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.
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. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

== Edi

Contents 1 Ethnic Chinese 2 Ethnic Asian 3 Most non-Han Chinese people who live outside China are also simply referred as Chinese or ethnic Chinese in Western countries. 4 Outside perspective on "Chinese" 5 Taiwanese People 6 Han Chinese 7 Map in the article 8 Removal of POV 9 Ethnic Chinese people 10 Vandalised 11 disambiguation page 12 Japanese interwiki 13 Li Ning 14 Spitting 15 Expand so its like 'Asian People' 16 Name Move? 17 Green map 18 华人定義?

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

• Taiwanese consider them as Huaren, as oversea Chinese in S. E. Asia. Most of Taiwanese are of Han Chinese descent. You can refer them as Han Taiwanese. But Most Westerners confuses Chinese with Han. 203.218.21.56 (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2007 (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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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) —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Dungan people can be considered as Oversea Chinese because they speak Dungan language, which is a Chinese dialect of Shaanxi. Also some strange case like Va (佤族), they spanned over China and Myanmar, Va in China has own language, but Va in Myanmar can speak Chinese dialect of Yunan. It is because Va live in Wa State (佤邦), where Chinese is one of the official languages, and Va in Myanmar claim that they come from China. 218.102.133.235 18:18, 13 August 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)

[edit] Spitting

I think you should add a section about how Chinese people love to spit. I live in a North American city with a lot of Chinese immigrants, and I have also traveled to China, and I notice you guys love to snort and then spit big loogies in public. 24.80.117.217 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The PRC government is actively trying to suppress this "tradition" among the Beijing population for the 2008 Olympics. Badagnani 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a hygiene problem. By most accounts, China is still a developing nation. Go to another developing nation and you'd see similar problems. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(Deleted irrelevant and offensive comment)

[edit] Expand so its like 'Asian People'

I am wondering if we should change it to appear like the asian people article andrewrox424 ^Bleep 07:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Move?

Shouldn't this page not have "people" in its name, since Chinese can refer to the people (ie The Chinese), and saying "Chinese people" is redundant? Or possibly a merge with Overseas Chinese into ethnic Chinese? SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a merge into Chinese a while ago, but there was no consensus with 5 votes for merging and 2 votes opposing - hardly a good majority support. See Talk:Chinese#Merge_.22Chinese_people.22_into_this.3F. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green map

Why was the green map removed? I don't see that as irrelevant. Badagnani 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 华人定義?

• Definition of Chinese people (Huaren), for Chinese readers only!

中國有56族，都是中華民族，但不表示在中國以外的這些民族都是華人。

華人一詞，是對中华民族人民的泛稱，並不單指漢族。今日廣義的「中華民族人民」，包含地理上中國境內各大小民族，以及這些民族在大中華地區內外之後裔，但有以下限制。

• 華人定義 - 廣義包括中國公民(中國籍)和海外華人(非中國籍)，狹義只包括後者。
• 根據華語僑華人定義 :
  • 西藏流亡政府支持者(流亡藏人)和東突支持者(流亡維吾爾人)一定不算是華人(海外華人)。 認同中國的藏人、維吾爾人則算是華人。
  • 大多數中國朝鮮族血緣上認同朝鮮或韓國，但國家認同則是中國，他們很多移民美國的在北美成立朝鮮族協會(Korean-Chinese Association)，所以朝鮮族(當然指中國去的)算是華人。 (參考照片 [2] 和網址 [3]。)
  • 中國苗族早已納入中華體系，但在東南亞的赫蒙人 (苗族同宗，因為曾參與秘密戰爭遭寮共屠殺，大舉移民美國)就絕對不是華人，美國人常將他們和華裔、韓裔混淆，北美赫蒙人或許認同自己的祖先(蚩尤來自中國)，但不自認為華人，有的甚至憤恨漢族。
  • 因為漢服運動引致滿漢之爭，但基本上滿族認同自己是中國人。 不計移民出國，滿族基本在中國，又是說漢語，他們當然是華人。 (壯族亦毫無疑問，不過壯族亦是越南和寮國的少數民族，所以只有中國壯族才是華人。)
  • 台灣人，不論統獨，血緣上，台灣人大多是漢族，獨派自外於中國，但當中亦不少關心東南亞華人，注意中國人和華人，英文都是Chinese，法理上中國人是Chinese citizenship，海外華人則是Overseas Chinese。 所以撇開政治，台灣人是華人(台灣原住民大都被漢化，連總統陳水扁都承認自己是華人。)
  • 中亞東甘人和緬甸佤邦佤族呢? 這個問題較複雜。 東甘人是回族，通用漢語(普通話的陝西方言)，不過他們的回民祖先(白彥虎餘部)多是文盲，所以十月革命後，蘇聯當局為他們創製漢語俄文，即東甘文。 佤語本身沒有文字，中國佤族在中共支持下創製拉丁佤文，他們亦通用漢語(普通話的雲南方言)，而緬甸佤邦佤族人更特別，緬甸佤語沒有文字，但佤邦大力推廣漢語以來，不止雲南方言，佤邦佤族連標準普通話都能說，反而不懂緬甸語。
    • 要注意的是中亞東甘人、緬甸佤邦佤族人和新加坡、馬來西亞華人是三種僅有的操域外華語的民族，中亞東甘人、緬甸佤邦佤族人都自認來自中國，中國對他們來說有向心力，所以他們應算是海外華人。 (華語僑是傾向承認前者是華人。)

• • 按 : 中國有56族，都是中華民族，但不表示在中國以外的這些民族都是華人 : (這些民族很多是有自己為主體或構成民族的國家)
    • 朝鮮族(南韓、北韓，少量在中亞)
    • 塔吉克族(塔吉克斯坦、烏茲別克斯坦、阿富汗)
    • 烏孜別克族(烏茲別克斯坦) ~ 有觀點認為維吾爾族和烏孜別克族其實是同一民族。
    • 維吾爾族(少量在烏茲別克斯坦、吉爾吉斯斯坦、哈薩克斯坦)
    • 哈薩克族(哈薩克斯坦)
    • 柯爾哈茲族(吉爾吉斯斯坦)
    • 蒙古族(蒙古國、俄羅斯布里特自治共和國、卡爾梅克自治共和國)
    • 俄羅斯族(整個俄羅斯聯邦，不少在中亞)
    • 塔塔爾族(烏克蘭Tatar地區俄羅斯、俄羅斯Tatar自治共和國)
    • 土庫曼斯坦(撒拉族)
    • 京族(越南)
    • 壯族(小量在寮國、越南)
    • 苗族(寮國、小量在越南)
    • 傣族(泰國、緬甸撣邦)
    • 景頗族(緬甸克欽族地區)
    • 至於華族(基本是南方漢族，於新加坡、馬來西亞華人地區)、佤族(緬甸佤邦)、回族(中亞東甘人地區)則在之前討論過。

• • 總括而言，漢族一定是華人，非漢族則要看認知和向心力(尤以國外有其民族者)。

203.218.71.18 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Babel Fish translation (as a Chinese reader) from Traditional Chinese:

The China has 56 races, all is Chinese nation, but did not express outside China's these nationalities all is the Chinese people. a Chinese people word, is to center ?nationality people's general term, and not merely refers to Han Nationality . Today generalized "Chinese nation people", contains in the geography China within the boundaries various sizes nationality , as well as these nationalities in China area inside and outside descendants below, but has limits.

