removal link to chinese wiki zh:中国本土[edit]

reason,china proper and zh:中国本土 have the different definition,one of the definition refered to all the territories of China.Ksyrie

Please don't be pedantic, the treatment of 中国本土 is as close we can get to a discussion on China proper in Chinese.--Niohe 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to make any no-go edits,in chinese wiki,there are at least two main definition of 中国本土,while one correspondants to china proper,another means the territory of china,so I found it not suitable to give the interlangue link to zh:中国本土,only if in en:China proper there are also the corresponding two definitions.Ksyrie
Stop deleting useful zh-links because they don't satisfy your perfect standards of 1:1 correspondence between different language versions in Wikipedia. Your acts are stumblingly close to WP:vandalism.--Niohe 21:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be patient,I didn't intend to make any nationalist changes.The reason why I moved the link to zh:中国本土 is that, the topic in china proper and the topic in zh:中国本土 are not the same.That'a all,we cann't interlink two language version of wiki without the same topic.So if you really want to keep the chinese link zh:中国本土,you can either modify the article of China proper or zh:中国本土 to make the two article do tallk of the same topic.Furthermore,I acknowledge your idea don't satisfy your perfect standards of 1:1 correspondence between different language versions in Wikipedia.,But in our case,the definition of zh:中国本土 is too far from China proper.sometimes,we tolerate some small uncertainty ot nuances between different language wiki.But for zh:中国本土 and China proper,there are a big discrepancy.So I just suggested in chinese wiki to split zh:中国本土 in two articles,one corresponded to chinese daytimes used meaning ,one to China proper.Are you Ok?Ksyrie
No, I'm not satisfied and I think you should be patient and not delete useful links. The heading of zh:中国本土 clearly states "目前有大致有两种观点：一种观点（多为中国大陆民众）认为中国本土即指中国领土，一种观点（多为台湾）认为中国本土与英文的China Proper相当，指的是内地十八省的范围。在汉语字义上理解，中国本土指中国本有的土地、领土。" This is a close as we get, we don't need to rewrite the articles right now to establish a link between Chinese and English Wikipedia.
you sentence cann't make sense,since you have clearly understood the zh:中国本土 have the ambiguity of definition,people will automatically conclude that china proper and zh:中国本土 are not the same.So I just wonder that why you insisted on linking two differnet article?what is your finally aims to link two different articles?This can only cause confusion in understanding.Give me your reason,pleaseKsyrie
You just reverted WP:3RR and I'm reporting you to an administrator.--Niohe 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the last time: there is absolutely no need for 100% correspondence, or 一一对应 as you call it on Chinese Wikipedia. In case two topics do not cover each other entirely, the link is there to facilitate translation and creation of new, more precisely defined papes. Please refer to Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links#Purpose for more info and restore your deletion. You risk being blocked for WP:3RR violation.--Niohe 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If China was a proper federalist place, instead of relaying on such centralist power, than non-Han ethnic groups might consider themselves Chinese too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other propers added for reference[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Quotation marks[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Tang Dynasty is not Han[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

????????????? The above statements must be made by a Han-haters, as their dynasty was wiped-out by Han people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Han people lean towards homogeneity and conformity, not diversity and debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasn't China (which is Han areas) basically a colony of 'got pawnd' by Mongolians and Manchurians?? Only revisionism includes them as dynasties in the Chinese narrative, and makes seem like Genghis was a Chinese guy who actually conquered half of Eurasia!? Which would make China during 'Yuan' stretch from Hungary or something? Why not include that in then, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Debatable boundries of China proper[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Wasn;t southern territories like Yunnan, Guizhou and Guangxi independent at different times through history? Even Guangdong wasn't under a central Chinese power or dynasty from time to time?[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"China Proper" controversial?[edit]

I find this characterisation rather unsatisfactory. The problem is that the main objector to this terminology is the Chinese state and those who support its positions.

As the article states: "When the Qing Dynasty fell, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia were outside the administrative structure of China Proper, and it is possible to argue that after the fall of the Empire, Tibet and Outer Mongolia exited the de facto borders of China altogether...The subsequent PRC and ROC governments have sought to eliminate this separation in order to consolidate their territory." That is, Chinese governments are ideologically committed to eliminating and denying this division. The nature of the "controversy" is that Chinese governments have decided that "the separation doesn't exist".

But this doesn't mean that the division doesn't actually exist! Historically the division between territories under the administration of the Chinese bureaucracy and those outside of it exists (see Ming Dynasty military conquests for a look at what this meant), and the division between areas populated by Han Chinese and those populated by ethnic minorities also exists.

Nor is the Chinese government's position the only way of looking at China. It is not really Wikipedia's place to toe the political line of the state, but to record the facts. The facts are that historically and ethnically the difference exists, and that the Chinese government, for various reasons, is strongly committed to the position that it doesn't.

The entire introductory section, with its statements that "China proper is a controversial concept, since it is valid only from paradigms that contrast the core and the periphery of China", "However, the controversial nature of the term is somewhat mitigated if it is interpreted as the historical and cultural-anthropological center of the Chinese people", and "Generally speaking, the idea of China proper is quite malleable and its definition often changes depending on the context", are all rather mealy-mouthed and weaselly. The article seems to bending over backwards to recognise the position of those who are most vociferous about denying the division.

What the article should do is state and explain the distinction, discuss the history and dimensions of the distinction, and also note that under modern Chinese state ideology the difference is no longer considered to exist (and perhaps note that Chinese who subscribe to this ideology are opposed to recognising the distinction). But to state that the distinction is "controversial" because the Chinese government doesn't like it and many Chinese feel, for nationalistic reasons, that it shouldn't be recognised, seems to be giving rather too much credence to groups who are committed not to discussing the facts (historical dimensions, ethnic dimensions, etc.), but to discussing what the facts ought to be according to their own world view. This is ideology, not scholarship.

Bathrobe 06:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an afternote, I might add that official denial of a division between China Proper and peripheral regions can be regarded as controversial in itself. For instance, the Chinese government uses this position to give itself a free hand in swamping ethnic minority territories with Han Chinese, somewhat similar to Indonesian transmigrasi. Mention of "controversy" solely from the notion that "China Proper" offends the Chinese government and the nationalistic feelings of Chinese is quite POV. The other side of the "contoversy" should also be stated.
Bathrobe 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After I had made the above comments, LionheartX made a number of changes to the article that went even further in the POV direction that I was concerned about. He/she has also failed to respond to my comment on his/her talk page.
It is entirely inappropriate to start the article, as LionheartX does, by saying that 'China proper is a controversial concept'. The concept is not particularly controversial outside China and is a legitimate way of viewing China, political considerations aside. All that is needed at the beginning is a definition of the concept. The controversy can be covered quite adequately within the article.
I've taken the opportunity to slightly change the wording within the article. The changes are not great, but (1) make it clear that the term 'China proper' is controversial within China (this is what the article said originally, before July 2006! The edit that changed that was rather heavily POV) (2) make it clear whose paradigm we are talking about -- that of the Chinese government. I am perfectly aware that many Chinese feel that the government paradigm is the correct one, but it is still POV as there are people who hold views in conflict with the government's views and their views should not be somehow labelled 'incorrect'.
I don't believe that the changes I've made are detrimental in terms of POV. They merely take the article away from the previous tone which seemed to one of abject apology to the Chinese government and people that Wikipedia should even presume to have an article on the subject of 'China proper'.
User:Bathrobe
It is true that the Chinese government does not use the term "China proper". But, it seems, this does not mean that there is no legal or administrative difference between what corresponds roughly to what has traditionally been called "China proper", and most territories outside it. In China there are five autonomous regions which have a status somehow different of the 22 provinces. And roughly, although not exactly, those autonomous regions cover the same areas which traditionally have been concidered as being outside "China proper". In some old encyclopediae it is stated that "China proper" is the territory of current China except for Tibet, Xinjian, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. Manchuria has no special status but it is divided onto three "normal" provinces. However, the three other territories outside "China proper" are the same as the three largest of the five autonomous regions. Indeed there are two more autonomous regions, Guangxi and Ningxia, which perhaps traditionally have been included in "China proper", but they are rather small by area, compared to the three others lying outside it. -FKLS (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concept of China proper itself is an ideology. It's an ideology of outsider westerners who want to see China divided up and weakened, and see these territories as the most easy pickings. That's why the concept existed in the imperialist age, westerners wanted to divide these regions off and absorb them into their own state or make them into puppet border states.173.67.18.125 (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is correct, and clearly many Wikipedia editors are incapable of self-awareness about their own ideology in that regard. 2601:86:300:1AC0:1108:874F:260D:3140 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can one nation represent 56 nations? This doesn't make sense when one group dominates so totally, and especially when so-called minority groups like Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Mongolian, Korean and Russian have independent states that represents these people properly. I've heard many Han people call minority groups like Tai, Manchus and Tibetans not 'proper Chinese' before. At Beijing Olympics, all the ethnic groups were masqueraded by Han Children! Defeats the purpose, non? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are engaging in a strawman argument by casting the argument against proper China as something *only* the Chinese government and people who subscribe to the Chinese governments ideology would make, when that's not the case at all. I would challenge you to find a single person educated in Chinese history in America who would deny the legitimacy of China's administration of Manchuria or other border regions of China. You are just trying to cast it as the sole position of the Chinese government because of the Chinese governments unpopularity, it makes your argument easier to make.108.131.79.70 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origin of the concept[edit]

"It is not clear when the concept of "China proper" in the Western world appeared. According to Harry Harding, it can date back to 1827 (see Harding 1993). But as early as in 1795, William Winterbotham adopted this concept in his book (see Winterbotham, 1795, pp. 35–37)."

