Talk:Tibetan people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
WikiProject Tibet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Tibet. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
Wikiproject_Buddhism
Tibetan Buddhism Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Tibetan people and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Article Bias

I like how in the introductory paragraph, only the first sentence discusses ethnicity. Sentences 2-5 give some pretty grim statistics about the state of affairs of the Tibetan people in the 20th century, notably under PRC rule. I also like how this article is technically supposed to be ethnicity. I especially like how after the grim statistics are innocently mentioned in the first intro, no further details are given in the rest of the article actually discussing in details the past and current political situation and issues of the Tibetan people, and that the rest of the article makes 0 references to any political topics but humbly sticks to purely ethnic topics. That first paragraph, yeah...I think somebody is trying to make a not-so-subtle political point about Tibetan sovereignty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.205.58 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Older discussions

Surely this should be a section of the article Tibet? Do we have articles on the German people or the Guatemalan people? No, we have a demographic or ethnographic section of the main article. Adam 04:51, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

we have articles on the Chinese ethnic groups. --Jiang

There are probably some countries, such as China, Russia and India, which are so large and ethnically diverse that such a separate article could be justified, but I don't think Tibet is one of them. Adam 05:15, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Look at the list - although most are stubs, a few like Uighur, Hui, Mongols have some content. --Jiang 05:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would put discussions about peoples in the articles relating to the places where the peoples live: Tibetans under Tibet, Mongols under Mongolia, Uighurs under Sinkiang-Uighur Autonomous Region or perhaps Chinese Turkestan. Since the Hui don't seem to live in a discrete area I suppose they would have to be an exception, although the article suggests they are really a religious minority and not an ethnicity. Adam 05:40, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article on Koreans is based havily on Koreans not living in Korea. --Jiang

So I see. I would incorporate that material into the Korea article, with the subheading Koreans outside Korea. I think there is far too much proliferation of superfluous and overlapping articles at WP. I know that Wikipedia is not paper but it still strikes me as untidy. Adam 06:10, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Adam, the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups is moving toward having separate articles on states and peoples. There is some pretty lively discussion on the talk page about whether this is a good or bad thing. I'm one of the partisans of the idea (for reasons expressed there). Come, have a look, and if you want to debate the issue it is probably more productive to do there than in the discussion of a single ethnic group or nation. -- Jmabel 19:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am removing a great deal of the 1911 EB text from the article. The language of that text, coming from a turn-of-the-century physical anthropological POV is downright racist. I'm not going to go as far in this respect as I might, but would welcome someone going even further. -- Jmabel 02:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know the extent (if at all) to which the remarks on polyandry and polygamy still apply? -- Jmabel 02:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. [1] has several articles (unfortunately, each a massive scanned JPEG) sympathetically documenting this practice into the 1980s; a quick web search shows recent articles in which the PRC government uses this to argue how backwards, feudal, and (at least by implication) licentious the Tibetans remain. An intersting topic, though, probably deserves some expansion in the article, including the use of it in PRC anti-Tibetan rhetoric. -- Jmabel 07:17, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article should have content on the post-1956 Tibetan diaspora. It does not. -- Jmabel 02:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umrao, what exactly do you mean by saying that the Uighur, the Manchu, the Mongols, and the Tibetans "the four non-Chinese nations incorporated into the PRC"? How are the Hmong (for example) any more Chinese than these? Or is the operative word "nation" and somehow you don't consider groups such as the Hmong "nations"? This is a sincere question: your additions were mostly good and I'm sure you have a point here, but we should try to reword to make it more precise. -- Jmabel 19:02, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think the use of "nation" here is problematic. And the Mongol "nation" has at best been partially incorporated into China, since there's still an independent Mongolian state. -- Danny Yee 03:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] needing rewording

Two passages confuse me. I'm not sure enough of the meaning to reword them myself:

  • "Mani stones and people holding the Dorje, a sacred meant for chanting the mantra, is widely seen among the Tibetans."
  • "The Thangka, is a widely popular art among the Tibetans."

[edit] Explanation

1. I never knew about the book Goldstein, Melvyn C., "Study of the Family structure in Tibet", Natural History, March 1987, 109-112 ([3] (http://web.archive.org/web/20030306141537/http://www.cwru.edu/affil/tibet/family.html) on the Web Archive), as such as short sentence can come from any observations. The book was never, or almost never heard of in Singapore, the region where I live in.

And it was poorly cited before. But as you can see from the link, without even having to go to a library, it's a quite legitimate citation. Note that this is a 4-page article in the magazine Natural History, not a book, so there is no particular reason it would have been "heard of". However, the magazine is certainly a reputable journal. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

2. I apologise for my unknowing mistake by removing the 1911 Britannica text, as I did not review the content of the Notable Features and origins.

