běi) as a compromised term to use in international events (because China oppose heavily against anyone using the word Taiwan to represent the island nation internationally). In fact, when the representatives from China and Taiwan met and negotiated about the acceptable term for Taiwan to use internationally, both parties agreed on the use of the English term Chinese Taipei quite smoothly, but there was a big clash over which Chinese term should be used. China initially proposed "中国台北" (Zhōng Guó Tái Běi), Taiwan opposed heavily about the use of this term because they believe that it will imply that Taiwan is a part of China politically. After few rounds of tough negotiation, in the end, both parties agreed to use the term "中华台北" (Zhōng Huá Tái Běi) instead, both Chinese terms will translate to Chinese Taipei in English but the second term implies that Taiwan is related to China culturally rather than politically. The phrase Greater China is also a cultural term, therefore, the cultural China "大中华" should be used instead of the political China "大中国".
 * Furthermore, I wonder why you have inserted Bigger China into the article? Bigger China is a very weird word to use, both in English and Chinese. If you google Bigger China you will only get one result: your version of this Wikipedia article. Kenwick (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF and WP:FORUM. I have stated that it's literally bigger China. --<span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk)  16:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Conversely, one can also say it is original research. robertsky (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the rationale behind my original edit was on the premise of WP:Common knowledge.--<span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk) 18:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this fits WP:Common knowledge. Please enlighten us. 's argument, at face level, supports the assertion that 'bigger China' is original research. robertsky (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , The literal meaning of "greater" encompasses "stronger, outstanding" while "big" generally refers to the geographic fact without any underlying advocacy. <span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk)  18:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * that's your interpretation, based on geographical understanding unfortunately, this is a cultural topic. which your understanding would be interpreted as original research. robertsky (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , We should assume readers don't have any cultural background related to China. <span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk) 18:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked the three sources you cited in support of your sentence "However, many Taiwanese don't believe themselves to be a part of greater China as it gives impression that Taiwan is part of China". I saw the following sentences: "Mixing business and politics is risky", "Integration of national economies and polities is a tricky business", "However, it is striking to observe that this apolitical framework has gradually been embedded in a more political sense, under circumstances that hint at the unification of these places". Therefore, according to the sources you provided, many Taiwanese don't reject of the idea of apolitical framework "Greater China", but reject the usage of this term in a more political sense. PE fans (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The guy named Reciprocater is an infamous troll, he is now blocked indefinitely: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/It%27s_gonna_be_awesome&diff=prev&oldid=950873063 2001:8003:9008:1301:B9F6:33CE:1491:37AB (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Reciprocater's edits
I agree with some of Reciprocater's edits, e.g. changing the reference from news report to academic research. I think it deserves talking about putting them back.--LiuJiageng (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Reciprocater is a troll, but for some weird reasons AnomieBOT just reverted everything to a much earlier version, some of the edits weren't done by Reciprocater at all (we should never rely on the bots). I think we should revert to the last accepted version and manually edit the article if deemed necessary. 2001:8003:9008:1301:ED94:8653:DE31:73A1 (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a bot, but who did it. I would rather work from when  did not work on the article and pick the non-controversial edits instead. The last few versions was honestly mutilated in my opinion, and I was already tempted to rework the article back to closer to the version before Reciprocater started on this article. See also: Dealing_with_sock_puppets robertsky (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Greater China Map Image


Of course it will be contentious what images represent Greater China. But we need something, and we need something representative of views of the relevant parties involved. The Wuqiu monument to Chiang Kai-shek has two maps of an ROC conception of Greater China that include Taiwan and Hainan, islands not included on the English language black and white map already on this page. I once tried to make a gallery of images on this page of the Greater China concept, but it was removed. Yeah it's a contentious topic by its very nature, but it's odd not to show any maps or even artistic depictions of any Greater China concept here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I remember the comments you made, I think you once said that this image had some kind of problem. I am of the opinion that an artistic depiction of Mao Tse-tung in front of a map of Greater China (presumably minus Mongolia?) would be equally relevant here. Anyway, I guess you think this image isn't good enough because there's no Singapore. Do we need an image with Sakhalin too? I ask you, is there only one conception of Greater China? Isn't this map a legitimate artistic depiction of one understanding of Greater China on some level, minus the islands not actually controlled by Taiwan or the PRC? Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What definition of Greater China are you taking here? In my opinion, since there are at least four definitions of Greater China, there should be multiple images used to depict these different definitions. [1. Claimed territory of the PRC; 2. Claimed territory of the ROC; 3. Countries with Chinese ethnic majorities, i.e. Greater China + Singapore; 4. Chinese sphere of influence, i.e. Chinese-majority countries + Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.] The fourth definition seems to already be loosely covered by the article "East Asian cultural sphere". Singapore is not part of China's claimed territory, whether the PRC or the ROC, but it's the only other country in the world aside from PRC, ROC (Taiwan), Hong Kong and Macau with a Chinese ethnic majority. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your definitions are incorrect. Greater China only includes mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan (i.e. areas under the administration of either the PRC or the ROC). Southeast Asian countries with a significant Chinese population, including Singapore, the only other country in the world aside from those areas administered by the PRC or the ROC with a Chinese ethnic majority (other notable examples include Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, and Cambodia) and other Asian countries under significant influence of Chinese culture (i.e. Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Vietnam) are part of the Sinosphere, not Greater China. I was the Sales Director for Greater China of a Western company and the area under my responsibility only included mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. 2001:8003:9008:1301:91FF:190E:A800:1B4D (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That image is a bad example. The map is partially covered by other off-topic objects, so readers can't really see the whole map. And the purpose of the image itself is intended to be used as an example of the landmark of a small groups of islands (its file name is "烏坵嶼地標", which means "Landmark of the Wuqiu Islands") rather than an example of the map of China or "Greater China" at all. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The maps (there are two, not just the one you are talking about- look "up" in the image) are an artistic representation of Greater China in a mural and are not meant to be scientifically accurate. This is an example of how the concept is portrayed or understood in some parts of Taiwan culture. There's no reason to exclude artistic representations just because one of the maps is sightly obstructed. The point is is that the maps of a Greater China concept are connected with patriotic or nationalistic feeling in this memorial and, regardless of the obstruction, you can clearly see what Greater China is being represented as in these two maps. Just because it's called 烏坵嶼地標 doesn't mean these aren't relevant to this page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is not for including an off-topic image such as "territories claimed by the Republic of China" which even has some important parts of the territories obstructed. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two maps in the image. One is not obstructed. The territories claimed by the Republic of China is one of the conceptions of Greater China, otherwise the other image on this page shouldn't be here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the other image. We are talking about the first one, which is off-topic and is a bad example because it has some important parts of the territories obstructed. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two maps in the image we are discussing- one on the wall, and then one above it, on the globe. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you expect all readers to also notice that small one? Also, the ROC has abandoned its claim over Outer Mongolia since 2012 so the maps are no longer accurate. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Also, the ROC has abandoned its claim over Outer Mongolia since 2012 so the maps are no longer accurate." Okay, that could be a great point. It's unclear if they can actually drop the claim according to the Constitution, but yeah. Anyway- do we need to ignore their claims before that point? Answer: No. In fact, the historical conception is pretty important to this page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It's not an accurate claim and is also off-topic. I disagree with using that image in the article. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All of you are making too much fuss about these, you may present any map with proper explanation, if the issue has history (of course it should not just present today claims, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC))

The term can be generalized to encompass "linkages among regional Chinese communities"?

 * The article links to some nationalistic references, which use the argument that if there is a significant "Chinese community" in a foreign country then the whole country counts as part of "Greater China". This is very nationalistic usage of the term. For example, there are big communities of people of British ancestry in the United States, Australia and Canada. However, the United Kingdom does not count the USA as "Greater Britain" since it is a sovereign republic and most of those US citizens see themselves as American. Secondly, those areas were not ruled by any dynasty in China proper. Artanisen (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you have WP:RS which say otherwise those "nationalistic references" are what we've got. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those "nationalistic references" that are used in the article does not make it a generally accepted nor proper usage of the term. - Artanisen (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They look like top tier academic WP:RS to me, you calling them nationalistic does not change that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Top tier "nationalistic" academics do exist. Such as the Nine-dash line in the South China sea dispute. "top tier" academics published research papers about it, but that doesn't justify the imperialistic land grabs. The term "Greater" with countries generally means places that are or were occupied/colonized. "Proper" is the core area of a country. -Artanisen (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * These academics don't appear to be nationalists at all. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cyclicity in History?
 * PIN - Figura's Joi . With the so - called Pin - Figures.
 * Political leadership of the People's Democratic Republic of China.PIN FiguraNr.234567890 (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)