Talk:Chinese people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese people article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Edipedia blah blah 2 Ethnic Chinese 3 Ethnic Asian 4 Ethnic White 5 Most non-Han Chinese people who live outside China are also simply referred as Chinese or ethnic Chinese in Western countries. 6 Outside perspective on "Chinese" 7 Taiwanese People 8 Han Chinese 9 Map in the article 10 Removal of POV 11 Ethnic Chinese people 12 Vandalised 13 disambiguation page 14 Japanese interwiki 14.1 Li Ning

[edit] Edipedia blah blah

Ethnic minorities are Chinese citizens. They are included in the first group. When they go overseas, they become overseas Chinese. Edipedia 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Chinese

Sources are needed to claim that Han Chinese is refer to as ethnic Chinese. I think it's just POV. If people in the West put a Han in front of Chinese, then there must be other ethnic Chinese. Otherwise why bother to put a Han in front of Chinese. Many people in the West, they don't even distinguish among Asians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edipedia (talk • contribs) 2006-08-01.

You need to sign your comments. People put "Han" in front of "Chinese" sometimes because the English word "Chinese" is ambiguous in terms of ethnicity and nationality. "Chinese" is often used to refer to the Han. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Need to provide source. Edipedia 20:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here [1]. Notice that only the Han is referred to as "Han Chinese". It doesn't say "Hui Chinese", "Zhuang Chinese", "Yi Chinese", etc etc. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Han refers to Han Chinese. But it doesn't mean Chinese is Han Chinese. You have a logic problem. Edipedia 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Han is one of many ethnicities that make up "Chinese". Chinese refers to citizens of the country China. Han, Hui, Tibetian etc... are races within China. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Edipedia - the problem is that in English, "Chinese" is often used to mean Han Chinese. That's why Han Chinese should be mentioned in this disambiguous page. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to tell people the right thing, not to reinforce wrong opinions Editor 1 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Asian

Many people in the West, they don't even distinguish among Asians. All the people from Asian are ethnic Asian, including Chinese, Philopinos, Laos, etc. Chinese is Asian, but Asian is not only refer to Chinese. The same thing is true for Ethnic Chinese. Han Chinese is ethnic Chinese, but ethnic Chinese doesn't mean Han Chinese. Edipedia 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. However, many Westerners are not aware of this. That's why this ambiguous page is needed. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no way want to remove this article. Instead, I'll suggest expand this article like American people. Edipedia 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but you want to remove the reference to Han Chinese. Well, I'm aware that "Chinese" doesn't only refer to Han Chinese. You're aware of the same thing. But a lot of Westerners do not know that. That's why Han Chinese needs to be mentioned. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to tell people the right thing, not to reinforce wrong opinions Editor 1 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of what is the right thing and what isn't is not relevant.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because you want to remove minorties from Chinese ethnic. Editor 1 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No it's irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your opinion, but is supposed to contain verifiable facts. Please see WP:V.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. The fact is that all Chinese people are generally considered ethnic Chinese in the West, not just Han Chinese. You're the one expressing personal opinions here. Editor 1 19:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an encyclopedia is not supposed to tell people what is "right" information. It's just supposed to reflect the available information out there. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic White

The available information is that many people in the West either think Chinese people is one ethnic group or sometimes they don't distinquish among them for the sake of simplification, because there are too many ethnic groups. There is also "Ethnic White" in English language. It doesn't only refer to British. French, German, Italians, Romanians, etc are all whites, but they are actully different. Whites, Asians....these words are just general terms people use for simplification reasons. The same thing is true for "Ethnic Chinese", which includes all Chinese people for the sake of simplification. Of course, if people want to go further, they will use Han Chinese, Manchus, Huis, etc. Editor 1 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that people sometimes use the phrase "Chinese people" to refer to Hans specifically. Do you have some evidence that this is not so? Do you have some reason to deduce that it is probably not true?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just common sense. How about you provide evidence that says people in the West use Chinese only for Han Chinese. At least, you can't say what I said is not true. Editor 1 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, I think that people sometimes use the phrase "Chinese people" to refer to Hans specifically. That means, naturally, that I disagree with your idea of common sense in this matter. To the best of my knowledge, you have no evidence disproving this, nor have you provided any logic which makes it implausible. This is a disambiguation page, so it should link to whatever the reader might be trying to find. There's no need for redundancy.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Editor 1. Chinese people are Chinese and of ethnic Chinese. The article obviously says that Chinese minorities are Chinese people. How can they not to be Chinese or ethnic Chinese when living outside China. Unlike minorities in the US or UK, Chinese minorities are abriginal people. Together with the Hans, they represent the Chinese people. As you knowm there are 56 ethnic groups in China. It is not reasonable to for people to seperate them from the Hans in most circumstances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yepre (talk • contribs) 2006-08-30 13:04:20.