• The Chinese people define - generally include the Chinese citizens (Chinese nationality) and the overseas Chinese people (non- Chinese nationality), the narrow sense only includes latter.
• Defines according to Chinese foreign national Chinese people:
  • Tibet government in exile the supporter (goes into exile Tibetan) and east suddenly the supporter (goes into exile Uighur) certainly is not the Chinese people (overseas Chinese people). Approves China Tibetan , Uighur are the Chinese people.
  • majority China Korean National Minority in the blood relationship approves North Korea or South Korea , but the national approval is China, they very immigrate US to establish the Korean National Minority association in North America (Korean-Chinese Association), therefore the Korean National Minority (certainly refers to China to go) is the Chinese people. (Reference picture [ http://www.hsm.com.cn/node2/node2796/node3475/node3488/images/000225690914pic3.jpg ] and website [ http://nykca.com/ ]. )
  • China Miao nationality already brings into line with the Chinese system, but in Southeast Asia Hermon person (Miao nationality ??, because once participated in secret war to suffer Laos altogether to slaughter, perhaps on a large scale immigrated US) on ? to was not the Chinese people, the American often them and the person of Chinese descent, the Han lineage confusion, the North America Hermon person approves own ancestor ( is especially ignorant especially comes from China), but does not confess for the Chinese people, some even resenting Han Nationality .
  • because of Chinese to take the movement to bring about struggle the Manchus and han Chinese, but basically Manchu nationality approves oneself is a Chinese. Does not count immigrates to go abroad, Manchu nationality basically in China, also says Chinese , they certainly are the Chinese people. ( Zhuang nationality also without a doubt, but Zhuang nationality also is Vietnamese and Laos's national minority, therefore has the Chinese Zhuang nationality is only the Chinese people. )
  • Taiwan person , no matter the series is alone, in the blood relationship, the Taiwan person mostly is the Han Nationality, the alone faction steps aside from to China, but middle also many cared about the Southeast Asia Chinese people, pay attention to the Chinese and the Chinese people, English all are Chinese, in the legal principle theory of law the Chinese are Chinese citizenship, the overseas Chinese people are Overseas Chinese. Therefore puts aside politics, the Taiwan person is the Chinese people (the Taiwan original resident is mostly sinicized, President Lian Chen Shuibian all acknowledged oneself is the Chinese people. )
  • central Asia east Gansu person with Burmese ? nation Wa national minority ? This question is more complex. East Gan Jen is a Hui tribe, general Chinese (standard spoken Chinese Shaanxi dialect), but their Hui person ancestor ( Bai Yanhu -odd) are many is an illiterate person, therefore October Revolution , the Soviet government formulates Chinese Russian for them, namely east Gansu article. ? language itself does not have the writing, the Chinese Wa national minority to formulate the Latin ? article under the Chinese Communist Party support, their also general Chinese (standard spoken Chinese Yunnan dialect), but the Burmese ? nation Wa national minority person specially, the Burmese ? language does not have the writing, since but ? the nation vigorously has promoted Chinese, continues the Yunnan dialect, ? the nation Wa national minority continually standard standard spoken Chinese all can say, instead does not understand Burmese.
    • must pay attention is east the central Asia Gan Jen, the Burmese ? nation Wa national minority person and Singapore, the Malaysian Chinese people is three kinds only has holds outside the territory Chinese national , east the central Asia Gan Jen, the Burmese ? nation Wa national minority people all confessed from China, China to them said has the centripetal force, therefore they should be the overseas Chinese people. (Chinese foreign national is the tendency acknowledged former is Chinese people. )
  • presses: China has 56 races, all is Chinese nation , but did not express outside China's these nationalities all is the Chinese people: (These nationalities very many have oneself for main body or constitution nationality's country) the
    • Korean National Minority (South Korea, North Korea, few in central Asia) the
    • Tadjik race (?????, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan) the
    • Uzbek race (Uzbekistan) ~ has the viewpoint to think the Uygur national minority and the Uzbek race actually are the ethnic identity.
    • Uygur national minority (few in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, ?????)
    • Kazakh national minority (?????)
    • Curre Kazak this race (Kyrgyzstan)
    • Mongolian nationality (Mongolian country with long history, Russian Britt autonomous republic, Cull plum gram autonomous republic)
    • Eluosi national minority (entire Russian federation, Many in the central Asia)
    •  ???? (Ukraine Tatar area Russia, the Russian Tatar autonomous republic) the
    • Turkmenistan (???) the
    • Jing national minority (Vietnam) the
    • Zhuang nationality (small amount in Laos, Vietnam) the
    • Miao nationality (Laos, small amount in Vietnam) the
    • Dai national minority (Thailand, Burma ??) the
    • Jingpo national minority (Burmese gram Qin race area)
    • (is basic as for the Chinese race is south the Han Nationality, to Singapore, Malaysian Chinese people area), Wa national minority (Burmese ? nation), Hui tribe (east central Asia Gansu person area) in before has discussed.
  • in summary, the Han Nationality certainly is the Chinese people, the non- Han Nationality must look the cognition and the centripetal force (especially to overseas have its nationality).

-- Zondor (talk) 05:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)