Talk:Chinese expansionism

message: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chinese imperialism
--DavidStevenson 21:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Survived VFD

message: Macau was a small penninsula with two islands attached which altogether is less than eighty square kilometres... and it was granted to the Portugese in the Sixteenth century, thus it is hardly accurate to call it a territory lost to Portugal in the nineteenth century.  In fact, at that point its character was closer to a ghetto than a colony, and the Portugese's behaviour there over the years showed this.
:It was not granted as such.  The Portuguese moved in and the Ming government let them stay.  It was part of China until the mid-19th century when Portugal piggy backed on the victories of the Western powers and made China sign it over.  So it was lost in the 19th century. Lao Wai 17:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same logic, Manchuria was not lost in 1931. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macau 

message: I just reverted this blatant POV. As common knowledge within the boundaries the Russian Federation, ethnic-Russians and the indigenous peoples of Siberia are both considered Russians. - 210.0.204.29 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Merge into History of China, and become a Redirect to Imperial China, which is a disambiguation page. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support given the content of the article. If the article continues to be about territorial expansion, as the country grew northward, southward, and westward under different dynasties to reach its current boundaries, then I think it is appropriate to call it "territorial expansion" in comparison to US expansion westward or the gradual growth of any other nation on the planet. I am not, however, opposed to the term "imperialism" being used in the context of Chinese "sinocentric world order" suzerainty/tributary activities. The above comment that imperialism is a specific philosophy & policy, and that if the nation in question did not intentionally, consciously seek to be imperialistic, then it's not imperialism, is an intriguing and convincing point.LordAmeth (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 06:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
I removed the requested move template. Don't think its right to move it to Territorial expansions in the history of China (based on Territorial acquisitions of the United States). If anything it should be redirected to Territorial evolution of China modelled on Territorial evolution of the United States. These two as well as Overseas expansion of the United States are subarticles to United States territory. There are no China equivalents e.g. Chinese territory (this is a redirect to a names page) or Territory of China. Now considering that this is English Wikipedia it is entirely natural that its coverage of the USA is far more indepth and specialist than that of China, then all those topics are dealt with more or less in History of China and each of the Chinese dynasty articles.--Loop 9 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support given the content of the article. If the article continues to be about territorial expansion, as the country grew northward, southward, and westward under different dynasties to reach its current boundaries, then I think it is appropriate to call it "territorial expansion" in comparison to US expansion westward or the gradual growth of any other nation on the planet. I am not, however, opposed to the term "imperialism" being used in the context of Chinese "sinocentric world order" suzerainty/tributary activities. The above comment that imperialism is a specific philosophy & policy, and that if the nation in question did not intentionally, consciously seek to be imperialistic, then it's not imperialism, is an intriguing and convincing point.LordAmeth (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 06:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
I removed the requested move template. Don't think its right to move it to Territorial expansions in the history of China (based on Territorial acquisitions of the United States). If anything it should be redirected to Territorial evolution of China modelled on Territorial evolution of the United States. These two as well as Overseas expansion of the United States are subarticles to United States territory. There are no China equivalents e.g. Chinese territory (this is a redirect to a names page) or Territory of China. Now considering that this is English Wikipedia it is entirely natural that its coverage of the USA is far more indepth and specialist than that of China, then all those topics are dealt with more or less in History of China and each of the Chinese dynasty articles.--Loop 9 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Tensions aren't an example of imperialism. Disputes aren't imperialism.
For example: If you discuss the South China Sea or Indian Border Disputes, you should open a new page titled "Vietnamese imperialism" or "Filipino Imperialism" or "Indian imperialism". This article looks like it's trying to paint China in a negative light rather than actually try and discuss imperialism. Why do you only call it imperialism if China does it?
AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because to most people the nine-dash line looks a bit sillier and more expansionistic than Vietnam, the Philippines or India's claims. Of course, feel free to write an article on Filipino imperialism explaining how no reputable researchers or journalists have accused the Philippines of being imperialist with regards to the South China Sea question. Doanri (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove "Recent tensions" sections

message: This article should be deleted. Whatever we think of Chinese foreign policy, the title "Chinese imperialism" is inherently POV. There is no agreed definition of imperialism, and certainly no agreement among historians that China is or ever has been an imperialist power by any definition. Constant Pedant (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Subject meets WP:N so far so any attempts to delete the article are going to be futile. NavjotSR (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be deleted

message: Most of the material in the modern expansions in section is not properly sourced. The citations offered for the material do not even mention the word imperialism. Either new citations should be produced or the section should be removed. 188.141.3.145 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The section  has sources, and those sources seem to accurately describe the claims made in the article. Just because the article doesn't characterize them them with the word "imperialism" doesn't mean the information isn't sourced. Issues of expansionism are also quite relevant in a section entitled "Modern Chinese expansionism". Plandu (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Its WP:OR to suggest its expansionism or imperialism without the terms or definitions of those terms being included in the citations. 188.141.3.145 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why trying to make this article NPOV is a hopeless task and why it ought to be abolished. Constant Pedant (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern expansionism 

message: The article mentions the publication of several "Maps of National Shame" and lists the territories in said maps--but where is a copy of the map itself? I really want to see that! 147.226.213.152 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of National Shame 

message: The PRC dont claim that much territories anymore. Most of them were already settled with neighboring countries. The only lost territories that still claim by China is the South Tibet and Taiwan. The section has so many misinformation. Not even the Qing dynasty claimed they want Outer Manchuria and Sakhalin island back lol.  --Someone97816 (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, here's a list of the PRC's actual claims. The other ones should be removed. -Artanisen (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake of the "Lost territories claimed by China" section 

message: Southern Mongolia is a territory that originally belongs to Mongolia. It was annexed by the Chinese and renamed "Inner Mongolia". So it should be mentioned in this article. -Artanisen (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Inner Mongolia (Southern Mongolia) 

message: This article includes expanding territories, redeeming territories, and expanding influence, which are not the same under Expansionism. Vacosea (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I simplified and merged the sections under PRC. The title of this article should also be changed to territorial evolution, because losses are mentioned here as well. Vacosea (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansionism