Talk:Malaysian Chinese/Move debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This debate has been split from Talk:Malaysian Chinese; however it is not an archive and technically the debate is still active (though it has died down). Feel free to add your comments at the bottom. cab 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What should this page be called?

The expression 'Chinese Malaysian' is unknown in Malaysia. This should be moved to 'Malaysian Chinese'. Andrew Yong 13:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's not unknown. Moreover, Chinese Malaysian is the grammatically correct form with Chinese as an adjective and Malaysian as a noun. It's just that many Malaysians managed to confuse themselves with Manglish. __earth (Talk) 14:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be that they are seen by Malays as Chinese people who live in Malaysia, in which case 'Malaysian Chinese' would be grammatically correct. 81.98.89.195 16:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It could also be seen as Chinese considering themselves as Chinese first and Malaysian second. After all, MCA is Malaysian Chinese Association, instead of Chinese Malaysian Association. __earth (Talk) 02:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What do the Chinese Malaysians prefer to call themselves: Chinese or Malaysian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12:51, 18 April 2006 172.190.139.38 (talk • contribs).

Malaysian Chinese is far and away the most common form. Also contra User:Earth's assertion, it's not Manglish, since a nationality can be used as an adjective (c.f. American cheese) just as well as an ethnic category can be. The question is whether you want the nationality modifying the ethnic group, or the ethnic group modifying the nationality. That's not a question for Wikipedia to decide, since we're supposed to be descriptive and not proscriptive. The preferred form among many various overseas Chinese groups seems to be xyz-Chinese, as in Thai Chinese, Indonesian Chinese, American-born Chinese, etc. Also, it looks slightly odd to have an article entitled "xyz Malaysian" (meaning "xyz type of Malaysian person") when the Chinese text clearly says "xyz-Chinese person" and the BM text clearly says plain old "Chinese Person" with no reference to Malaysianness at all. cab 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny though because if you switch the two words, similar arguments that you used could be used against you point. For instance, the word Chinese could be used as an adjective too. And we are not descripting the right group with "Malaysian Chinese". Malaysian Chinese means Chinese citizens of Malaysian descent, which doesn't make sense (i.e. grammatical mistake). With "Chinese Malaysian" on the other hand describes Malaysian of Chinese descent. Therefore, Chinese Malaysian and Malaysian Chinese do not describe the same group. They are not the same. Chinese Malaysian is a Malaysian citizen while Malaysian Chinese is a Chinese (PRC or RC, depending how you want to look at it) citizen.
See how Black in America is described as African American, not American African. The later would mean African of American descent. Or German typy of American, i.e. German American (there's no such thing American German - if there is, then it would be a minority), French Canadian (would there be Canadian French?). Again, it's Manglish, not proper English. Also, notice your American-born Chinese example. That does not goes in line with you argument. In fact, in the article it's linked to Chinese American, not American Chinese Again, Malaysian Chinese is grammatically wrong. It may work in Chinese grammar but not English. __earth (Talk) 14:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not gramatically incorrect, as Chinese can be a noun as well as an adjective: see [1]. It is simply a question of perspective - whether you see yourself as an ethnic Chinese who happens to be a Malaysian, or a Malaysian citizen who happens to be Chinese. Historically, the Chinese here have considered themselves to be Chinese first and Malayan/Malaysian second. Until 1974, the PROC considered all overseas Chinese to be Chinese citizens, and I think the ROC maintained this aspect of Sun Zhongshan's nationality law even later. It is POV and contrary to Wikipedia conventions to insist on "Chinese Malaysian" as this is far less common than "Malaysian Chinese" - certainly it is not used in Malaysia.
