Talk:Mainland China

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" (蒋匪; 蔣匪). 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)

References

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)

• 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)

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.

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)

About "Chinese mainland"

Why “official to one party does not merit this sort of phrasing”? PRC rules the Chinese mainland. @Remsense ZeehanLin (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

But the PRC doesn't own or dictate the term "Chinese mainland"; the term is in thorough international use and it's not really a political unit as such—it's like saying the US can dictate it should "officially" be "interconnected US" instead of "contiguous US"—it simply doesn't matter that much what their house style is to readers. frankly. They're not clearly lexically distinct in common use in English in any case. Remsense诉 15:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This is basically the same idiotic argument that keeps coming up at the CCP article. There simply is no meaningful difference between Mainland China and Chinese Mainland in English.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

...Some of Chinese officers love to fuss over these trivial matters. ZeehanLin (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did you add all that again if you agree that it's trivial and not really cogent to the encyclopedic content of the topic? Does it matter or not what China's official style guide is, and in what way?

To be clear, this is an opinion piece from the Translators Association of China that is primarily about English used on street signs within China, and the author is stating their opinion about Western usage, which you've silently put into the mouth of the Chinese government, while also giving them some authorial ownership that I still do not feel is warranted per above. Remsense诉 05:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You cited NPOV when it says On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics. We should then list all points of view. You omitted the clauses immediately following, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. Our point is that the form of the name is not important in English, and you have not articulated clearly why the form of the English name—as opposed to what the term actually means, which is what the article is about—should be treated as a political dispute mediated by the Chinese government. Remsense诉 05:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether this is a political controversy or otherwise, WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints be listed. ZeehanLin (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Viewpoints on what? There's no debate! Remsense诉 07:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We list Chinese mainland, that's us listing another term. Why do we care further than that? Remsense诉 07:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It was my mistake to impose TAC's views on the Chinese government. (Even if it was true, I couldn't write it without reliable sources.) I changed the subject and continued editing because I thought it was my only mistake. But the fact is that you are stopping me. I can't understand that I have other mistakes. Why can't I give some other term? ZeehanLin (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I found a similar description by China Daily, and China Daily may be a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily). Can it be added in Mainland China#People's Republic of China? ZeehanLin (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That article seems to be about mainland China in relation to Taiwan, is this all a question about China vs Taiwan which doesn't mention Taiwan? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:Reply to editing 1242381231: In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily, it is said that (a narrow majority feels that) there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar and The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; ... According to this, it may be a reliable source, relatively speaking. By the way, this edit does not cover the topic of Taiwan. ZeehanLin (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The linked article says "但西方媒体在涉台报道中频频使用“Mainland China”的表述，将其与“Taiwan”并列使用，无疑会造成一种印象，即大陆和台湾分属不同主权国家，这完全违背了一个中国原则，是西方的一个话语陷阱。" - Google Translation - "However, Western media frequently use the expression "Mainland China" in their reports on Taiwan, and use it in parallel with "Taiwan", which undoubtedly creates the impression that the mainland and Taiwan belong to different sovereign states. This completely violates the one-China principle and is a discourse trap of the West." so unless I'm missing something this edit is about Taiwan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)