Well, you don't think it's reasonable, which doesn't seem like a major conflict, since the article does not say "Only Hans are Chinese people". In fact, the first two options given are 1) any citizen of the PRC or the ROC; and 2) any member of the Zhonghua minzu. Han people specifically are only mentioned as a third possibility. This is what a disambiguation page—such as this one—is supposed to do.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it is fine for Editor 1 to add other non-Han ethnics to the "third possiblility". What do you fight for?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yepre (talk • contribs) .

No, the other ethnicities are covered quite clearly in the first two bullet points. The third is intended to refer specifically to Han people, and there's no need to redundantly mention Chinese minorities.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the Hans are clearly covered in the first two bullets. We're talking about ethnic Chinese here. Hans and non-Hans are all ethnic Chinese. There is no redundancy.—User:Yepre

All of the ethnic groups of China, including the Hans and the others, are described by the first two bullet points. "The Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu), a supra-ethnic concept which includes the Han Chinese and other established ethnic groups who have lived within the borders of China since at least the Qing Dynasty". There's no need to repeat "Hans and others" in the third bullet point, which is intended to refer to the Hans specifically.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

One can easily see that the third paragraph is different from the first two. It deals with the ethnic of overseas Chinese. Overseas Hans and non-Hans are all of ethnic Chinese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yepre (talk • contribs) 2006-08-30T14:19:25.

I had no idea that was what you meant. By the way, Edipedia's version of that sentence doesn't make sense: "A person of Han Chinese or other Chinese ethnic minorities ancestry is often simply referred to as Chinese or ethnic Chinese in Western countries. This includes most overseas Chinese." This says that "Han Chinese or other Chinese ethnic minorities ancestry" includes most overseas Chinese. Which Overseas Chinese are not included?

Anyway, my opinion is that the third bullet point is supposed to be about the Han Chinese. The mention of Overseas Chinese is an additional fact (and it's not completely coherent in either version).—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC) PS - please sign your posts with ~~~~

[edit] Most non-Han Chinese people who live outside China are also simply referred as Chinese or ethnic Chinese in Western countries.

Sorry, but until westerners start commonly referring to all the ethnic minorities in China as "Chinese", this is just not an acceptable addition. We're talking about the Russian ethnic minorities for example, or the Tibetans, or the Uyghurs, etc etc. I support including a link to Zhonghua Minzu, but this claim is just far-fetched. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a "most" in front of non-Han Chinese. I'm not saying all of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yepre (talk • contribs) 2006-08-30 15:04:49.

That's a far-fetched claim, too. You and I both know that the term "Chinese" is ambiguous. But most Westerners do not, and use the term mainly to refer to Han Chinese. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just not right. There are a lot of non-Han Chinese ethnics whithin China proper. Yepre 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of what is the right thing and what isn't is not relevant.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Yepre (or should I say Edipedia), and that's why the first bullet mentions Chinese citizenship, and the second bullet mentions Zhonghua Minzu. Hey, I personally wish the term was not ambiguous myself. But that's just not reality. When most Westerners say "Chinese" in English, they are referring to the Han Chinese, as in the people as well as the culture and the civilisation. I don't necessarily like that, but that's just how it is. It's basically the same as when a Chinese person say 美國人, he is thinking of a white guy with blonde hair. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just wrong. Yepre 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of what is the right thing and what isn't is not relevant.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside perspective on "Chinese"

I think this debate quite absurd, as a westerner and from my perspective, many ethnic groups other than Han Chinese are referred to as simply Chinese. If we are talking about colloquial usage here (which it seems we are) then I would say 90% of Westerners don't even know there is a difference between Han Chinese and Tibetans or whatever else. To put it simply: if a westerner says "Chinese" in reference to a person, they could be referring to a person of any ethnic group (Manchu, Hui, Zhang, etc. from what I was on the ethnic page all fit) within China or related countries (China/HK/Taiwan), not just the ethnic Han majority (a distinction most people are not even aware of). The most appropriate thing to do is link to a page listing ALL Chinese ethnicities, majority and minority, that would likely be referred to by an outsider as Chinese, which means probably all distinct non-immigrant ethnicities that have historically lived in what is now the country of China. If there is no such page that covers all these, then you should link to the pages for both majority and minority ethnic groups. Use of "Chinese" does not distinguish between Han and other groups, so neither should these links here. --Rankler 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be very difficult to substantiate any opinions on this matter, simply because, as Rankler alludes to, most people don't know very much about anything. Although Zhuang is the largest minority in China, very few people outside of China and Southeast Asia know what Zhuang is. It's pretty meaningless to say that someone does or doesn't distinguish between A and B if they've never heard of either. However, since this is merely a disambiguation page, we should list all of the meanings which an educated person might be likely to use "Chinese" for.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My main issue here would be that, if you only put Han Chinese there, it implies the usage is discerning when it is not, i.e. "someone who says Chinese must be referring to Han Chinese". Whereas in reality, either because they don't understand the distinction or don't care, this is not the case. "Chinese", colloquially, is very much a blanket term, so only linking to Han gives it a suggestion of specificity which it simply doesn't have in reality. --Rankler 18:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why this is a disambiguation page. The page already offers those different views. It mentions that the term might refer to the Chinese nation, as in anyone with Chinese citizenship. And it also mentions that it could refer to Han Chinese specifically. It should be especially noted that many Western sources currently differentiates between what/who is Tibetan and what/who is Chinese, referring "Chinese" to Han Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, then, that Chinese in a non-citizenship sense cannot refer to any Chinese ethnicity other than Han Chinese? Because that's ridiculous. --Rankler 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a disambiguation page. We are interested in all the things it can refer to.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think Hong does. --Rankler 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came to that assumption. All I said was that this page is a disambiguation page that offers several explanations to what the English term "Chinese people" may refer to, and that many western sources equate "Chinese people" to the Han Chinese. Check the second bullet on the page again, it should satisfy what you've mentioned here. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You just dodged my point, I said "in a non-citizenship sense". I know that natioanlity is already covered, and it should be, but to me what you're saying is that *except* in a citizenship/nationality sense, non-Han Chinese are never referred to as "Chinese". That's simply not true from a western perspective. So, non-Han Chinese should also be covered in the third bullet point, because they can and are referred to as "Chinese" in terms of ancestry/ethnicity/race, NOT only as a nationality. --Rankler 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the second bullet covers that, pay attention especially to the text I've bolded:

• The Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu), a supra-ethnic concept which includes the Han Chinese and other established ethnic groups who have lived within the borders of China since at least the Qing Dynasty. This definition stems from a nationality perspective, and includes most overseas Chinese.