The xxx-American comparison does not work as it is just one country's conventions. The UK uses "Black British" but "British Asian" and "British Chinese". Most Chinese communities use xxx-Chinese because the Chinese ethnic and cultural identity is so predominant. Andrew Yong 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, they're are citizens of Malaysia. So, it doesn't matter what ROC says. They don't even have proper representative in the UNGA. It may be relevant if they quit Malaysia and become PRC or ROC citizens. And why it is contrary to Wikipedia convention? Where is this convention that you talk about? __earth (Talk) 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. Malaysian Chinese is undoubtedly more common than Chinese Malaysian, and the latter usage is unheard of in Malaysia, which is the important point. There is no grammatical reason to reject the common usage. Andrew Yong 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Don.27t_overdo_it. It says if the common name is misleading, don't use it. The term Malaysian Chinese is misleading because it refers to "Chinese citizens of Malaysian descent" instead of Malaysian of Chinese descent. Morever, it's not unheard of. I hear it frequently. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean unheard of. Do you know where White Wolf in California is? If you haven't heard of it, does that make it a non-existing place? __earth (Talk) 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
More on the fact that the term Chinese Malaysian is not "unheard of". Malaysiakini uses Chinese Malaysian instead of Malaysian Chinese: According to media reports today, Hee Leong had clarified that Khairy had no intention to hurt the feelings of the Chinese Malaysian community, and that the two of them had agreed to “look forward to the greater interest of the nation”. [2]. BTW, Jeff Ooi uses Chinese Malaysian too [3]. The Star uses Chinese Malaysian. [4]. I repeat, Malaysian Chinese is bad English. In Manglish, it might be right. __earth (Talk) 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
So it's not entirely unheard of. It's still far rarer. The Star has 256 hits for Malaysian Chinese, 18 for Chinese Malaysian. The NST has 46 hits for Malaysian Chinese, 0 for Chinese Malaysian. A Google search shows 243,000 for Malaysian Chinese, 75,100 for Chinese Malaysian.
You have repeatedly failed to substantiate your argument about it being bad English. Collins English Dictionary: Chinese adj. 1. of, relating to, or characteristic of China, its people, or their languages. ~n. 2. (pl. -nese) a native or inhabitant of China or a descendant of one... Using Chinese as a noun or modifier, and Malaysian as an adjective, how is it ungrammatical? A Malaysian Chinese is an ethnic Chinese who is a Malaysian resident or citizen. You insist on your interpretation, without giving any proper reasons. Of course there is nothing wrong with using Chinese Malaysian to mean a Malaysian citizen who is of ethnic Chinese descent. But the common usage must have precedence in the article title. I believe I have a consensus among most contributors in favour of Malaysian Chinese. It is time to put this to rest with a vote. Andrew Yong 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I've failed to give proper reason despite all those reason? No friend. I've given mine and you refuse to accept it. When you refuse, that doesn't mean it isn't proper reason. Furthermore, I can't insist in my intepretation but you can insist on yours? Moreover, Chinese Malaysian was the original state of the article before it was moved by you prior to debate. Why should it be in its post-move page prior to voting? Nevetheless, I agree. Let's vote on it. __earth (Talk) 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've given you a dictionary definition. Malaysian as adjective + Chinese as noun/modifier. You come up with nothing more than your "interpretation". In the interests of avoiding conflict I have _not_ made any edits to the article itself in calling the vote and I left the page at Chinese Malaysian. Someone else reverted your last edit, which destroyed the page history. Andrew Yong 08:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have reverted to Malaysian Chinese not because I want to pre-empt debate, but because the last edit by earth used "Chinese Malaysian" in parts of sentences where it should have either been "Malaysian Chinese" or "Chinese Malaysians" (with an "s") in the plural and so "Chinese Malaysian" (singular) was gramatically incorrect. It was easier to replace all with "Malaysian Chinese", which can be singular or plural. Andrew Yong 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Easier doesn't mean it's right. Moreoever, the usage of singular and plural was right before you moved the original version prior to debate. __earth (Talk) 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

This is an indicative vote to try to resolve a naming conflict.

