User talk:Instantnood/Sandbox/Mainland China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the economic and trade perspective, nevertheless, China is frequently and commonly used in a manner equating it with the mainland, both in English and in Chinese. Saying "Trade between China and Hong Kong" (中港貿易) or "Traffic between China and Hong Kong" (中港交通) is not uncommon. Saying "China-Europe trade" (中欧貿易), for instance, normally would not lead to confusion that Hong Kong and Macau are included. The term Greater China is usually used to refer to the economic region comprises of the mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, and ROC-administered territories.

My suggested rephrasing is: However, when used in economic and trade contexts, China is commonly used to refer only to the mainland economy, as Hong Kong and Macau both retain separate economies and customs. This usage is true both in English and in Chinese. Saying "Trade between China and Hong Kong" (中港貿易) or "Traffic between China and Hong Kong" (中港交通) is not uncommon. Saying "China-Europe trade" (中欧貿易), for instance, normally would not lead to confusion that the seperate economies of Hong Kong and Macau are included. The term Greater China is usually used to refer to the economic region comprised of the mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, and ROC-administered territories.

I think some people would be upset if they see the phrasing as extending beyond not just economic terms, but political ones as well, so I added some qualifiers.--Yuje 12:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to be (un)done

(I apologize for jumping into this before reading all of the past discussion, so some of what I am saying may have been refuted or previously discussed)

1. The Chinese terms should not be moved off to the table at the side. Since there are two terms, it is necessary to introduce the Chinese in the text itself and explain their usage, as is done in the current mainland China article, but neither revisions (whatever is done in either of these revisions is pushed off to the end of the article when it should not given that this is a terminology-based article.
2. I prefer the lead sentence of the current article over the proposed revision since it is clearer and more assertive. If a definition is not universally applied, then say so. Don't bury the definition. The statement "denoting the region under jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China (PRC), usually known in English as simply China" buries the notion that mainland China does not include HK or MO and falsely assumes that "China" is always synonymous with the PRC in English. The sentence "Unlike China, however, the boundary of this term is much less dubious." is thrown at us without explaining how China is "dubious" (didnt the previous sentence say China=PRC?). People have short attention spans and the current article gets to the point, while the revision starts ambiguous and goes into so much complexity that it's hard to understand all of it without either having some background knowledge or having read it twice.
3. The second paragraph, in the manner it is written, makes too many broad generalizations. Encyclopedia articles are not literary essays and should not be written from any one perspective (in this case an "ordinary English speaker"). The information should be conveyed (while it is not done in the current article), but not in this didactic tone and with more direct and simpler sentences. This is a already a confusing subject and we shouldnt make it more confusing with something as monstrous as sentence four with its very long primary clause and four modifying clauses.
4. The claim "The gentilic form mainlander is somewhat problematic on Taiwan." is unsupported. How is having two seperate defitions for the same english term "somewhat problematic"? I don't see a problem here. There are two defitions. We will state them and we don't need to editorialize further.
5. The sentence "Outside of cross-strait relations, mainland is used to distinguish itself from other distinctive political entities within the PRC - the two former European colonies reverted back to Chinese rule by the end of of the 20th century." ignores the grouping HK, MO, TW versus mainland China.--Jiang 03:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)