It doesn't say you must be a PRC or ROC citizen to be referred to as "Chinese people", especially since it says that the term can be referred to the ethnic minorities living in China since the Qing dynasty - that's before the establishment of the PRC and the ROC. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If your argument is that the second point is all-encompassing then the third point is redundant and should be removed. If the third point is not redundant, then you're saying Chinese in a "purely ethnic" sense can only refer to Han Chinese and we're right back to where we started. The third point makes a very obvious claim, which is that: in "Western countries" the terms "Chinese" or "ethnic Chinese" are used to refer to "A person of Han Chinese ancestry" and also (by omission) NOT to other Chinese ethnic groups. This is simply not the case, a person of Zhuang or Manchu ancestry would be considered ethnically Chinese in any Western country I'm aware of. The lack of awareness about Chinese ethnic groups means it is impossible for most people to make a Han/non-Han distinction even if they wanted to. If the consensus is to delete the third point I'm fine with that as well, but as it stands its implied claim that there is a Western notion that non-Han Chinese are not ethnically Chinese is simply untrue. --Rankler 03:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, this page is a disambiguation page. That's why both the second and third bullets are presented. And I still insist that much of the time when a westerner says "Chinese" to refer to an ethnicity, he or she is referring to the Han Chinese. Sure, the lines get blurred when you're talking about the Manchu or the Zhuang, and maybe we can add another bullet specifically to discuss how westerners might not be able to tell a Manchu or a Zhuang from a Han Chinese, but rest assured, no westerner I've ever know would refer to a Mongol, Tibetan, Russian, Hmong, Korean, Uyghur, Vietnamese, etc etc, as simply "Chinese people". But all those are ethnic minority groups in China. - Hong Qi Gong ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Rankler. I don't understand what the other two editors' disambiguation means. They are giving different difinitions here using several bullet points. It is obviously ambiguous. How can it be disambiguous? It is just ridiculous to say a person in China is ethnic Chinese, while when he lives outside China. He is no longer considered ethnic Chinese.

Hello, Edipedia. How are you doing? For what I mean by this being a disambiguation page, please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it is. Your opinion is just wrong. Ltnte 18:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not really my opinion on anything. I'm just telling you what a disambiguation page is. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwanese People

Although people in Taiwan are mostly Han Chinese, they should be called Taiwanese politically, because Taiwan is a country.--68.98.154.196 23:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And also, there are Chinese people in Taiwan, but people born in Taiwan should be called Taiwanese people.--Jerrypp772000 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like people in Beijing should be called Beijingers instead of Chinese? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.15.31 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-03 03:05:58.

Not really... In case you don't know, Taiwan is a country!--68.98.154.196 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Taiwanese means people who speak Taiwanese in Taiwan instead of Mandarin.

[edit] Han Chinese

I don't get why Nres reverted my edit. I'm a native English speaker, and I can confirm that the most common meaning of "Chinese people" doesn't include people like Tibetans, Uygurs, Kazakhs, Lhobas, etc. Hopefully I've made a compromise version that includes both facts, although I have to say that I disagree. Tibetans for example are Chinese by nationality, but not ethnically. —Khoikhoi 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this isn't really an article, but a disambig. page, which is supposed to lead readers to one place or another. By not giving emphasis to Han Chinese were are not helping the reader. —Khoikhoi 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker, too. But I consider Chinese refers to all who originally comes from China. Besides, this article is about Chinese people not Chinese ethnic. Your edition is inappropriate. Nres 16:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it...Wikipedia is not about what you or I think, but what we can back-up with reliable sources. The American Heritage Dictionary says:

1a. A native or inhabitant of China. b. A person of Chinese ancestry. c. See Han1. 2a. The sole member of the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family, consisting of numerous languages and dialects such as Mandarin, Cantonese, Taiwanese, and Fujian. b. Any of the Sinitic varieties of speech spoken by the Chinese people. c. The official national language of China; Mandarin.

—Khoikhoi 02:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. American Heritage Dictionary obviously says a person of Chinese ancestry. Why someone wants to change it to Han Chinese here. The See Han in American Hertiage Dictionary is like see other relevant information (the ethnic majority in China). The current contents of this article contradicts with American Heritage Dictionary.

Also, this picture from Wiki commons is more accurate. Please don't replace. Nres 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I provided sources that in English, one of the meanings of "Chinese" is the Han. According to WP:V, it can be included in the article. If you have information from other sources that say "Chinese people" usually doesn't refer to the Han, please cite your sources.