This is very scholarly, but to speak of when the concept appeared in the "Western world" is rather POV because it suggests that the distinction did not exist in the "Chinese world". In fact, while the name "China proper" may not have existed in Chinese, the concept certainly wasn't made up by Westerners; it was implicit in Qing governance. While the Qing adopted the mantle of a Chinese dynasty, the Lifan Yuan was a peculiarly Qing institution that explicitly placed large swathes of Qing territory outside of "China". Qing policies on the immigration of Han Chinese into outer territories were also based on a distinction between Han Chinese territories and those of other ethnic groups. Surely this section should make some reference to this. The fact that China no longer recognises the distinction does not invalidate it as a historical concept. Bathrobe (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From your recent edit summary in Zhonghua Minzu it seems that you hold an incorrect concept to interpret the existence of Lifan Yuan as the proof that Qing did not regard all of their territories as "Chinese". In fact, while Lifan Yuan existed as an institution to govern outside China proper differently, Qing rulers did consider all its territory as "Chinese" territory. For example, the book "Overseas Chinese, Ethnic Minorities and Nationalism: De-Centering China" (by Elena Barabantseva) pg 20 mentions that "they referred to their expanded empire as both Da Qing Guo (Qing Empire) and Zhongguo (Central State) calling all subjects of the Empire recently and previously conquered as "Chinese" (Zhongguo zhimin, Zhongguo zhiren, and later Zhongguoren or Zhonghuaren)". The book "Empire to nation: historical perspectives on the making of the modern world" pg 232 also mentions that "The early and mid-Qing emperors repeatedly sought to identify their expanded empire as Zhongguo, and the term was commonly used in communications and treaties with foreign states." In pg 251 it further mentions that "The boundaries of the Qing had the advantage of being set by treaty, especially on the northern border with Russia. ... When the educational reforms of the late Qing introduced geography into the curriculum, textbooks were written to publicize those boundaries. As a result, the emerging Chinese citizenry may not have known what it meant to be Chinese (or in what way the Mongols and Tibetans were also Chinese), but it did know that Mongolia and Tibet were included within the territory of China". Clearly, academic sources show that Qing rulers did regard all of their territories as "Chinese" territory, and even tried to teach citizens through geography courses during late Qing reform. For more information regarding Qing's identification with China, see the article "Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century" [2]. Basically Qing redefined the concept of China or Zhongguo to become a larger (and multiethnic) entity. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are essentially trying to "prove" a point of view here, a rigidly held point of view in China, that the entire Qing expanded empire was "Chinese". You can pick out quotes here and there, but the title of the article you cite says a great deal -- reinventing China. As does the quote "the emerging Chinese citizenry may not have known what it meant to be Chinese (or in what way the Mongols and Tibetans were also Chinese)". There are obviously plenty of arguments in favour of the Chinese interpretation of history, but there are also plenty of arguments for the opposing side. That's one reason why it's a contentious issue. Since you're basically trying to "prove" your point of view rather than write a useful article, your interpolations are wrong in both phrasing and intent. Instead of inserting distracting rebuttals of what was written in the previous paragraph (the usual technique of POV pushing), why not try to present a balanced picture of the situation? The article you cite obviously covers the ground in considerable detail. It was a process of reinvention, and as such should be presented as a process, not as a string of cavils for or against your own point of view.
Incidentally, I'm a little sceptical of your source by the Chinese scholar Gang Zhao (Reinventing China: Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century). The sentence "The Chinese people never returned to the position that China was the property of the Han people" sums up the problem. We need a lot more than one Chinese scholar setting out to prove the official position that "China now sees itself as a multi-ethnic state". Who are the "Chinese people"? The Han Chinese? The Tibetans? The Mongols? The Uighurs? Do they all subscribe to this idea? If you could demonstrate that a majority of (for argument's sake) Tibetans didn't subscribe to this position, then essentially Gang Zhao's case is null and void. I don't think that a consensus position among the dominant ethnic group (however big their majority) proves that all ethnicities are happy with this formulation. Bathrobe (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, as Wikipedian please talk in a polite and scholarly manner. And please do not call it a "Chinese (or oppositely Western) interpretation of history", instead everyone is trying to discuss in a Wiki style. While it's true that there exists disputes, but actually your edit summary was trying to give a definite statement claiming that they did not regard all of their territories as "Chinese", rather than giving an indisputable fact. What was written there can be seen as quote and verified from sources (which were already mentioned above, all are reliable sources), but you are claiming that they are "wrong interpolations", no offense but you really acted as a truth teller. You also removed statements regarding Qing treaties which explicitly mentioned itself as China, which is not really a good behavior. There may be a better location to be placed, but it did represent useful information. Furthermore, one of the most important principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, but obviously you are trying to claim that others are try to "prove" own point of view, and with edit summary that representing own point of view. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, it was indeed a process of reinvention, but the article did also explicitly mention that "shortly after occupying Beijing, the Qing rulers began to identify their own empire as China". The statement added in the Zhonghua Minzu article is basically the same as this, conforming with what the articles say. So it's really unfortunate that you treat it entirely as own point of view. Again, as Wikipedian, discussions are to be in a polite manner. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, I find your manner of taking umbrage highly impolite. I descibed your interpolations as wrong in phrasing and intent -- phrasing because they present useful information in the form of cavils or rebuttals, which is destructive of good article writing. Intent because you appear to be pushing a very strong POV that enables you to make impolite and arrogant statements like "you hold an incorrect concept". (Maybe it sounds ok in Chinese, but it sounds very offensive in English). Bathrobe (talk)
OK, that was because I saw you were trying to give disputable statement as edit summary, and also removed the statements regarding treaties, which are obviously not "interpolations". Sorry if you considered one of my statments offensive (BTW, I'm not in China), but I was trying to explain that the sources which are saying the opposite. The source from Gang Zhao is just one source providing some details, but all of the other sources are not from Chinese scholars, which also verified that information. What is concerned here is not what Chinese now think, but what Qing rulers thought. On the other hand, the Qing treaties are originally sources which can be used to directly verify the information, which you had removed. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an example of the treaties: in the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 (ratified by both USA and China by 1869), the first sentence stated "Whereas since the conclusion of the treaty between the United States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire (China) of the 18th of June, 1858...". Here the "the United States of America" is used as the name of the polity on the US side, whereas "Ta-Tsing Empire" and "China" are used as the name of the polity on the Chinese side; apparently both "Ta Tsing" (Great Qing) and "China" refer to the Chinese entity. In the body of the treaty, "the United States" is often used as an abbreviated name for the USA, whereas "China" and "Chinese Government" are used to refer to the Chinese side (e.g. Article VII stated "Citizens of the United States shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the government of China, and reciprocally, Chinese subjects shall enjoy all the privileges of the public educational institutions under the control of the government of the United States..."). So it has nothing to do with what Chinese or other ethnic groups now think, but what Qing rulers themselves considered as. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree that "it has nothing to do with what Chinese or other ethnic groups now think, but what Qing rulers themselves considered as". The whole issue of Qing perceptions of its the outer territories is not some isolated historical issue that bears only on the Qing. The reason that people care is because of its relevance to the modern situation. To state it bluntly, if one can prove that the Qing regarded Tibet and other areas as "part of China", then there is some justification for China being in there. If not, then the occupation of Tibet and other areas (many of which are still quite restive) becomes historically and morally reprehensible. That's basically what it is about and why history in China is such a fraught area.
The wording of international treaties is obviously relevant and is valid information, but there is much else to consider. My edit statement was not meant to be "indisputable"; it was meant to show that the situation is not as black and white as some might think. In fact, there has also been a lot written that heavily qualifies the position you are putting forward as "indisputable".
I don't like removing information. But the information that you inserted had obviously been put in there to cavil at the thrust of the article and was totally against logical structure or flow. I scratched my head about where to move it on more than one occasion but could see no obvious place for it to go. It really belongs further up in the article, or possibly in another article, not randomly placed in the Implications section. Bathrobe (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bathrobe:If one can prove that the Qing regarded Tibet and other areas as "part of China", then there is some justification for China being in there.
“India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator.”- Winston Churchill.
Bathrobe, so India should not exist because Churchill thought India is not a nation? Do you even know basics of human history? Most countries today are former colonies and their borders are drawn by Europeans(in fact even in Europe after two world wars you still have borders that do not coincide with ethnic borders and wishes of some ethnic groups). And you think that it is important what Qing thought(it is not because the ROC is a successor state ot the Qing-). From India to Africa to Americas the borders are usually drawn by people who didn't even live there . Those countries became independent from their colonial masters and now exist in borders drawn by them, and not what ethnic groups within those countries wanted. And that borders are respected because they are recognized by international law. Modern China was created by people that only live in China(the Manchus), so China is more like Japan and the UK, countries that were newer colonies and that were created by people who currently live within those countries, and not by independence from other states or some colonial power. Rate 12 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course if we are talking about political issues regarding Tibet etc, we do need to consider each of their perspective (at least have a general idea of what they think). But as for myself I'm mainly interested in history, not politics (which will link to issues regarding nationalism, which I don't want to be involved in), so I want to avoid the latter as possible. I do agree that there are more complicated issues, but I think in Wikipedia we should at least also consider what Qing rulers themselves thought, not just what modern people think (which will directly involve nationalism, contradictory to the general environment of Wikipedia). Nevertheless I do agree there may be a better way to organize the materials. BTW: to show that Qing regarded Tibet as "part of China", it may be sufficient to show some original materials, such as the geography textbooks published during the late Qing reform. For now I just provide a link to the original 1906 New York Times article regarding Qing's assertion of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet: [3] --209.183.18.76 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article is interesting because it uses the term "Chinese", it talks about the Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, but also speaks of sending a "Tartar" (read Manchu) general to Tibet. There is no doubt that the Qing asserted sovereignty over Tibet. But the Mongolian interpretion of history (just for your information) is that they never belonged to China. They were a part of the Qing empire, under the rule of the Manchus, but they never actually belonged to China. As your article cited earlier says, even if the Qing described their country as "China" with its clearly defined boundaries, the Mongolians never knew they were "Chinese". I don't think international treaties capture the whole reality. Bathrobe (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Mongols could surely read all those treaties. You have thousands of ethnic groups around the world without their states and with their own interpretations of their history, but what a treaty says is clear even if you don't like it.
And the 1906 treaty respecting Tibet only mentions China and Great Britain. Read it here:[|Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet]. Rate 12 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you said is true, which I'm aware of. The reality is that Qing considered their empire as China, and became more and more became sinonized (but still kept some identity), while Mongols (Outer Mongols esp.) considered their allegiance to Qing emperors, not Chinese state. During its last years, Qing began to make attempt to integrate it as Chinese province, but 1911 Revolution led to the fall of Qing Dynasty and independence of Outer Mongolia. All of these major information may be mentioned, so it should not really a problem. We may just represent the major information as we usually do in Wikipedia, without involving personal or national views. --209.183.18.76 (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's odd to speak of the Qing as if it were a single static thing over the course of its history. There is evidence that that Qing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw their empire as equivalent to China. That doesn't tell us that much about what Dorgon, Kangxi, or Qianlong thought about the same question.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the cited sources mentioned earlier also state that "The early and mid-Qing emperors repeatedly sought to identify their expanded empire as Zhongguo" and "shortly after occupying Beijing, the Qing rulers began to identify their own empire as China". Note that they both talked about the early and mid Qing emperors, not just the later ones. The 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk for example, as can be found here, also used the name "China" (even the Manchu text of the fourth article of the treaty says "The Russians now living in China and the Chinese subjects who are in Russia shall be left there for the rest of their lives"). Qianlong's letter to George III in 1793 is another example. So there is no doubt they also saw their empire as equivalent to China. --173.206.10.250 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A relevant Chinese concept to China proper is Eighteen Provinces (十八省), which has been discussed in the section Historical perspective. But this concept does not clearly identify itself as China (中国) and other places as non-China. This is a crucial difference between the concept of China proper and that of Eighteen Provinces. A more relevant Chinese concept is Zhongguo Benbu (中国本部, see zh:中国本土), which roughly identifies the Eighteen Provinces as China. This concept likely appeared at the end the Qing Dynasty and reflected then Han Chinese revolutionists' idea that the Manchu rulers were foreign occupiers of China. The earliest written record of 中国本部 I can find is Zou Rong's 1903 book The Revolutionary Army (革命军). --Pengyanan (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to consider what the Qing themselves thought, then there is a lot to cover! There is the kind of options open at the time (gaining the Mandate of Heaven and taking tianxia were the parlance of the day, not establishing independent sovereign states), their special relationship with the Mongols, their total segregation from the Han Chinese (set apart in special areas of the city, intermarriage forbidden), their ban on Han Chinese settling in outer territories, the role and status of the Lifanyuan, the cultural and political policies adopted in Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, and the West, their insistence on establishing boundaries and control, their insistence on placing Manchus in all government departments, the superficial maintenance of the Manchu language as an equal of Chinese, historical changes as the dynasty progressed, and much else besides. These are all things that can be interpreted in many ways. One example is the Chinese academic insistence that the Manchus became totally assimilated to the Chinese. This meshes well with the view of the Qing as a "Chinese" dynasty and the Zhonghua minzu as a view of ethnicity within Chinese history, but it glosses over considerable aspects of reality as it was experienced by the Manchus themselves. Bathrobe (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you talking to me? Or to 209.183.18.76? --Pengyanan (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, edits are coming so thick and fast I misplaced my edit. With regard to what you say, I'm not sure what we should be looking for. Let me cite an example. The Mongolians call China Хятад. The Inner Mongolians call China Дунд улс. The rationale is that Хятад refers to the country of the Han Chinese; China as a multi-ethnic state should be Дунд улс (central country). This tells me that there is definitely a prior-existing consciousness of China (meaning China proper) as a different entity from Mongolia, even under the Qing. I have seen a paper on the Mongolian consciousness of their country and how it has been manipulated in modern times, which I will look for. I don't think that the absence of a Chinese equivalent negates the historical validity of "China proper". (I found these articles and books, interesting, but not the one I'm looking for: [4], [5], [6], and [7].) Bathrobe (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For your information, there is a Chinese equivalent: Zhongguo Benbu (中国本部). See the relevant sections at zh:中国本土. --Pengyanan (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only problem with 中国本部 is that it looks like an imported or externally imposed concept, not a inherent local concept. Bathrobe (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also guess so although I cannot find evidences to prove whether it is an inherent local concept or imported one. But no matter whether it is imported or not, this Chinese concept deserves a place in this article, doesn't it? --Pengyanan (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's certainly a Tibetan word for China proper, viz the normal Tibetan word for China, རྒྱ་ནག་ gyanak. Therefore, if Tibet is part of China then China proper is an indigenous Chinese concept which predates the first Western uses.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((pd)) I added a reference to Wei Yuan's use of the term "Zhongguo," which Joseph Esherick translates, in this context (and in this context only, presumably) as "China proper." ch (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Qing fully identified all their territories as "China"[edit]

The Qing identified their state as "China" (Zhongguo), and referred to it as "Dulimbai Gurun" in Manchu. The Qing equated the lands of the Qing state (including present day Manchuria, Dzungaria in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and other areas as "China" in both the Chinese and Manchu languages, defining China as a multi ethnic state.

When the Qing conquered Dzungaria in the Ten_Great_Campaigns#The_Zunghars_and_pacification_of_Xinjiang_.281755.E2.80.931759.29, they proclaimed that their land was absorbed into "China" in Manchu written documents.

In many other Manchu records they refer to their state as China and as Manchus as inhabitants of China, and when they refer to the Qing in conparison with other lands, they use "China"

In light of these sources, it is quite difficult to justify the excessive POV pushing by User:Bathrobe in the above sections. Methinks Bathrobe doth protest too much, no? When the Manchus themselves clearly state that their territories- even specifically named territories like Dzungaria in Xinjiang- were part of China (Dulimbai Gurun)- and made clear the they regarded themselves as inhabitants of China, and used "Dulimbai Gurun" to refer to the Qing Empire in Manchu versions of international treaties like the Treaty of Nerchinsk (the Latin version of the treaty also said "China", not "Manchu Empire")- and people like Bathrobe continue to push an agenda and falsely claim that this is all modern "Chinese nationalism".... Rajmaan (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh, just glancing at the discussion, he is using English and making valid points and you are simply dumping unedited masses of unfiltered Google Book searches. a) Don't do that, as b) It makes you look like the agenda-pushing one to be ignored. — LlywelynII 09:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect, the first link is the primary article which I am referring to- [8]. It talks about how the Qing identified all its territories (Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet, Manchuria) as part of China 中國. The other google searches I put in here are ancillary. As for agenda pushing, Bathrobe's points are not valid because his comments aren't directed any any particular user's behavior- in essence Bathrobe wrote a long screed attacking "Chinese nationalists" and the Chinese government to WP:SOAPBOX about his own political views on China. Bathrobe offered almost no sources for his assertions, the entire paragraphs of his initial rant are totally unsourced political bashing. I clearly summarized and elucidated the main point of the main source above and even named the specific campaign against the Dzungars where the Manchu said that their land was absorbed into Dulimbai Gurun (中國).Rajmaan (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you did and I had to go through and clean it up to make it read as though it were prose. You're welcome.
But thank you for improving on your style in your responses below. You're still quite far off point: ignoring the COMMON ENGLISH-language use of the term to make POV points for apparently political reasons looks quite bad and rather worse than Bathrobe. But it could be that you're confusing the existence of an article about this concept as endorsement of that concept. It isn't. We talk about what it is and then discuss how some conceptions of it are (apparently) not supported by the historical record. We don't create strawmen and then pretend it doesn't exist because that would be politically inconvenient for people you may support. — LlywelynII 15:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't comment on the existence of the article or the content of the article (although I proceeded to edit the article with the sources I listed), I was commenting on Bathrobe's comments and attitude and that's why I named Bathrobe specifically. If you look at Bathrobe's edit history, he appears to be have been on a personal crusade against "Chinese nationalists" and look at the content he specifically took issue with. The content basically says precisely what I explained- the Qing considered their state as Zhongguo ("中國") and then Bathrobe proceeds to delete it, saying While the Qing may have regarded themselves as a Chinese dynasty, the 理藩院 demonstrates that they did not regard all of their territories as "Chinese". Interpolation distorts the picture.. Since Bathrobe apparently knows the Chinese language judging from his other edits I can only assume he was deliberately confusing 中國 with 漢. And his userpage directly bashes " Chinese nationalists" and he has been on other articles like the Yuan dynasty article attacking perceived "Chinese nationalists" as well for the same "reason" on here with the Qing, because the PRC calls the Yuan dynasty as 中國 and Yuan Emperors as 中國人 (which is then translated into English as "China" or "Chinese", which makes it falsely appear as though the PRC is claiming that Mongols are Han or that they were Sinicized. The PRC and all people in China acknowledge that the Yuan emperors were ethnic Mongol). The same thing with the Yuan dynasty and Mongol Emperors is that the Yuan Mongols also referred to all the Yuan territories as 中國 and Genghis Khan adopted the Chinese style dynasty name 大朝 in 1217 for the entire Mongol Empire decades before Kublai Khan adopted 元朝 to just refer to Yuan territories.
I believe it is a PRC government policy and the policy of scholars in China to translate 中國人 as "Chinese people" and 漢人 as just "Han people". On the other hand, western scholars translate 漢人 as "Chinese people" and never refer to ethnic minorities like Manchus as Chinese. People who know some basic Chinese know the difference between the two, and know how the PRC translates it vs western scholars. Bathrobe never addressed it even when the ip contributor 209.183.18.76 here tried explaining that.
Look at Bathrobe's response to the ip 209.183.18.76 explaining that the Qing identified all its land as Zhongguo and all its subjects as Zhongguo zhiren. Talk:China_proper#Origin_of_the_concept He totally ignores the ip's point about Zhongguo and even attacks the ip for "inserting distracting rebuttals of what was written in the previous paragraph" (since the ip's argument about zhongguo was presented in response to Bathrobe's original comment.) Bathrobe did not assume good faith, he attacked 209.183.18.76's point of view and sources as a "Chinese" interpretation (despite the fact that Elena Barabantseva is not Chinese [9], neither is Joseph Esherick [10] [11]), accuses 209.183.18.76 of POV pushing, patronizes 209.183.18.76 and makes a snide remark on his perceived ethnicity-Maybe it sounds ok in Chinese, but it sounds very offensive in English, and on Talk:Yuan_dynasty he repeatedly attacks "Chinese" nationalists and defends an ip address who insults China as "losers", and attacks "Chinese nationalists" on his own userpage.
I agree to move past this discussion about user conduct and talk about the article content in the below section.Rajmaan (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Federalist[edit]