[edit] Malaysian Chinese

  1. It is far more common, it is part of historic institutional titles, e.g. the Malaysian Chinese Association, and there is no grammatical objection to it. Andrew Yong 23:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. This seems to be the more common term, from the Google hit counts, and from what I've personally read. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Contra previous assertions used to argue page should be moved to "Chinese Malaysian", "Malaysian Chinese" is not "Manglish" (c.f. British Chinese, invented by native English speakers), does not mean "'ethnic' Malaysians in China" (not unless you can provide citations from reliable sources proving this is the primary usage), and there is no Wiki standard to always put ethnic group name first (making analogies to African American doesn't prove the existence of a standard). cab 23:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Far more common. Anchoress 02:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Chinese Malaysian is a Negrito/Senoi/Jakun/Malay/Mamak/Bugis/Melanau/Iban/etc (from Malaysia), married a Tibetian/Manchurian/Mongolian/Hui/Uyghur/Han/etc (from China), and they moved to China, settled there, gave up Malaysian citizenship. L joo 08:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. I weakly prefer this variant because of its prevalence. I can see the reasoning behind Chinese Malaysian (and was actually once asked by a non-Malaysian on FAC to change "Malaysian Chinese" to "Chinese Malaysian" because of the former's confusing nature), but Malaysian Chinese is the more widely used version. I would not object to the proposed compromise stated below. Johnleemk | Talk 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. I too prefer this term over the next, not because I'm less Malaysian or more Chinese, but more to because that's how it has been all this while, and there no harm done to anybody. People that do get confused just needed a few explanations, and all will get bright. On a lighter note, Chinese names has been translated into English by retaining their surname first, at least in this region, and most people has no problem calling you Mr Xxx, instead of Mr Yyy-Zzz. The way I see it, there's no wrong, grammatical or otherwise, in both terms.Zhernfai 07:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Malaysian

  1. Support Due to grammar and Wikipedia policy. First grammar: Chinese Malaysian describes Malaysian of Chinese descendent. Malaysian Chinese describes Chinese of Malaysian descent, which if it doesn't exist, there would be very few people. The analogy is similar to German American and American German. The former is American of German origin. The former is German of American origin. The two are two different terms to describe two different peoples. Hence, Malaysian Chinese and Chinese Malaysian describe two different peoples. Second Wikipedia policy: It's true that Malaysian Chinese is far more common than Chinese Malaysian in usage. however, Malaysian Chinese, given that reasoning in the first part, might be confusing and misleading. Hence, Wikipedia guide at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names), which I believe supports Chinese Malaysian. Notice that this clause is already a specific statement on Naming convention. The naming convention itself, without that specific clause would on general support Malaysian Chinese instead of Chinese Malaysia. Third: many featured articles on Wikipedia that concerns Malaysian (e.g Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, Ketuanan Melayu, Second Malaysia Plan links to Chinese Malaysian. In fact, see what links here and observe the linkage to Chinese Malaysian and Malaysian Chinese. Disclosure: some of the pages were linked by me before this dispute arose. __earth (Talk) 02:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support per argument above. Julius.kusuma 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support for both grammar and identity reasons. Bob K 15:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per Chinese Americans, Indian Americans.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia

Another option is to move the page to the descriptive title "Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia" and make both Malaysian Chinese and Chinese Malaysian to redirect to there. Then put a notice at the top Malaysian Chinese redirects here. The term is generally not used to refer to Malaysians in China. or something. I personally feel that's an extremely sub-optimal solution and Oppose, but it's another option that should be out there, so I add this section. cab 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would support this as a compromise. __earth (Talk) 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I would oppose for the reasons given above. It is much better to have one article. This vote is only about the title of the article. Within the article, we can use both terms and we can have a whole section devoted to explaining why different people prefer each term. Andrew Yong 10:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose also, as "Malaysian Chinese" is already a common term and there's no need to resort to "Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia". --- Hong Qi Gong 18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - That's too complicated, its like "Ethnic Indians in Malaysia".Bakaman Bakatalk 21:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

[edit] Page move

Why the article page has been moved to Malaysian Chinese even before the vote hasn't been resolved yet? This is the second time a move for this page has pre-empted debate, both include move to Malaysian Chinese from Chinese Malaysia. __earth (Talk) 02:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any need for page moves until the debate is concluded, but in fairness I believe all that has been done is a cut-and-paste move was fixed - see Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut_and_paste_moves. The correct way to move a page to its existing redirect page is for an administrator to delete the redirect page and for the page then to be moved as usual. Andrew Yong 09:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, it was Chinese Malaysian before you moved it before debate. Twice. I only cut and paste because a usual move doesn't allow proper reversion. Even if the latest move was justified, it still doesn't explain your first move that pre-empted discussion. I'd have been less fiesty if a discussion had came first prior to move. __earth (Talk) 11:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
We don't need anyone's permission to make edits or moves. I have only done so this time to avoid a revert war. Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages Andrew Yong 17:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttals

If you say Malaysian Chinese is confusing because it doesn't match with African American, it could equally be argued that Chinese Malaysian is confusing because it doesn't match with American Indian or British Chinese (both terms created by native English speakers). Malaysia is not America nor a former American colony, it is a former British colony, so there is no reason for someone to expect that terms used for discussing Malaysia would follow American standards.

Also we still have no citation, just the assertion of User:Earth (and in other locations, User:Deadmaster), that Malaysian Chinese describes Chinese of Malaysian descent. Providing original definitions of existing terms qualifies as original research and is thus not permitted on Wikipedia. cab 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that confusion, then shouldn't that Naming Convention rule that I've cited come into play? On British Chinese, how would you describe a British of Chinese citizen? British Chinese or Chinese British?
On the second point, you "still" miss the links that lead to The Star and the New Straits Times given by me in the lengthy "What should this page be called?" section. It's somewhere where Andrew said that the term Chinese Malaysian "is unheard of" in Malaysia, to prove that the assertion "unheard of" is grossly wrong. Hence, it's not original research. Please don't accuse me of original research when its obvious that you haven't read the points written previously. __earth (Talk) 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not arguing that "Chinese Malaysian" for referring to ethnic Chinese in Malaysia is unheard of. (It is less common, but that's not the point). I am arguing that "Malaysian Chinese" for referring to Malaysians in China is unheard of. But you assert that Malaysian Chinese describes Chinese of Malaysian descent and use that as an argument as to why this page should remain at Chinese Malaysian. You provide no citation for that, only analogy to other terms. That is the argument I consider invalid and qualifying as original research.
Also please do not inflammatorily accuse people of "obviously having not read" your arguments just because they disagree with you. Wikipedia:Be civil.
Finally, for Chinese citizens of British origin (like the British leftists who went to the PRC to help build Communism during the 40s/50s), there is no widely accepted term. If Wikipedians want to create an article on those people, it should not be entitled using a new term like "Chinese British" or "British Chinese" or "Foobar" or whatever, unless they can provide citations that reliable sources most commonly use that term to mean "Chinese citizens of British origin". Anyway, the situation where two seemingly similar terms refer to unrelated things is highly common. E.g. Athlete's foot and Rabbit's foot. cab 04:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
First, I didn't say you said the term Chinese Malaysian was unheard of. I said Andrew said that. There's no need for you be defensive on that since you didn't say it and neither am I saying you said it. There's a misunderstanding going on here.
Secondly, why am I being inflammatory when its you that accuse me of original research when in fact I've shown evidence that Chinese Malaysian has been used in the society far earlier (before you said it was original research)?
I said it not because you disagree with me. I said it because I've given proofs that the term Chinese Malaysian has been used in the society (and I've cited the sources) hence, not original research. But you accuse me of original research in spite of that. So tell me, have you read those sources I've given before you said it's original research on my part?
You accuse me of something that I didn't do and you're saying I'm being inflammatory? __earth (Talk) 05:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to clarify my position for you, since it seems there's a misunderstanding. I already accepted it's a fact after reading your sources that "Chinese Malaysian" means "ethnic Chinese in Malaysia". I think we can all agree now that it's wrong to assert "Chinese Malaysian" is unheard of. However, it does NOT follow from those sources you gave that:
  1. "Malaysian Chinese" thus means "Malaysians in China"
  2. "Malaysian Chinese" is bad English.
This definition of "Malaysian Chinese" (NOT of "Chinese Malaysian") is where you are engaged in original research. To give a logically equivalent example, Indian American means ethnic Indians (immigrants and their kids) in the United States. Lots of reliable sources agree on this. However, let's say I then assert, based on those sources, that American Indian must logically be the "opposite" of Indian American, that is, "ethnic Americans in India". My assertion is then original research; I am providing a new definition ("ethnic Americans in India") for an existing term which is already widely used by many reliable sources with a different meaning (the aboriginal inhabitants of the US). This is logically equivalent to what you are doing when you state that Malaysian Chinese means "Malaysians in China". cab 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
American Indian and Indian American is not a good example because each describes different Indian - Native American and Indian originally from India. At the heart of that example is already to different people (when you talk about Indian, which Indian are you talking about? Indian from India or Native American?), unlike the Chinese Malaysian-Malaysian Chinese which still talk about Chinese. Besides, for the adjective American in American Indian, that adjective doesn't describe citizenship. That American in American Indian is the adjective that would be used by Latin Americans to describe themselves just like how an Asian would decribe he/herself. Quite different from the issue with Chinese Malaysian-Malaysian Chinese.
The root here is that, does this article stress on Malaysian or Chinese? If you say the latter, then it is Malaysian Chinese. __earth (Talk) 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have conceded that the term Chinese Malaysian is now no longer unheard of in Malaysia. A search of the beritamalaysia mailing list (which reproduces daily news items connected with Malaysia) shows eight hits in August 2006 (7 of 8 are Malaysian sources). In contrast, in August 1999 there are only three hits for the term (all three are from foreign media sources). However, the term Malaysian Chinese is consistently more common (12 in August 2006, 10 in August 1999). Andrew Yong 08:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the grammatic problem. "Chinese" and "Malaysian" can be used both as nouns or adjectives. In the case of "Malaysian Chinese", "Malaysian" as a citizenship is used as the adjective. The analogy is similar to British Chinese. That's not incorrect grammar, it's just common usage. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Creating a term for British people with Chinese citizenship on WP would be neologism.

I want to address the point about utilising the Naming Conventions. The policy basically says to avoid unreasonably misleading terms and offensive terms. I do not think "Malaysian Chinese" is unreasonably misleading. And using that criteria would also mean that "Chinese Malaysian" would also be misleading, so both terms could not be used under that logic.

Also, I've fixed some of the Malaysia-related articles to skip the redirects and link directly to this article's name, which is "Malaysian Chinese". --- Hong Qi Gong 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you move those links before voting has been resolved? I'm reverting it back and will revert it until this vote has been resolved.
And you think that it isn't confusing and I think it's confusing. So, what makes you think your opinion is more credible than mine? __earth (Talk) 05:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Eh, as I've had embarassingly pointed out to me before, Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. I think we can agree now that it's perfectly acceptable for authors of other articles to use "Chinese Malaysian" to refer to ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, since it's a well-sourced (albeit minority) term. cab 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Part of User:Earth's argument (Part 3) is that other articles use "Chinese Malaysian", and admittedly he inserted the term in some of those articles himself. This weak argument is easily rendered null in that the term can easily be changed to any other terms, including "Malaysian Chinese". --- Hong Qi Gong 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The point is, the some of the featured articles uses Chinese Malaysian (and I didn't change that). The original author used the term Chinese Malaysian, and not Malaysian Chinese. Changing it during the debate however is another story altogether. __earth (Talk) 02:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Manglish & Grammar

Hi Hafiz, the Malaysian Encyclopedia, especially the Languages & Literature, edited by Prof Dato' Dr Asmah Haji Omar, in the chapter - Use of Chinese -, on page 54, 55, is written this way: "...The Chinese dialects spoken in Malaysia have become localized or 'Malaysianized', and are widely used by the Malaysian Chinese in numerous social contexts..." and again "...Malaysian Chinese have become increasingly integrated linguistically..."

The series of Encyclopedia was published with the support by:

  • Marina Mahathir, including Tun Dr M.
  • Chairman: Tan Sri Dato Seri Ahmad Sarji bin Abdul Hamid

and members of the board:

  • Tan Sri Dato Ahmad Mustaffa Babjee, Puan Azah Aziz, Dr. Peter M Kedir, and many more...

The series was sponsored by:

  • DRB-Hicom Bhd, Petronas Berhad, Star Publications, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, Malayan Banking, and many more...

I go for Malaysian Chinese. Not because I followed all the 'big peoples'. Because it sounds very Malaysian, 'Malaysianized' and already accepted by Malaysians.

L joo 17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialect name

I changed the Chinese dialect Hokchew to Foochow, which is mainly prefered by Fu Zhou group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18:45, 27 May 2006 (talk • contribs) 60.50.134.92.

[edit] Malaysian Chinese & Chinese Malaysian

Hi all, I found this page very interesting. Do you know what Malaysian Chinese & Chinese Malaysian is/are?

  • Malaysian Chinese is Malaysian citizens (regardless of ethnic origin) who migrated to China (after year 1990), they gave up Malaysian citizenship, they are known as Malaysian Chinese.
  • Chinese Malaysian is Chinese citizen who migrated to Malaysia (from 14th century to 21st century, including Badminton World Champion, Han Jian and other new immigrants from China), they gave up Chinese citizenship, they are Malaysian citizens, non-Bumiputra, and they are known as Chinese Malaysian.

s Same goes for American Chinese & Chinese American. American Chinese is American/Yankees migrated to China, while Chinese migrated to America is called Chinese American.

Anyway, I do not want to fix anything, this topic is open for discussion.

--L joo 08:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That is one interpretation, and perhaps when there are more Malaysians moving to China the distinction will start to be made, but for now the common meaning of Malaysian Chinese is ethnic Chinese living in Malaysia. But judging from past experience, when Malayan/Malaysian Chinese moved to China in previous decades they considered themselves to be moving "back" to China, and and considered themselves to be simply "Chinese". Andrew Yong 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, this is my final attempt in making a statement. It's obvious that the "correct" use is not very clear. Anyways: my proposal: if anyone wants to change the names of any other Overseas Chinese page they can redirect to a subpage of mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deadmaster/Chinese

Then all the "Overseas Chinese"-pages will have nearly the same "guideline". What do you think? If you want to read it here: go ahead:

The problem is that not all Overseas Chinese groups use the same convention to come up with a term to refer to themselves. The issue here is building a convention strictly for WP, versus reflecting what is common usage in the real world. I'm going to have to go with that we reflect the real world by using the individual terms that's commonly used. Unforunately, people in the real world don't all use the same naming conventions. Personally, I don't see why WP should ignore common usage to build these naming conventions just for the sake of WP. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It is because this discussion has been repeated a thousand times on other "Overseas Chinese"-pages. And people who think that they use the right grammar convention in English. Like you can see the Malaysians refer to the ethnic Chinese in their country as "Orang Cina Malaysia" and not "Chinese Malaysian".

Anyways, I doesn't hurt to use proper English grammar on Wikipedia, especially for naming Chinese Mongolians, Chinese Thai,... If you can prove that the common usage of those "Chinese Thai" something else is in English, be my guest. Another thing: my guideline provided open interpretation for the possible outcomes: 1) Chinese Malaysian: Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia (grammar perspective)

2) Chinese Malaysian: Ethnic Malaysian in China (wrong grammar, but based on "nationality feeling")

3) Malaysian Chinese : Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia (wrong grammar, but based on "nationality feeling")

4) Malaysian Chinese : Ethnic Malaysian in China Deadmaster 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing you fail to realise is that the dictionary recognises two meanings of Chinese, one Chinese national and two ethnic Chinese. If you ask any Malaysian Chinese (or indeed any other overseas Chinese) "Are you Chinese?" the answer will almost always be "Yes". Malay conveniently uses orang China for Chinese national and orang Cina for ethnic Chinese, but in English we have no such distinction. Andrew Yong 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline for Overseas Chinese Naming Convention

There seems to be a lot of confusing about how an Overseas Chinese in a foreign country should be called. Here's my proposal: call all Overseas Chinese that live in a foreign country this name: "Ethnic Chinese in Country X". Although some comment it's suboptimal, it will remove the disambuigation, at least it is clear and people that fill in the term "Chinese Korea" or "Korean Chinese" will arrive at a page where they can choose what they meant. Ethnic Chinese in Korea or Ethnic Koreans in China. Example: Chinese Korean or Korean Chinese

[edit] Grammar-perspective

In English language words are composed in this order: adjective + noun. So: you have a happy Chinese. 1) What if you have one nationality and are born in Korea? Then you are a Korean (or any other nationality). 2) What if you are born in Korea and your ethnicity is Chinese? Then you are firstly Korean, you live in Korea! But you are also partly Chinese, although you never had the Chinese nationality. So adjective + noun. You would be a Chinese Korean. 3) Why not the other way around and be a Korean Chinese? Grammaticly speaking, you would be an ethnic Chinese of Korean descent.

  • Comment This is not exactly correct. Citizenship can be used as an adjective, as in "He is American." In the case of "Korean Chinese", the "Korean" citizenship can be used as an adjective, and a person's ethnicity, in this case "Chinese" is used as a noun, as in a Chinese person. So you'd have a Chinese person with Korean citizenship. Both terms are actually gramatically correct. That's why we have to depend on common usage here. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Point of View"-perspective and usage.

Okay, so now you know about the grammar, let's move on to the subjective side. You ask: what about the British Chinese? Wouldn't that mean they're Chinese citizens with British roots? Not necessarily. Belonging to which nationality you belong is partly subjective. If you are brought up with the Chinese language in Britain and also inhereted partly the Chinese culture, you are "Chinese". You may feel firstly Chinese and secondly British. That's why you could call yourself a "British Chinese". Or else: they've always been called "British Chinese" because of the normal use of those words.

Wait a minute... What about the other people? The Han Chinese? The Chinese American? Well, either they have followed the "grammar"-rule, or the "point-of-view"-perspective. I don't think nobody knows.

[edit] General conclusion

Some call themselves Chinese Malaysians, other Malaysains Chinese. Although they are both ethnic Chinese living in Malaysia! It could be that their knowledge of grammar is excellent, or it could be subjective and they rather call themselves the way they like. Either way, they are influenced by 2 cultures: the Chinese and Malaysian culture, so at least you would know that. Isn't the multicultural world a beautiful one? So, let's stop discussing names and spent time improving those articles. It's rather useless in my opinion.Deadmaster 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another remark: I think the Malaysian translation is like this: "Orang Cina Malaysia": Chinese Malaysian people. Maybe I'm wrong, my Indonesian isn't very well ;).Deadmaster 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

it all means the same thing...so how bout we just move on to more important things...it's vague anyways and 2 words organized in either way won't do much to clarify...only a sentence would do justice...like Malaysians of Chinese Ancestry, but in terms of nickname, can't you just have both terms redirect to the same page? i don't think there is a standard as mentioned, there is African Americans but then the common use in Southeast Asia has been country then ethnicity since you can see with one glance what ethnicity a person is......like we refer to ourselves as Malaysian, indonesian, thai...etc....then when further elaboration goes, we then go malaysian chinese, indonesian chinese for further clarifications for others...namely americans who can't tell the difference...besides, we don't have to do everything the americans do do we? besides, it's 马华 not 华马. besides, it's not hard to tell the difference in terms of malaysia because malaysian is a nationality and not an ethnicity...malay is an ethnictiy...and in the rare even that a malay was born in china, he would say he was malay chinese or chinese malay...i don't know...but definitely not malaysian chinese because he is not malaysian but malay...indonesia would be another whole different story —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.219.186 (talk • contribs) 16:59, January 11, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity & widely accepted (Google & Yahoo search results)

Google:

    • Results 1 - 10 of about 266,000 for "malaysian chinese". (0.47 seconds)
    • Results 1 - 10 of about 72,600 for "chinese malaysian". (0.25 seconds)


Yahoo

    • 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for "malaysian chinese" - 0.19 sec.
    • 1 - 10 of about 58,700 for "chinese malaysian" - 0.20 sec

- Others -

MSN

    • Page 1 of 19,713 results containing "malaysian chinese" (0.21 seconds)
    • Page 1 of 9,226 results containing "chinese malaysian" (0.08 seconds)

Go.com

    • 1 - 10 of about 102,000 for "malaysian chinese" - 0.13 sec.
    • 1 - 10 of about 59,100 for "chinese malaysian" - 0.11 sec.

Netscape

    • Results from the Web: 1–15 (of ~22000) "malaysian chinese"
    • Results from the Web: 1–15 (of ~5630) "chinese malaysian"

Lycos

    • Web Results: 1 thru 10 of 21,192 (Info) "malaysian chinese"
    • Web Results: 1 thru 10 of 9,295 (Info) "chinese malaysian"

[edit] This talk page

This talk page needs to be moved back to "Talk:Malaysian Chinese", inline with the article name itself. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/l/Talk%7EMalaysian_Chinese_Move_debate_35c1.html"