In regards to the map, we can have both, because the first one makes the Han Chinese stand out more. —Khoikhoi 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a better source. |Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Nres 15:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It says "Invalid input. No entries found: chinese|." :-/ —Khoikhoi 16:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take one more look. Nres 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see it, but that's not how WP:V works. Just because a source doesn't say what my source says, doesn't mean we can erase that info from the article. I'm asking you to find contradictory information. —Khoikhoi 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean erase. A person of Chinese ancestry is mentioned in both source. How can you erase that? Nres 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not my point. My point is that I have a verifiable source that says the term "Chinese" can refer to the Han. So far, you haven't provided any sources to the contrary. —Khoikhoi 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out before. The entry in American Heritage Dictionary is see Han. Han is Chinese doesn't mean only Han is Chinese. Nres 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said it did. There are many meanings. —Khoikhoi 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about what you want to add. But do not delete my addition to Chinese people. My addition is backed by both American Heritage Dictionary and Merrian Webster Dictionary. It is NPOV. Nres 16:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your addition is redundant with the previous two bullet points.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Nation refers to Chiense citizens. An oversea Chinese who is not Han and not a citizen of PRC or ROC is not included in the first two bullets. Your addition of Han is actually redundant. Chinese includes Han. Why don't you have a look and see how the above two sources say what Chinese is? |Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary. At least, we can't omit the first two main entries of these two. Nres 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of "Han" is not redundant. For comparison, imagine if I said, "Holland can refer to the Netherlands as a whole, or it can refer to the region of the provinces North Holland and South Holland." That second clause is not redundant, even though those provinces are inside the Netherlands.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For those just joining us, the addition in question is, "A person of Chinese ancestry is referred to as Chinese or ethnic Chinese in Western countries. This definition stems from a genealogical perspective. Note that some overseas Chinese may not necessarily identify with either the PRC or the ROC." I just can't see that this adds very much to the article that isn't already covered in the first two bullet points. "A person of Chinese ancestry is referred as Chinese or ethnic Chinese" is basically circular. Why don't we just add a line to the second bullet point saying, "Descendents of the Chinese nation nation can also be considered Chinese people"?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, we've been talking to a sockpuppet of a banned user this whole time, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. —Khoikhoi 04:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for your further information, Nres is quite obviously not a native English speaker as he/she claims to be!

Bathrobe 02:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map in the article

The map in the article is wrong. Please see the map from Universtiy of Texas. Ethnolinguistic map of China —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manenefits. (talk • contribs) . (crossed-out comment by sock of banned user) Khoikhoi 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the respective dates of these maps?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed the dispute over maps. Why not include both the "green" map and the "yellow" map in this page? The definition of "Chinese people" can mean either "Han Chinese" or "Chinese citizen" so it would seem fine to me to include both the Han map and the ethnolinguistic map. Badagnani 05:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally took a closer look at the map that's in there now (Image:China_ethnolinguistic_83.jpg); I can forgive the author for lumping Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic into an "Altaic" grouping or referring to Sarikoli as "Tajik" (even though Sarikoli's an Eastern Iranian language while Tajik is Western, it is the official name in China) ... but the aboriginal Taiwanese languages are listed as Indonesian? Are you kidding me? Or is this just some outdated nomenclature that I've never heard of? I don't have any reason to be suspicious of the map itself and the boundaries it shows (which match roughly what I know), but I think we should cut the legend out of it and roll our own. Comments? cab 13:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous map, which some editor keeps removing, is better. In this map, "Malayo-Polynesian" is listed as "Malay-Polynesian" (which is wrong), and obviously "Indonesian" is wrong as well, although the Taiwanese Aborigines do speak languages in the Malayo-Polynesian family which are distantly related to Bahasa Indonesia. The older map doesn't include Taiwan, though, which simply appears in gray. Badagnani 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that it's in the public domain, "derivative works" (such as pasting a big white box over the embedded legend, and putting a wikified legend below it using {{legend}}, or changing its text to be in line with real terminology instead of crap they made up) are permitted too. (I'm personally a fan of putting explanatory text outside of images rather than embedded in it, to make it easier to translate for other language versions.) Of course, if their boundaries are as accurate as their terminology, might not be worth it. cab 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV

Han Chinese identify their ethnicity as Han. Ethnic Chinese doesn't refer to Han Chinese only. It is POV and a wrong one to say "A person of Han Chinese ancestry is often simply referred to as Chinese or ethnic Chinese in Western countries". In west, Chinese people mainly refers to overseas Chinese instead. Deilem 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. People in the west distinguish between, for example, Tibetans and Mongolians, apart from Han Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are off the point. The thing is that Han Chinese consider them as ethnically Han. Many Chinese people as well as people in the West consider Tibetans and Chinese Mongolian minorities as Chinese. They only distinguish them sometimes from Han Chinese. It doesn't necessarily mean Tibetans and Chinese Mongolians are not Chinese. In addition, overseas Chinese interact more with people in the West. They should be listed as one of the bullet points here. Ated 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The bulleted point refers to the English phrase "Chinese people" and the general understanding of that. When we see Fujian, Cantonese, Chaozhou, Hakka, Beijing people in North America we call them "Chinese people." So the bulleted point is correct. The thing is, we don't have many Chinese minorities here, or in other countries besides China. I did, however, attend college with a Korean Chinese. I didn't know for years that he was of Korean ancestry as he identified and represented himself simply as "Chinese." This is true also of my ethnic Dong friend who lives in Beijing. For many such people (as, for example, for German Americans, Italian Americans, etc.), their ethnic group is less important than their national identity. So I think it's fair to say that *many* non-Han PRC citizens would be considered as "Chinese people" when living in the West, and even consider themselves as such. It's not a big point. Badagnani 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this many many times. Check the discussion above. Your assertion that ethnic minorities in China are also considered "Chinese people" is not ignored. Check the second bullet point of the article. This is a disambiguous page, and the purpose is to cover all the different interpretations of "Chinese people". And to clarify, "Chinese people" doesn't necessarily mean "中國人". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. "中國人" is the word by word translation of "Chinese people". Cantonese like to refer themselves as "华人". But "华" doesn't only refer to Han Chinese. There are "华府" (the US government), "中华民族", "中华人民共和国", "中华民国". They all use "华". It has nothing to do with Han Chinese. Who can help if Cantonese like to refer themselves as Chinese not Chinese people? Anyway, I don't think Cantonese should be listed as one of the bullet points here. Ated 17:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hakka and Hokkien people also refer to themselves as "唐人". Furthermore, most Overseas Chinese refer to themselves in Chinese as either "華人" or "唐人", specifically avoiding using "中國人", because they are not PRC citizens. But they still refer to themselves in English as "Chinese". This is especially true for Taiwanese people and Singaporeans. This is all a moot point though, because as I've said, the second bullet point of the article already covers what you've said. Also, the third bullet point does not state that ethnic minorities in China are not considered Chinese. In fact, nowhere in the article does it state that ethnic minorities in China are not considered Chinese. I'm not sure what your complaint is. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of logic is that Chinese minorities are Chinese but not considered ethnic Chinese? If there were ethnic American (there may be such word in non-English speaking countries), white Americans, African Americans and Asian Americans should all be considered ethnic American, not just only the white Americans. Ated 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Han Chinese is a new concept to many people in the West. It shouldn't be one of the bullet points here. Most people in the West don't refer Chinese people to the Han people. Ated 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No editor has said that ethnic minorities in China are not considered "Chinese". The article also does not state that ethnic minorities in China are not considered "Chinese". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then Chinese minorites are also considered ethnic Chinese. Ated 18:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I agree. And the article does not say they are not. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with my previous wording (People of Chinese descent)? Yours are just misleading and full of distain. As if even though they are ethnic Han, people only consider them ethnic Chinese. 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ated (talk • contribs).

Because it should be pointed out that people in the west often refer to Han Chinese as simply "Chinese". That statement does not say that ethnic minorities in China are not also considered "Chinese". Again, the second bullet point already covers ethnic minorities. This is a disambiguous page that's supposed to cover all the different meanings "Chinese people" may have. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HongQiGong that in English, Han Chinese, Cantonese, Korean Chinese, Uighurs, Mongolian Chinese, etc. can be considered "Chinese" or "Chinese people." But they wouldn't all be considered "ethnic Chinese." In English, however, the term "ethnic Chinese" is generally understood to refer primarily to members of the Han ethnic group. That's just the way things are understood. Uighurs, for example, are "Chinese" or "Chinese people" because they are citizens of China (the PRC, to be exact), but their ethnicity/ethnic identification is clearly Uighur (Turkic/Islamic). The injection of the term "ethnic Chinese" confuses the issue because our bulleted points cover these issues adequately, stating that citizens of the PRC of whatever ethnic group can be considered "Chinese people" (but not necessarily always "ethnic Chinese"). By the way, Ated, are you a sock puppet of some other editor who has made similar points here in the past? That's not a good idea. Badagnani 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Chinese people

Since this article is about both 華人 and 中國人 , I think there should be a new article named Ethnic Chinese people. There are a few things that bothers me in this article. First, it says the term Chinese people can be referred as citizens of the ROC, surely the Chinese people here is 華人 and not 中國人, and there is a resource. Well, if you guys don't want to create another artcle, then please at least split this article into two sections.--Jerrypp772000 00:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Chinese already redirects to Overseas Chinese. And in my opinion that's basically what Han Chinese is anyway. Anyway, this is a disambiguous page, and it is supposed to offer all the common possible usage of the term "Chinese people". Given that "Chinese people" can refer to either 華人 or 中國人, we really ought to include the ROC on this page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalised

This article has been vandalized and requires edidting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.166.131.31 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-31 22:13:18.

[edit] disambiguation page

Is this really a disambiguation page? It looks like it is trying to be an article, as it doesn't conform to WP:MOSDAB in any meaningful way. -- Mikeblas 13:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've often thought this myself. Unfortunately some of the definitions listed are contentious, and I think that's why over time, they've grown to be more explanatory. But at some point, we should come to consensus on whether to make this article conform to WP:MOSDAB or just not call it a disambig page altogether. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to kill this page and redirect it to Chinese, another disambiguation page actually constituted as such, and which deals with many of the same distinctions. Dekimasuが... 17:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know Chinese existed. I'll put up a merge proposal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really a proposal to merge, since there's nothing here to merge over there. If the proposal fails, though, this should probably be either stubbed as an article or scrubbed as a dab. Dekimasuが... 13:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the no consensus close at Talk:Chinese (was there really a lack of consensus?) and the fact that someone pulled the dab tag here, I've reformatted the page. It's not a great stub, but it's not an awful one either. Hopefully this will clear up the problem of the excess content. Dekimasuよ! 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, 5 to 2 is not much of a consensus, and the poll ran for about 3 weeks at 3 to 2. I don't feel too strongly either way, but I'd like to see some expansion of this article if we're going to keep it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My changes that made this into an actual stub were reverted with the edit summary Restore former, more useful version of this page. Discuss changes on "Discussion", so now we are back to an unclean dab page format. I'm not really understanding why they were reverted (I didn't remove any of the page content, for one thing) and I'm pretty sure that I did mention it here, but rather than get into an edit war, here I am on the talk page again. The current setup, dab page format with no dab tag, is really not conducive to expanding this as an article. If anyone agrees with the changes I made, please reinstate them. The current format is the least desirable solution. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas, but the bulleted form is much cleaner, clearer, and easy to use. Badagnani 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue, though. The issue is that the formatting reflects a dab page (one not in synch with WP:MOS-DAB) and allows little possibility for the page to expand into a full-fledged article. You also may be considering it a dab page, since most of the time we refer to reading articles, rather than using them to navigate. As a dab page, this should be three lines long with one link per line. As a stub, it should be formatted to welcome the addition of new content.

I made my position clear by making the changes, and I think you made yours clear as well by reverting me; I was hoping for outside opinions by posting here. Dekimasuよ! 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this might be the best case for WP:IAR -- the page, with its three bullets (which makes the page much easier to use and come up with the definition needed, in a quick and efficient manner) it has elements in its design of a dab page, but also has explanatory text. In fact, some dab pages do include a lot of explanatory text. So it's partially dab and partially not dab. It really doesn't matter what we call it, as long as the page is useful and serves its purpose in the clearest and best way possible. Badagnani 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you think it is already complete as it stands? Dekimasuよ! 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, all I'm saying is that the three bullets help to set off the information to allow users to get the information they need quickly and efficiently. Most of the information users will need is contained in the three WP pages linked to in the bulleted points. What information should be added in this article that is not already there? Badagnani 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese interwiki

The Japanese interwiki was just changed (without comment) from 中国人 to 華人. Comments? Badagnani 20:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how that article is written, but if it's anything like this article, then it's fine. Unless the terms are used differently in Japanese, that is. In Chinese, 中國人/中国人 is often used more specifically to refer to people from the PRC. While 華人 is used for Chinese people in general, as in people of Chinese descent, or ethnic Chinese. Although depending on who you ask, some people might say that the term refers specifically to Han Chinese. In everyday usage, 華人 is used most often by Overseas Chinese while people in China just use 中國人. I doubt any source can claim an authoritative definition, but this is how the terms are "defined" by usage, as far as I understand it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick translation of the first paragraph of each, draw your own conclusions. My opinion is that neither one is any good because their focus is narrower than this page. ja:中国人:

中国人 is the general term for the various ethnic groups in China (People's Republic of China, Republic of China). In the narrow sense, it refers only to the Han ethnic group, but contemporarily, its use in this context is rare. Before the Second World War, during the time when Japan called the Republic of China as "Shina" (支那), "Shiei", or "The Republic of Shina", Japanese people also called them "Shina people" (支那人).

And ja:華人:

華人is the term for residents of Chinese (中国) descent who have taken up the nationality of the country of their destination of migration. It is distinguished from 華僑, who have not taken such nationality.

Cheers, cab 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if those terms are correctly defined in terms of how they're used in Japanese, but if so, then I don't think those terms are really exact translations of "Chinese people" in English. And as far as I know, 華人 (in Chinese) can be used to refer to Chinese people in China as well, with Chinese citizenship. It's just that 中國人 is the more often term used within the PRC. Interwiki-ing articles like these is basically translating a term, and there's not always a one-to-one exact translation. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Li Ning

He is a famous Chinese gymnast and entrepreneur, but he is not Han Chinese. He is an ethnic Zhuang. He is definite a Chinese people.

Don't put Chinese people = Han Chinese

198.155.145.88 03:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Zhuang are the second largest ethnic group in China after the Han. However, if you read the article, you'll see that the first definition for "Chinese people" is:

• A person who resides in and holds citizenship of the People's Republic of China (including Hong Kong and Macau) or the Republic of China. This definition stems from a legal perspective.

Thus, your idea is correct, and reflected in the first definition--that he is a citizen of the People's Republic of China, and thus Chinese. But in English, "Chinese" alone may also mean "Han Chinese." So the article contains three definitions that may be used in English. Badagnani 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Must Overseas Chinese be Han?

• Much American, including Chinese American doesn't know Lang Ping is ethnic Manchus, she holds American citizenship now, but she must claims that she is an Oversea Chinese! 198.155.145.88 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Overseas Chinese article says that they can be Han, or not Han, depending on one's definition of the term: political or ethnic. Badagnani 07:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in general, it depends. I'm not surprised that Manchu, Zhuang, and others who are mother-tongue speakers of Chinese typically identify as Overseas Chinese and are referred to as such. Hui are a slightly more borderline case --- e.g. the Hui in Malaysia who haven't assimilated to the Malay community might be Overseas Chinese, but the Dungan people in Central Asia or the Panthay in Burma often aren't included under the definition of "Overseas Chinese" (even though they're closely related to Hui people too). And Uyghurs in Turkey and Tibetans in Dharamsala almost certainly don't call themselves Overseas Chinese. cab 07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it depends on who you ask. And the Overseas Chinese article is not exactly the greatest source of information on the subject matter. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)