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

NPOV[edit]

I understand there is a controversy tag at the top of this page, which somewhat explains the over-careful phrasing in the present article. The article itself isn't terrible.

That said, the lead to this article is presently openly WP:BIASed against its own existence and is WP:FRINGE to the point of violating WP:LIE. It's not "confusing" or "un-Chinese" that this idea existed: it simply described the situation the Europeans found on the ground—a massive empire (Qing) which simultaneously controlled what the Europeans considered China (Han lands) along with various frontier districts of questionable affiliation (to wit, Thibet/Tibet and Tartary/Mongolia and Manchuria). I'm not saying we shouldn't be careful or caveat such a loaded issue (China's been a very self-consciously multiethnic state since the Republic), but it's simply untrue that this concept only existed among Westerners during the Qing; it's simply untrue that "there is no fixed extent" as a bald phrase should be allowed in the lead; it's simply untrue that the Han had no sense of their own lands as something distinct from the wastelands of the north and west. This needs to be pushed back the other way a bit. — LlywelynII 09:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not the controversy. There is no controversy that a different administrative system existed. There is no controversy of "questionable affiliation", its acknowledged that they were governed according to different systems although both were firmly part of the Qing. The issue is the terminology used. The Qing used China 中國 (Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun) as a name for the entire empire, including Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Manchuria. Dulimbai Gurun is the direct Manchu translation of 中國. "China" is used to refer to Qing territory in Manchuria in both the Manchu and Latin version of the Treaty of Nerchinsk, its used to refer to Qing territory in Outer Mongolia the Treaty of Kyakhta (1727), and repeated in multiple Qing documents and pronouncements by the Qing Emperors that Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang are part of 中國 (Dulimbai Gurun). [12] The Qing Emperors explicitly rejected identifying 中國 (Dulimbai Gurun) as referring to Han lands only, and included both Han and non-Han areas of the empire in it. To specifically refer to Han areas governed by the Ming dynasty province system, the Qing used 內地 (interior region) or 內地十八省 (interior region Eighteen provinces), while it called non-Han areas like Tibet and Mongolia as 外藩 (outer feudatory) or 藩部 (feudatory region).
The Qing used the term 中國之人 (Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun i niyalma), translated as "Chinese people" to refer to all inhabitants of the Qing, regardless of ethnicity. This is not 漢人, which refers only to ethnic Han Chinese. However in English both 中國之人 and 漢人 are translated as "Chinese people" with no qualifiers. 中國之人 (Manchu: Dulimbai Gurun i niyalma) means "Middle Kingdom person" and has no ethnic connotations at all.
On the other hand, Europeans and westerners called neidi 內地 as "China proper". This lead to confusion and accusations of "Chinese nationalism", when people note that correctly, the Qing themselves did not use "China" 中國 to refer exclusively to Han areas and say that 中國 refers to all of the Qing Empire.
That is the same issue with 中國之人. People correctly note that the Qing identified all its lands as 中國 and regarded Manchus and Mongols as 中國之人, and it gets translated as "Chinese people", and other people jump on them and accuse them of being "Chinese nationalists" or pushing "Chinese government POV", as if they claimed Manchus and Mongols are 漢人, which nobody in China ever claimed. 中國 has no ethnic connotations. It simply means "Middle Kingdom" and is regarded as the equivalent word to "China". There is no such country as 漢國 "Han Chinese State".
China does not deny the existence of 內地 and 外藩. China itself uses 中國 to refer to itself today and calls everyone who is a citizen as 中國人 "Chinese people" including Manchus, Inner Mongols, and Tibetans. The only people who have issues with this are those pushing a political agenda and trying to force an ethnic connotation of 漢 onto 中國.
Manchuria was not used as a name for the area by the Qing and Manchus, see Manchuria#Etymology_and_names. Manchuria is a Japanese invented place name. The Qing referred to the area as 三東省. Another case of non compatible foreign terminology.
There is also the case of exceptions in the rules regarding the outer feudatories. Bathrobe said something to the suggestion that all of them were off limits to Han settlers, which is not true. The Qing forbade ordinary Han and Mongol civilians from crossing into each other's areas and settling. This applied to Inner and Outer Mongolia, the Tarim Basin (southern Xinjiang aka Altishahr), the northeast and Tibet. However, the Qing from the start made an exception for Dzungaria (Northern Xinjiang) and allowed massive Han settlement in Dzungaria after conquering it even though it was outside of 內地, since the Qing exterminated the native Dzungar Oirats in a genocide and the land was left empty. The Qing also ran Dzungaria in a similar manner to Han provinces although not making it a province. The Qing also gradually lifted the ban on settlement in other areas, Han were allowed to settle in the Tarim Basin after the 1820's when Jahangir Khoja attacked. It lifted the ban on settling in the Northeast after the Russians annexed Outer Manchuria, and lifted the ban on settling in Inner Mongolia after the Boxer Rebellion.Rajmaan (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Further:]
There is a politically motivated accusation that "China" 中國 Zhongguo, Dulimbai Gurun, was only used by the Qing Emperors to refer to the Han inhabited 18 provinces (essentially former Ming territory), and that Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and the Northeast were not considered part of 中國 by the Qing, and that Qing and 中國 were not synonymos but that 中國 was only a smaller part of the Qing, and that 中國之人 Dulimbai gurun i niyalma only referred to Han people 漢人.
This view goes on to state that it wasn't the Qing who considered non-Han lands as part of 中國, but that only after the Qing was overthrown in the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, that greedy Han Chinese nationalists wanted to steal the non-Han territories in Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and so claimed 中國 referred to all those areas during the Qing and started claiming Tibetans, Mongols, and Manchus were 中國人 while that was never used by the Qing. And then come accusations of Chinese government distorting history. And so people claim that the PRC government is a liar and trying to promulgate the view that all areas were 中國 to stop independence movements.
What actually happened during the Qing was the exact opposite. It was Manchu Qing Emperors proclaiming that all of the Qing Empire, including Tibet, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and the northeast were part of 中國, and that all peoples of the Qing empire were 中國之人 including Mongols, Manchus and others. [13] [14] [15][16] While in fact it was Han Chinese literati who tried to argue the opposite and tell the Manchu Qing Emperor that Xinjiang, Mongolia and Tibet were not part of 中國 and that he should not consider them part of 中國 and not annex them.[17] Secret Ming loyalists Han held to this view, because they did not view the Qing as legitimate and wanted a return to the old Ming borders. [18] The Qing Emperors overrode their objections anyway and used 中國 to refer to those areas and justify the Qing's annexation of Xinjiang. [19] Dzungaria in Xinjiang was proclaimed by the Manchus as annexed into Dulimbai Gurun (Zhongguo).[20][21] [22], [23]
This has no impact on the fact that the Lifanyuan existed and the Qing governed those areas in a different administrative structure. Because 中國 does not mean Han, and has no ethnic affiliations or connotations with Han. The Qing viewed 中國 as a multi-ethnic entity and 中國之人 as multi ethnic people, hence that gives lie to the claim that the ROC and PRC were the ones who changed the meaning of 中國 to multiethnic just to claim non-Han lands.Rajmaan (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your (very long) reply and for fixing your referencing style, but it continues to simply show how very far off the mark your treatment is. You are well-meaning but you very much need to review WP:TOPIC (address the main topic of the namespace) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (articles at a namespace should be the one most users would expect to see at the namespace, reflecting the most WP:COMMON, WP:ENGLISH-language usage for that namespace).
In fine, this is not an article about 中国 and its use solely in Chinese and Manchurian sources: It is an article about China and its use in English and international ones. Those terms are very, very similar but (as you prove at great length above) they are not synonymous. The non-existence of a “中国” distinct from the “大清帝国” (or even “中华民国”, which you don't address) has absolutely no bearing on the existence of a "China proper" distinct from the "Empire" or "Republic of China". There very much was and is such an English-language conception and this is the article for discussing it. Its origin from and differences from 內地 should be noted. Points about its validity and formal legal status and the political delicacy involved are to be made (with citations to RS): the shift from Han chauvinism during the resistance to the Ming giving way to multiethnic aspirations under the early Republic and later People's Republic to more recent Han immigration to the outer provinces is essential to understanding what modern China is. At the same time, specious claims that the term has no validity or use presently or historically; that it has not been and cannot be translated; or that it was limited to Western scholarship of the Qing Empire should not be countenanced. — LlywelynII 14:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit: Unless your point was "That controversial tag is there because the PRC disagrees with some forms of and scholarship concerning this concept but you're totally right that the current lead section has SCOPE and POV problems". If so, cool. I absolutely agree that the topic is controversial; the Qing considered their empire to be an empire; and Bathrobe's distaste for half of the controversy (China's) has no bearing on its existence. (We should mark this up however we mark up similarly hot-button issues, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.) In that case, would you like to be the one to fix the intro? I'm somewhat apprehensive of doing it myself and having to go through the bureaucratic process of dealing with edit warring from whoever created the current lead. — LlywelynII 15:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiethnicity under the Qing[edit]

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 SCOPE and POVy TONE 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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories