Talk:China proper

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other propers added for reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quotation marks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tang Dynasty is not Han

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Debatable boundries of China proper

message: 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)
replies: text: Do not not-English on Wikipedia. — LlywelynII 09:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And Lathdrinor's statements is in clear English. WP:SOAPBOX is a violation of wikipedia policy.Rajmaan (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. — LlywelynII 15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If verb-ing "soapbox" is illegitimate, verbing "not-English" is many times moreso.108.131.79.70 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Federalist

message: 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—except among dissidents, traitors, and rebels—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.) — LlywelynII 15:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiethnicity under the Qing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified