Talk:Secession in China

Inline flag photos

The systematic use of inline flag images in this article comes off as nonstandard to me. While I was just going to delete them, the proposed flags are very relevant to the article. However, my grasp on the more technical sides of formatting aren't so good, and I wasn't able to figure how to move the images to the more traditional layout. Do other people think it should be changed, and if so, would someone else be able to resize them? Thanks, Darthkayak (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Significant versus Fringe secessionist movements

As far as I'm aware, the significance of secessionist movements in China is as follows:

1. Mongolia --> This movement was so successful that China actually recognised Mongolia's independence in 1946.
2. Taiwan --> Taiwan is de facto independent from China and is probably going to attain de jure independence in the distant future... that is, probably within the next 100 years.
3. Tibet --> Tibet was de facto independent from China during the first half of the 20th century but was subsequently re-annexed by China. However, Tibet may be able to attain independence in the very distant future... probably long after Taiwan, that is, within the next 300 years.
4. Xinjiang --> Xinjiang is probably never going to attain independence from China but its chances might be somewhat improved if Tibet ever gains independence since Tibet under Chinese rule behaves almost like a shield protecting Xinjiang at the moment, and the independence of Tibet will leave Xinjiang's southern border vulnerable.
5. Inner Mongolia --> It is practically impossible for Inner Mongolia to attain absolute independence since it is located far too close to Beijing, the capital city of China. The Chinese government will never allow this. The day that Inner Mongolia attains independence is the day that China collapses as a nation-state entirely. It should also be noted that Mongolia is already independent and Inner Mongolian secessionists, who are few in number, mind you, can just migrate to Mongolia... Inner Mongolia may be able to attain some form of independence in the future, but not in its current state. If Inner Mongolia ever does attain independence, it will be a shadow of its former self... essentially, it will be a rump-state.
6. Hong Kong --> Hong Kong may never attain absolute independence since it is way too small and resource insufficient to sustain itself. However, it may be in China's interests to maintain Hong Kong's current autonomy as a "Special Administrative Region" because Hong Kong is extremely profitable in this state. Once Hong Kong is completely absorbed into China, it will lose much of its usefulness to China.
7. Macau --> Macau's situation is similar to Hong Kong's. However, most Macau people are complacent with Chinese rule.
8. Manchuria --> Japan attempted to grant Manchuria independence as "Manchukuo" during the 1930s–1940s. However, this plan massively backfired and the possibility of Manchuria ever attaining independence again is close to nill. In modern times, most Manchurians identify as Chinese and they are basically part of the Han Chinese ethnic group at this point. Furthermore, Manchuria is mostly populated by actual Han Chinese people because the Manchu Qing themselves actually encouraged mass Han Chinese migration into their own homeland during the 19th century, essentially genociding (or "assimilating") themselves. Manchu people are typically viewed by Chinese bureaucrats as being the best example of a "model minority" in terms of promoting "ethnic harmony".
9. Every other secessionist movement in China --> All of the other secessionist movements in China are fringe movements and don't have much real grassroots support if any. Terms such as "Cantonia", "Basuria", "Santania", and "Goetsu" seem to be completely made up. There is no legitimate support for any of these independence movements, as far as I'm aware. Please, enlighten me if there is any.

Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The word Basuria as a made up word is possibly debunked. Only 1/3 of the phrase is a made up. Try to compare Sichuan with Basuria.

The first part of the phrase 'Sich'. The letter 'si' has been replaced by the 'ba'. Which transform the counterpart as 'Bach'; The 'c' is replaced with an 's'. The letter 'h' is also replaced with the 's'. This is the complex variant of the etymology of the word 'Basuria'.

For a simplified stance, the first term 'Basu' is simply derived from the word 'Bashu', however. The 'h' is removed. Causing the word 'Basuria' to have 2 variants, one spelling variant is 'Bashuria'. The 'a' part from the final compound part from the aforementioned word also comes from the term 'Sichuan'. And it also appears in the second-last letter of the mentioned word. 'A'. And it's left unaltered. Except that it is used in the final letter of the phrase 'Basuria' making the completion: 'Basu__a'. The part 'ri' seems that it does not appear in the word Sichuan. Therefore the 'ri' part is invented.

Another alternative etymology of the 'ria' part is that. It is most likely made up.

[In conclusion 37% to 50% of the phrase is invented.]

I will debunk more words if it is made up, but not currently in the mood in this moment, if you think that my etymology is incorrect, please reply. Thanks! ExplodingPoPUps 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

And importantly, the word 'Cantonia' as far as I believe isn’t made up either but the wide definition of the phrase is either:

The alternative name of the Guangdong Province, used by the Cantonese regionalists/separatists.

A possible entity or place that comprises or represents the Cantonese-speaking word. For possible examples: Hong Kong, a former colony but it is possibly considered part of 'Cantonia', but that does not clarify if the word or the movementis a made up or not. The most simplest etymology I could find is derived from the 'Canton Province'. Cut off the word 'Province', and there is 'Canton', it is not to be confused with a administrative division levels of Switzerland. ExplodingPoPUps 22:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt that there is little to no legitimate support both over (Bas(h)u)ian regionalism/separatism and Cantonese nationalism, there is the 'Provisional Government of Cantonia' and etc. Speaking of Manchuria. There are 10 million Manchus out there, most only spoke Mandarin or are bilingual. 'Manchus or Manchurian' identifying as Chinese is highly dubious. As far as I known, the term 'Manchurian' is an alternative term relating to Manchuria or the Manchus.

Inner Mongolia isn’t that close to Beijing. Xinjiang may never attain it’s independence? Although there are no errors, I may wish to clarify that at least to me. Both 'never' and 'forever' is a lie, all we have is hello and goodbye as quoted. ExplodingPoPUps 22:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Xiangese republic .png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for information

Is anyone else interested in helping me clean up and source this page? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The article was disinformative from the beginning since it originally described China as including both the PRC and ROC and outlined independence movements across both countries as a single entity. This format never made sense and was biased in favour of the PRC. The ROC should have its own article outlining its own independence movements separately from the PRC. The ROC itself is not a secessionist movement since, in fact, the ROC never declared independence from China; it is China. Taiwan has also never officially declared independence from China; the government of Taiwan and the government of the ROC are one and the same, and, as stated previously, the ROC never declared independence from China. Hence, the Taiwanese independence movement is starkly different from all other "secessionist movements" in China, such as the Tibetan independence movement, and should not be considered in the same light. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Table "List of secessionist movements in the People's Republic of China" needs work

1. One column in the table is called "Ethnic" group, yet there are groups included which aren't Ethnicities (Cantonese people, Macau people, Hongkong People) but denote place of origin and can contain multiple ethnic groups.
2. Does the population column refer to the population size of the abovementioned group or the size of the region? For example, if I open the linked Manchu people Wikipedia article in the table, it shows that 10,410,585 Manchu people (out of 10,430,000 total) live in the PRC. This is confusing and a stark contrast to the 109,674,521 people given in the column in this table.
I propose: The column "Ethnic group" should be renamed, for example to "Group linked to secessionist movement", the column "Population" should be renamed to "Population of claimed country" and another column might be added next to the "Group linked to secessionist movement" column which lists the "Population size of group".
Does anyone have any suggestions for improving my proposed changes? --2003:F6:271B:6E00:AD3F:EA:9C2B:1FCF (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The column "population" refers to the entire population of the region, not just the ethnic group that is associated with its independence movement. The ethnic group listed is only the main one associated with the independence movement, to the exclusion of any others that may live in that region (and count towards its total population). For example, there are Han Chinese in Xinjiang, but the independence movement there is associated with the Uyghurs, who presumably want to become the dominant ethnic group in the region at the expense of the Han Chinese. (Note: The ethnic group as a whole doesn't necessarily want independence; it's usually just factions or communities within the ethnic group that want independence.) I will take your proposals into consideration, but bear in mind I was trying to keep the titles brief. The table is becoming quite wide and doesn't fit properly on the webpage. As a final note, in terms of the "Hong Kong people", "Macau people" and "Cantonese people", they pretty much are ethnic groups in a broad sense. Previously, I had placed "Macanese people" in the Macau section but someone changed it to "Macau people". I'm pretty sure Cantonese people are an ethnic group, albeit a subgroup of the Han Chinese (to be honest, I'm not even sure whether there's a real Cantonese independence movement; I'm not the one who added it to the table). The Hong Kong ethnic identity is pretty much dominated by Chinese identity, specifically Cantonese, but it's true that it encompasses multiple ethnicities. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggest page deletion

This page should be deleted, as it is impossible to produce without a significant political bias. As far as I am aware, there are no politically significant secessionist movements within mainland China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.136.185 (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Please place your comments in a new section, rather than at the top of the page like this. Also, as an answer to your statement: This page is really a List article. It lists all of the Wikipedia pages related to secessionist movements in China. Since pages exist for "Tibetan independence movement", "East Turkestan independence movement", so on and so forth, they have been included in this article. Whether they are "significant" or not is irrelevant; if there's an article about it, it's on this page. In any case, the Tibetan and East Turkestan independence movements certainly are significant. The Hong Kong and Inner Mongolian independence movements are mildly significant. The Macau, Canton and Manchukuo independence movements are fringe movements, but there are apparently articles on them as well, so they're included here. Many of the other fringe movements have been removed from the article due to having no sources. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Great Cantonia Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)