Talk:Mainland China

Reliable source?
Could you please explain why you think they're well-cited, please? --Reciprocater (Talk) 03:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

PRC's official descriptor?
You claimed that "Mainland China, also known as the Chinese mainland, is People's Republic of China (PRC)'s official descriptor" but you didn't provide a WP:RS to prove that this is primarily used as "People's Republic of China (PRC)'s official descriptor". Instead, I have found the usage of this term in New York Times, Washington Post , Bloomberg , CNN and other sources. Thus, I think it's more than "People's Republic of China (PRC)'s official descriptor". According to the wide use of this term in US WP:RS, it's better to choose the version "Mainland China, also known as the Chinese mainland, is the geopolitical as well as geographical area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC)." before your edit. PE fans (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

some removals
Removed the following: Referring to the territories under the control of the CCP as "mainland China" suggests that Taiwan is part of China. That is, the term "mainland China" suggests that Taiwan is a "satellite island" of China, and that Taiwan is tethered to China (much in the same way that one might say that "Kinmen is tethered to Taiwan"). Therefore, Pan-Green individuals tend to prefer the term "China", rather than "mainland China", since the term "China" suggests that Taiwan and China are two separate countries. Pan-Green Taiwanese might also prefer to refer to China as "Communist China" or "the People's Republic of China (PRC)" or "Red China". However, these terms suggest that there exist "two Chinas". Certain Pan-Green Taiwanese believe that there exist "two Chinas" and that the Republic of China (ROC) and Taiwan are one and the same, so they would be more inclined to use these terms (compared to those who believe that the ROC is illegally occupying Taiwan). Individuals in Taiwan who are aligned with Pan-Green ideologies might be more inclined to refer to the People's Republic of China as "the Communist bandits" or "occupied/unfree area" (compared to those aligned with Pan-Blue ideologies), due to their negative (or indifferent) views towards mainland China and the CCP, though they generally don't have any intention of "reclaiming the mainland". Reasoning: first, none of it is sourced, and some of the assertions are speculative at best. Second, a lot of it is pretty tangential to the use of the term "mainland China". The only necessary comment is that the DPP tends to use "China" over "mainland China" and to give the basic reason why.

DrIdiot (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The usage of the term "mainland" in particular is seen as problematic from an English-speaking pan-green POV. It might be a different story in the Chinese (Mandarin) language; some of the nuance might get lost in translation. But in English, "mainland" does indeed imply a "satellite" connection by default, at least by convention. No other country in the world is called "mainland etc". The terminology is directly linked to the political situation, hence the term "mainland" is political, at least in its origin. In its everyday usage, it is possible that people don't realise that it has a political origin. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are some definitions of the word "mainland" in the English language :
 * | Collins English Dictionary
 * | Cambridge English Dictionary
 * | Merriam-Webster
 * — Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the corresponding Wikipedia article itself, the term "mainland (China)" in English has its origin in two distinct terms in Mandarin Chinese, "Dàlù" (大陆; 大陸) and "Nèidì" (内地; 內地). From my own knowledge, "Nèidì" is the lesser term in the English-speaking world; "Dàlù" is by far the most prominent origin of the English term. The term "Dàlù" apparently means "the continent" in Mandarin Chinese, which is certainly distinct from the more common meaning in English, i.e. "the main portion of X country". The definitions that I gave above do mention "continent" as an alternative to "country" in the meaning. With that being said, the term "mainland China" is most often taken in the country sense rather than in the continent sense in the English language. China is certainly not a continent but rather a country within a continent, that being Asia (or East Asia, as a subregion of Asia). Otherwise, we could say that "China is the mainland of Korea", for example. which is absurd. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All in all, that means that this sentence — Referring to the territories under the control of the CCP as "mainland China" suggests that Taiwan is part of China. That is, the term "mainland China" suggests that Taiwan is a "satellite island" of China, and that Taiwan is tethered to China. — is objectively correct, from an English-speaking POV, though it might be difficult to directly source this sentence given how obscure and convoluted its subject matter is. The vast majority of major English-speaking media organisations completely ignore the nuance that I've described above, and dictionaries do not delve too deep into the matter either, given how specific it is. Nonetheless, I think it is worth the effort to investigate this particular sentence further, given how relevant it is to the corresponding Wikipedia article, in my view. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this can be inferred from the sentence: "However, some also simply use the term "China" (中國). This term is preferred by the Pan-Green Coalition led by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which opposes suggestions that Taiwan is part of China." but can elaborate a bit further. DrIdiot (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * think, relatedly, the assertion that "mainland" is somehow politically neutral needs to be clarified as well. Politically neutral only makes sense in specific contexts.  "Mainland" might avoid referring to ROC vs PRC or KMT vs CPP but it certainly isn't neutral from pan-green perspective as you say.  This article, as it's currently written, seems to downplay this perspective. DrIdiot (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would liek to add a sentence ot the lede along the lines of your suggestion, but am having trouble formulating one. Something like: "The term is sometimes used in situations where it is convenient to avoid mention of the political status of Taiwan."  Feel free to tweak/change/add... DrIdiot (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Below in the next thread, I have mentioned the relationship between Hong Kong + Macau and the PRC. In fact, the term "mainland China" does exist entirely independent of the existence of Taiwan when used in the context of Hong Kong + Macau. So, really, there are two simultaneous definitions of mainland China that are distinct but are also almost always conflated with one another:
 * Mainland China is all territory claimed and controlled by the PRC, excluding Hong Kong + Macau, both of which are indeed claimed and controlled by the PRC and yet are not considered to be parts of mainland China on account of being Special Administrative Regions.
 * Mainland China is all territory claimed and controlled by the PRC, excluding not just Hong Kong + Macau as described above but also Taiwan, which is a territory that is claimed by the PRC but not controlled by the PRC, and which (Taiwan) can more or less not be considered as a part of mainland China under any definitions (unlike Hong Kong + Macau).
 * When defining mainland China like how I've defined the term above, it is clear that the entire existence of the concept of "mainland China" is dependent on the existence of something being part of China but not a part of the mainland, i.e. a part of the "lesserland". The "lesserland China" basically consists of Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and the disputed territories of Kinmen, Matsu and Wuqiu, which are held by Taiwan. The term "mainland China" would make absolutely zero sense if Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and Kin-Mat-Wu simply didn't exist... i.e. were just hypothetically wiped off the map. With that being said, if Taiwan alone (along with Kin-Mat-Wu) were wiped off the map, then the concept of "mainland China" would still make sense purely on the basis of the existence(s) of Hong Kong + Macau, which are distinct from Taiwan (+ Kin-Mat-Wu) in terms of their political status(es). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Separately, I also moved the PRC definitions of mainland etc. out of the lede. The main reasoning is there's a bunch of stuff in there without RS and I think are kind of questionable. The second is that I don't think it makes sense to foreground the PRC definition of mainland. It's relevant but the most important thing is that in English RS, what is the term "mainland China" used to refer to? (It's exactly what the lede says right now). DrIdiot (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed sentence which seems strongly like WP:OR (no citation anyway): In some coastal provinces such as Guangdong, Fujian and Jiangsu, people often call the area of non-coastal provinces of mainland China as "Inland" (内地). DrIdiot (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Re: Lede) — The definition of mainland China as being the ...area under the direct jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 1 October 1949... is slightly inaccurate given that certain territories that are currently within mainland China were not held by the PRC by that date. The island of Hainan, for example, was captured by the PRC only in 1950, the next year. Obviously, this is a relatively minor detail, but its omission is still a problem. In fact, I'd say that the correct phrasing should be... "the area claimed and controlled by the PRC in the present day (excluding Hong Kong and Macau)". It is also true that the PRC has reorganised its borders with various countries throughout the past seven decades of its existence so far, which I suppose has possibly entailed the relinquishment of certain territories along its borders. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding Hong Kong and Macau, which I just mentioned above, those two territories are indeed both claimed and controlled by the PRC and are also considered by the PRC to be "inalienable" parts of the PRC... By all accounts, this means that they are theoretically supposed to be parts of mainland China. Obviously, they are not considered to be parts of mainland China, and this is due to their statuses as "special administrative regions". So, one could say that mainland China is "all the territories claimed and controlled by the PRC in the present day, excluding the SARs of China". | At the same time, the territories of Kinmen, Matsu and Wuqiu, which are all held by the ROC on Taiwan, are also widely considered (in the PRC, ROC/Taiwan, and in the West) to be parts of mainland China on the basis of history, even though they are not currently controlled by the PRC (though, obviously, they are claimed by the PRC). So, really, mainland China is "all territories claimed and controlled by the PRC in the present day, excluding the SARs of China, but including the portions of Fujian Province that are held by the ROC aka Taiwan in the present day". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Re: My own comments about Kinmen, Matsu and Wuqiu) — In the wider Western usage of the term "mainland China", these three territories that are held by the ROC aka Taiwan are generally excluded from the definition of mainland China for the purposes of economics, geopolitics, etc. For example, if the US was to put a trade embargo on the PRC for whatever reason, it is highly unlikely that Kin-Mat-Wu would be included within the definition of mainland China for that purpose. On the other hand, I do believe that the "Taiwan Relations Act" only covers Taiwan and Penghu (the Pescadores), thereby excluding Kin-Mat-Wu from the US' official definition of Taiwan. So, these three island territories are a grey area, really. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that your wording more accurately corresponds to the actual usage. It's about direct administration by PRC, which excludes SARs. DrIdiot (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "mainland China" emerged as a politically neutral term to refer to the area under control of the CCP, and later to the administration of the PRC itself.[citation needed] Until the late 1970s, both the PRC and ROC envisioned a military takeover of the other. During this time the ROC referred to the PRC government as "Communist Bandits" (共匪) while the PRC referred to the ROC as "Chiang Bandits" (蒋匪; 蔣匪). Later, as a military solution became less feasible, the ROC referred to the PRC as "Communist China"" (中共). With the democratisation of Taiwan in the 1990s, the phrase "mainland China" soon grew to mean not only the area under the control of the CCP, but also a more neutral[citation needed] means to refer to the People's Republic of China government; this usage remains prevalent by the KMT today.
 * Another issue:

There are no sources cited here, and some stuff here doesn't make sense. For example, 反攻大陸 is certianly not a "neutral" usage of "mainland." I question this assertion that "mainland" arose out of a need for "neutrality." More likely it was just a convenient want to refer to the area controlled by the PRC. I also question the assertion that it's later use arose out of political neutrality... it's probably just out of continuity. I propose we delete most of this paragraph unless some RS can be found. DrIdiot (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Further comment: is it really necessary to list "Chinese mainland" as a a.k.a? I mean, it's just a grammatical inversion... any English speaker will be able to figure this out. DrIdiot (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say no... With that being said, I have one pet peeve about this article, and that's the fact that the term "mainland China" should be written exactly that way... with "mainland" uncapitalised. In fact, I think the distinction between the capitalisation and uncapitalisation of "mainland" is reasonably important. Due to Wikipedia's article-layout guidelines, the word "mainland China" is capitalised in the title of the article, as "Mainland China". Additionally, the same occurs in the lede of this article, given that the first word of each sentence is capitalised in the English language. Personally, I myself used to write "mainland China" as "Mainland China" in various Wikipedia articles since I didn't initially realise that "mainland" wasn't supposed to be capitalised. The reason this is important is that "mainland China" is not an official name of a certain territory under most circumstances; it's purely a made-up term used to describe a geopolitical situation, rather than a tangible place-name. When Taiwan and/or Hong Kong and/or Macau are mentioned in a sentence together with PRC-ruled China, the term "mainland China" is often employed to describe PRC-ruled China, even though PRC-ruled China does not officially call itself "mainland China". The name of the country is simply "China", and the addition of the adjective "mainland" is ephemeral, entirely dependent on the relationship between China and the territories that it claims, namely Taiwan (not controlled), Hong Kong (controlled), Macau (controlled), and Kin-Mat-Wu (not controlled). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Re: My own comments about "mainland" above) — It must be pointed out that the ROC on Taiwan is also responsible for the continued usage of the term "mainland China". Notably, the ROC maintains a "Mainland Affairs Council" as a pseudo-embassy for relations with the PRC. I believe that the ROC also mentions "mainland" in some form or another in its constitution, for example. So, the term seems to have developed mutually within PRC-ruled China and the ROC on Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Re: Hainan) — I see that you've made some slight changes in the lede with regards to Hainan. In fact, I think it is important to point out that Hainan is indeed a "large island". Otherwise, it would not entirely make sense to mention Hainan exclusively whilst ignoring the thousands of other much smaller islands that are governed by the PRC. The fact alone that Hainan is an "island" does not warrant its mention in the lede... rather, it is relevant to mention that Hainan is a more significant island than all other islands of China (excluding the claimed-but-not-controlled Taiwan) on account of its significant size. | The term "mainland China" is not strictly speaking geographic anyway, but it is easy to see how confusion can arise. If one were to consider "mainland China" in the geographic sense, then, logically, it would exclude ALL islands ruled by the PRC, including not only Hainan but also the thousands of other smaller islands of the PRC. | Personally, myself being Australian, I find the term "mainland Australia" to be very useful for providing a standard upon which to measure the term "mainland China" against. "Mainland Australia" refers to the main island of Australia (i.e. continent-sized island), primarily excluding the large island of Tasmania, but also excluding every other island of Australia. Essentially, it refers ONLY to the contiguous landmass of the main island of Australia, and it excludes any territories that can only be accessed from the mainland by crossing water. Obviously, China's similar term "mainland China" doesn't actually exclude any of the islands ruled by the PRC, which makes it fundamentally different in scope (the details covered) when compared to the term "mainland Australia". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it a bit just now -- feel free to make your own modifications. DrIdiot (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the lede a lot (that's an oxymoron... i.e. I didn't tweak it... I rewrote it). As highlighted in my above comments, there's no need to reference the island of Hainan in the lede given that the term "mainland China" is primarily (or entirely) geopolitical in nature rather than geographic. It's still okay to reference Hainan in the body of the article as a footnote of sorts... But discussing Hainan in the lede is basically a case of undue weight or perhaps even complete inaccuracy... It shouldn't really be there. It's not really relevant. I've also made similar edits to the lede of the article "Mainland Chinese". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I found the mention of Hainan helpful to illustrate that the term is political, not geographic. I.e. Hainan, geographically, is not part of the mainland, but politically, it is.  And it is included, thus, it's a political term. DrIdiot (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the trouble is that the term "mainland China" probably does have a geographic sense in some situations... which means that it's basically one word (term) with multiple definitions. It is entirely possible that certain usages of the word exclude "islands" or are used in a generally geographic sense. With that being said, from what I can tell, the primary usage of the term is the one that is described in my new version of the article. It is also important to point out that the term "mainland China" is distinct from the terms "Dàlù" and "Nèidì" in Chinese, even though those two Chinese words are often seen as translations of it... The usages of those two words surely differ from the usage of "mainland China" in English... which can most likely be primarily traced to English-language sources, which might not reflect the exact nuances of the term and its multiple meanings (senses) in Chinese. I.e. lost in translation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, if we are to talk about Hainan, we must talk about all islands of China. So, for example, we could say "mainland China is not a geographic term (in the strictest sense) because, if it were, then it would have to exclude all islands of China along the coastline and only include the contiguous continental landmass; notably, the large island of Hainan is usually considered to be a part of mainland China" (this is a long-winded sentence... it could perhaps be simplified). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence: The term "mainland China" describes the political status of the territory governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), I prefer the original wording: that "mainland China" describes the area under direct administration by the PRC. In particular I think "direct administration" is more precise than "governed". Also I don't think "mainland China" describes a political status, it's refers to a place defined by geopoligical boundaries (of a certain status), but it's not a description of the status itself. DrIdiot (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone (briefly) looking around for what different sources/websites/people think the word "mainland China" means. Ironically, I saw someone on Quora write "it's simple". This term is NOT simple to define! I've seen numerous sources (whether they are reliable... probably not) employ "mainland China" and "People's Republic of China" as synonyms... Obviously, they are not synonyms, but rather mainland China is a part of the PRC, and together with Hong Kong and Macau, these three territories make up the entire internationally-recognised territory of the PRC. Taiwan is claimed by the PRC but not controlled and also has an ambiguous status of worldwide recognition (see Policy of deliberate ambiguity), whereas parts of the South China Sea Islands are indeed both claimed and controlled by the PRC but are still not internationally recognised as PRC territory, while the PRC also claims more or less the entire South China Sea region, and the entire claim is not internationally recognised. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To put it simply... "mainland China" is basically "PRC minus Hong Kong & Macau" (and maybe also including Kin-Mat-Wu, which was historically a part of China aka mainland China). The idea that Taiwan and the SCSI need to be brought into the mix is where we start moving into irredentism or just plain expansionism/imperialism (depending on one's perspective). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure -- but do we agree that "mainland China" doesn't describe a political status? "Mainland" is an adjective here, but "mainland China" is a noun, and the first sentence of the lede should say what the noun is as succinctly as possible.  I think "area directly administered by the PRC" is the most succinct way to put it.  The details can come later. DrIdiot (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made the edit, but welcome continued discussion. DrIdiot (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no major objections to your edit, but I just want to point out that I do believe that Hong Kong, Macau, and parts of the South China Sea Islands are directly governed by the PRC. Even though Hong Kong is treated as a dependent territory internationally and is even unofficially regarded as a dependent territory within the PRC, it is technically officially an integral part of China (i.e. the PRC). That's why I always refer to Hong Kong as a "quasi-dependent territory". The word "quasi" in Latin means "as you like"... i.e. you can consider it to be a dependent territory, though it actually isn't really one. The same applies to Macau, of course. Anyway, this is why I did not use the specific adjective "directly (governed)" in my own prior edit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm open to other wordings. What if we just exclude "special administrative regions"? DrIdiot (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording here is a challenge. I agree that "directly governed" is vague; it's unclear what it means.  Proposal: "Mainland China is the area under PRC jurisdiction excluding special adminsitrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau.  In addition, it excludes territories that the PRC claims but does not control such as Taiwan."  This way we list the two contexts in which the term is seen most often explicitly, while covering the other edge cases.  Side note: is "mainland China" really employed in the SCS context?  Worried that bit might be WP:OR. DrIdiot (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Re: South China Sea Islands) — The reason for the mention of the SCSI is that the PRC controls some of the SCSI and claims almost the entire region. This means that, if we were to consider the PRC-controlled parts of the SCSI to be parts of the PRC, then, by extension, we should also consider these territories to be parts of mainland China. So really, the reason is to exclude the PRC-controlled SCSI from the definition of mainland China whilst also indicating that they are indeed controlled by the PRC nonetheless. | While the term "mainland China" is not highly used in the context of the SCSI, it is important to point out that, administratively, the PRC considers the SCSI to be a part of mainland China. The PRC considers much of the SCSI to belong to the provinces Hainan (see "Hainan") and Guangdong (see "Pratas Island") administratively; these two provinces are widely understood to be parts of mainland China themselves. | Internationally, recognition for the PRC's claims to the SCSI is minimal if not nil. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Re: Usage of "mainland China" in the context of the SCSI) — I will add that the SCSI is indeed claimed and partially controlled by both the PRC and the ROC (aka Taiwan). This means that the SCSI is indeed split by the Taiwan Strait, at least in terms of the parts under either PRC or ROC control. When international media outlets, for example, discuss the PRC's claims to the SCSI, they often will mention Taiwan's claims and islands under the control of Taiwan as well. Taiwan is usually described as either a "sixth/seventh country" participant to the SCSI territorial dispute (alongside the PRC, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei; and Indonesia via maritime claims) or a "second government of China" with claims that mirror the PRC (the idea that the PRC and Taiwan have identical claims to the SCSI is perhaps not verified; it's not really clear exactly how much of the SCSI is claimed by Taiwan). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Other suggestions: DrIdiot (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this can be simplified: "It excludes several dependent territories or disputed territories that are claimed by the PRC and fall outside of the "mainland" and may or may not be governed by the PRC." to "It excludes the Hong Kong and Macau special administrative regions, as well as territories which the PRC claims but does not control." Added benefit here is this is exactly a description of what it is.
 * I would also suggest we remove this: "The term is frequently used as a synonym for the PRC itself, though these two concepts are not identical." It feels inappropriate for the lede, and begs the question who is using this as a synonym, is it really frequent, etc.
 * I think the specific clause — and fall outside of the "mainland" — is crucial because it explains the etymology of the word "mainland China", beyond just the definition. The territory of "mainland China" doesn't just exclude the territories that are mentioned... it is fundamentally defined by the exclusion of these territories. As I've explained in numerous comments above, the entire concept of a "mainland" would not exist without the existence of a corresponding "lesserland". The mainland and lesserland of China are, for want of a better analogy, like Yin and Yang. One can't exist without the other. There is a twinned relationship between the two concepts, and each concept is entirely reliant on the existence of the other for its own survival. Without the lesserland of China, there is no mainland. The lesserland is defined as the territories I listed, i.e. Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Fujian Province (ROC), and South China Sea Islands. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The term mainland China is used (to what extent and by whom is unclear) as a synonym for the PRC via the concept of Pars pro toto... the part standing for the whole. Mainland China does indeed make up the vast majority of China's territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

(Re: My own comments about the "lesserland") — There are more territories than just Taiwan, Fujian Province (ROC) and SCSI that are claimed by the PRC. However, the reason that I did not list any of these other territories is due to "common" usage... The main territories that I have in mind are Aksai Chin (uninhabited territory controlled by the PRC), Arunachal Pradesh (a state of India), and Senkaku Islands (uninhabited territory controlled by Japan). These three territories in particular are some of the main disputes that China has apart from Taiwan. However, given that Aksai Chin and the Senkaku Islands are uninhabited, there is no grassroots self-determination or irredentism involved... the two disputes are entirely geopolitical in nature (i.e. expansionist, imperialist, etc.), with no sense of cultural nationalism whatsoever aside from what is instilled by the state via state propaganda. The South China Sea Islands are also mostly geopolitical in nature (aside from certain incidents of Vietnamese and Filipino fishermen being harassed or even kidnapped by the PRC), but it is quite clear that the international community stands firmly against China's territorial claim to this region (unlike Taiwan, for example, whose status is hotly debated around the world). Meanwhile, Arunachal Pradesh actually does have a native population... and it has not been included on the list due to being controlled by India, who are essentially the natives of the region. If the PRC were to invade and annex Arunachal Pradesh, it would be a foreign government, plain and simple... The PRC's claim to Arunachal Pradesh is purely imperialist in nature. No one native to Arunachal Pradesh refers to their relationship with China as the "mainland"... they consider China to be a foreign country. So, that's the justification for Arunchal Pradesh's absence (as opposed to Taiwan's inclusion, which is justified through a grassroots cultural lens and a true shared history between Taiwan and the PRC). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

SCS stuff and other OR issues
I've removed the SCS section from the lede. It's getting out of hand; there are no RS that defines the relationship between the term mainland China and the SCS, which makes it WP:OR. It's also WP:UNDUE for the lede, taking up a good 30% of the text. Here it is for reference (sans one POV part I removed in an edit I was going to make):

The PRC claims and partially controls the South China Sea Islands (SCSI), a large maritime region dotted with small islands that is subject to several overlapping territorial and maritime disputes involving several countries. The PRC administers all of the SCSI islands that it controls as parts of Hainan Province, which is an administrative subdivision of mainland China. This includes the city of Sansha, which is comprised entirely of SCSI islands. The PRC's claim to and partial control of the region are unrecognised internationally. Taiwan also partially controls the region and claims it on the basis of the historical ROC (1912–1949)'s preceding claim to the region. The PRC claims one SCSI island as a part of Guangdong Province, namely Pratas Island, and this island is under ROC control. The PRC also claim the Senkaku Islands, a group of Japanese-controlled islands in the East China Sea, as a part of Taiwan Province (PRC). The Senkaku Islands have never been under the control of either the PRC, the historical ROC (1912–1949), or Taiwan. Taiwan also claims the Senkaku Islands as a part of itself on the basis of the historical ROC's preceding claim to the region.

This is not an article on the territorial disputes of the PRC. Maybe this could go in the body, but I honestly don't see a strong case for it either. DrIdiot (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

To be extra extra clear, I do not believe the Wiki article needs to clarify the definition of mainland China beyond what is done in RS, even if definitions in said RS don't address edge cases (like SCS). To do so would be WP:OR. DrIdiot (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Most RS I see define mainland China by what it *is*, not what it *isn't*. I suggest we revert to that description in the lede, with maybe a sentence nodding toward Territorial disputes of the People's Republic of China. Can we get a list of RS? for example. DrIdiot (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Mainland China strictly speaking *is* defined by what it isn't. The most basic definition of "mainland China" is "the People's Republic of China minus Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan". Obviously, the part about "minus Taiwan" is questionable due to the PRC's lack of control over the territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

background section
Removed this text: The phrase "mainland China" emerged as a politically neutral term to refer to the area under control of the CCP, and later to the administration of the PRC itself. Until the late 1970s, both the PRC and ROC envisioned a military takeover of the other. During this time the ROC referred to the PRC government as "Communist Bandits" (共匪) while the PRC referred to the ROC as "Chiang Bandits". Later, as a military solution became less feasible, the ROC referred to the PRC as "Communist China"" (中共). Seems speculative, no source. Don't like the use of the word "neutral" -- what does neutral mean? DrIdiot (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, it is speculating on the source of the term, and this needs WP:RS from secondary sources. Etymology is difficult to pin down. DrIdiot (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Replacing "the region" with "China". The reference seems to have been added to suggest that Japan invaded "mainland China". This is... a big stretch to make. I pulled the reference and it's not clear at all what the author means by mainland. Can leave the reference in, but Japan invaded China in the 1930s, and it doesn't correspond the notion of "mainland China" as it is discussed in this article with any historical notion. DrIdiot (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed this sentence since it's not clear what Japanese invasion has to do with the term: In the 1930s, China faced Japanese invasion. DrIdiot (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved due to unanimous consensus against proposal (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  11:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Mainland China → ? – Chinese mainland is the correct name. Official medias or Chinese government calls it Chinese mainland. But western media always use the wrong words(like the name of CCP). MChinaGA (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We use the common English terms. "Official" doesn't matter. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Khajidha Like the word CPC, it's good to say the correct name instead of the common one being used by western medias. Chinese mainland is actually opposite to Chinese Taipei. MChinaGA (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose – "mainland China" is definitely more commonly used than "Chinese mainland". FWIW Chinese state media seem to use both terms – for instance, here is a People's Daily article saying "mainland China", and here is one saying "Chinese mainland". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mx. Granger There's a said a recent report for the one with mainland China. Like the word CPC, it's good to say the correct name instead of the common one being used by western medias. Chinese mainland is actually opposite to Chinese Taipei. MChinaGA (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another People's Daily piece whose headline uses "mainland China". This piece uses both forms. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Chinese mainland to resume sand exports to Taiwan(11/14/07) — Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America (mfa.gov.cn) MChinaGA (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, like I said, both terms are used by government-affiliated sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's like, it's wrong used by People's Daily. But most of sources use Chinese mainland. MChinaGA (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The two phrasings are used interchangeably, and between them, the current title has consistently been the WP:COMMONNAME (ngrams). Adumbrativus (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is a common name. --Yinyue200 (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:OFFICIALNAME do not use official names just because they are official -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Blue China
Suggest removing "(as opposed to "Blue China")" in "Red China" (as opposed to "Blue China") under section Taiwan (Republic of China), unless the citation is provided. In Taiwan, blue refers to the KMT and green refers to the Democratic Progressive Party as part of the Taiwan political landscape. Blue and green are not related to mainland China. Please provide a citation for blue China. Without a reliable, published source (WP:REPUTABLE), recommend removing the phrase. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)