3. The marriage customs was plainly rewritten by me, and I never review the original content.

Mr Tan, 15:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


How can you prove that I "loaned" content from here? : [Goldstein, 1987] Intermarriage with Han Chinese exists but is uncommon, as many ethnic Tibetans have negative sentiments towards the Han. ---> Are you trying to mean this sentence?


  • The phrase is not the same,
  • It can be a statement of observation.

Meet me at 7:00, Florida time for the debate on this issue. Thanks

Mr Tan, 14:54, 21 Mar 2005 (Singapore Time)

7:00, Florida time is 4:00 where I live. I sleep at night. And "meet you" is supposed to mean what? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying you "loaned" (I presume you mean borrowed) content from Goldstein. I, not you, am citing Goldstein for as a source for the statement that Tibetan fraternal polyandry continues in recent times. And why do you continue to insist on taking my correct citation and substituting things that are unclear? This thing where you are throwing in a number "2" in brackets is totally non-standard. Wikipedia:Cite Sources is quite clear about using author name and year (and, in longer works, page number; I am citing the gist of a 3-1/2 page paper, so that would be inappropriate).
A citation note like this always indicates a source for the preceding material, not the following material. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the citation situation has been resolved. But I agree with Jmabel about not removing them. Maurreen 06:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not deny the Goldestin source, but I think my old style would be neater. 2 refers to the Goldstein source at the bottom, and this can be counter-done by putting another 2 at the reference section against the Goldstein in there.
  • Also, I thibk that breaking up the paragraph would look neater and classify the facts to a clearer extent. What do you think?
  • I meant to meet you means to arrange at a specific time so that both of us are on Wikipedia and can discuss this topic carefully.

Mr Tan, 14:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources. I am following the established style of citation.

Also, one does not normally introduce a new paragraph in the middle of a quotation that does not, itself, have a paragraph break. This is just plain standard. There are ways to do it, but they are clumsy. I'll do that if you really want it, but I think it only makes matters worse.

I literally do not understand why any of this should be in any sense an issue. I am following Wikipedia standards, which in these matters are pretty much precisely the normal standards for academic writing.

By the way, the 1911 EB article on Tibet that I am quoting can be found at http://25.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TI/TIBET.htm, poorly scanned, but the relevant passage appears to have no problems. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

While I don't really care what images are actually used in this article, I disagree strenuously with the edit summary "don't want black%white images, looks bad". I am unaware of any Wikpedia policy against B&W images. I happen to like them. This is strictly a matter of personal taste. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I agree, but it's another of Mr Tan's obsessions (see also Talk:Zanskar). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life cycles

Should the article of Life cycles be written in past tense? Technically although the PRC has had its fluctuations with Tibetan religion in the past, Tibetans themselves generally continue to believe in these things, and it seems misleading to place them in the past tense. --hidoshi@hidoshi.com 04:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

  1. It is a gross oversimplification to call the Tibetans "one of the 4 non-Chinese nations incorporated into the PRC". There are 55 ethnic minorities recognized by the PRC, plus many more groups (e.g. the Mosuo) asking to be recognized. The gradual expansion of the Chinese nation resulted in the conquest and incorporation of hundreds of ethnic groups, all of which are at different levels of assimilation and integration, from completely assimilated (e.g. Hsiung-Nu, Minyue, Bashu), to near complete (e.g. She, Manchu, Tujia) to distinct but peaceful (e.g. Korean, Yi, Li) to more violently separatist (e.g. Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongol). Many of these ethnic groups have established independent states at some time or other, and some wish to do so again, so it is simply ridiculous to say that "4" nations are at present incorporated.
  2. Ethnic Tibetan was a self link in the image caption.
  3. Scare quotes are POV. To write "autonomous entities" is to imply that the entities are not autonomous, by Wikipedia's judgement. Similarly we do not write Operation Iraqi "Freedom" or "Democratic" "People's" Republic of Korea regardless of what we think about them.
  4. The explanation about the light grey and dark grey areas are already in the map. They were cluttering up the caption.
  5. There is obviously more than one difference between the two maps.

-- ran (talk) 15:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I'm still unsure about the inverted commas, but my main worry concerns the excision of the sentence about ethnic groups. First, the text talks about non-Chinese nations, whereas your argument depends upon there being many non-Chinese ethnicities. Secondly, even so, it would better to add more detail than to remove what's there. Can you add a more detailed and accurate version in place of what you've removed? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Scare quotes are inherently POV. On the Chinese Wikipedia we've always had problems with people changing Republic of China to "Republic of China", Tibetan independence to "Tibetan independence" and so forth. Surely you agree that we need a common standard here — i.e., scare quotes are simply not acceptable. Also, "autonomous" is part of the official name, in the same way "People's" is part of the name People's Republic of China.

As for the other thing: a more accurate description is already in place: The Tibetan people form one of the fifty-six ethnic groups officially recognized by the People's Republic of China (PRC). As for the distinction between "non-Chinese ethnicities" and "non-Chinese nations" — if you mean "nation" in the sense of a "people", then all of those ethnicities are nations — in fact, the government refers to them as nationalities rather than ethnicities. If you mean "nation" in the sense of a political entity, then it is safe to say that again, all of the aforementioned ethnicities lived under their own political institutions before the successive expansion and consolidation of the Chinese state over the centuries.

-- ran (talk) 19:31, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

  1. The reson that I'm unsure is that inverted commas are also often used to indicate a technical use of a term (and given that I don't think that anyone claims that the regions are actually autonomous, this would seem to be technical use). Still, I'm not really worried about that.
  2. The new text reads fine. My only thought is that the claim is about modern China, not about China throughout its history; thus, I took it to mean that Tibet is one of four nations that have been made part of China in relatively recent times, since China took its present basic form. In the same way, the United Kingdom is usually (though not, oddly, in the Wikipedia article) explained as being a state or political unit made up of three countries (England, Wales, and Scotland) and a province (northern Ireland) — but not as including the countries of Mercia, Wessex, my own Kingdom of Lindsey, etc., because they only existed before the individual countries existed, and had been absorbed long before the U.K. came into being.

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. Well, of course there are people who claim that they're autonomous, like the PRC government. A quick trip through Mainland BBS's would reveal plenty of people who consider them to be too autonomous. (We should note that autonomy is relative, so people will judge the autonomy of something based on how autonomous they want it to be.) And it is true that relative to provinces, they are indeed more autonomous (though relative to, say, Hong Kong, they aren't remotely autonomous). And in any case, the word autonomous is part of the official title.
  2. The United Kingdom still has four actual political divisions that correspond to England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. And the dividing lines, both geographically and historically, are a lot sharper. This is not the case for China. E.g.: if you're talking about recently incorporated states, then what about, say, the extensive tusi system in the Yunnan-Guizhou-Guangxi highlands, now part of "China proper"? Much of that area, populated by peoples such as the Zhuang, Hmong, Yi etc., was once essentially left intact with its own independent political structures, nominally subservient to the emperor. From the early- to mid-18th century all the way into the early 20th century, all of that was abolished, and regular Chinese prefectures, counties etc. were imposed, with Han Chinese officials replacing local leaders. (Reminiscent to the establishment of Xinjiang province in the 1880's, and the Tibet Autonomous Region in 1965.) Rebellions flared as a result, but they died down and the area has become a lot more sinicized since. The situation here is analogous to Xinjiang, Tibet, etc.

-- ran (talk) 16:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your expalantion. I hadn't realised that areas like the Yunnan-Guizhou-Guangxi highlands had had de facto independence until so recently. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither had I, actually, until recently. :-) In any case, here's something to read if you're interested: The Zhuang: A Longitudinal Study of Their History and Their Culture. Goes into a lot of detail over the Tusi system as applied to the Zhuang people in Guangxi and surrounding areas. -- ran (talk) 17:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
And one chapter in particular, about the mid-Qing era: [2]. I think terms like "independence", even de facto, are somewhat thorny in cases like these, where formal and informal authority overlapped on top of each other and were constantly in flux. -- ran (talk) 17:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


Not to use quotes when using a phrase like "malicious western imperialism" is implying it is indeed malicious, and can take no other form.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No it's not. The phrase "malicious Western imperialism" is already used in the context of the Chinese POV: i.e. the Tibetan independence movement is a front for malicious Western imperialism. Similarly we're using words like "colonial" in the context of the Tibetan POV. -- ran (talk) 03:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

To: Mel Etitis Could you kindly explain why you reverted each of the many minor changes I made to this page? Editing requires effort and reverts without explanation discourage such contributions. Thanks in advance. 162.84.72.171 13:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution

Under "Notable Features", the numbered reference re oxygen uptake is a blind alley. Could the originator (Technopilgrim?) correct this? 162.84.72.171 12:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Link : The truth the mainland Chinese government doesn't want you to know

Does anybody else think the external link above would be helpful? I have posted it to this article, but it was removed by Hottentot. Please give an opinion. I personally, believe that the link is extremely relavent to the article.--FT in Leeds 02:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Without commenting either way on whether this link belongs in the article: giving your own contentious title to someone else's article is no way to get people to agree to retain the link. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed passage

I took this out: "The Tibetans living in Kham are of Qiang descent and speak a Qiangic language, although they are not officially classified as part of the Qiang minority." The article on Qiangic languages does not mention anything about Kham, and everything else I've heard about Kham Tibetan indicates that it is a Tibetan variety. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complex boundaries

It would be good if this article could treat the complex boundaries of Tibetan ethnicity in more detail and a bit more clearly. For instance, the article implicitly excludes Bhutanese people from "Tibetans"; at the same time, the article's definition is not limited narrowly to people from Ü-Tsang, but includes Kham and Amdo. It's not really clear to me that there is anything about Kham and Amdo people that makes them more Tibetan than various other peripheral Tibet-related peoples. Perhaps they are even less so, as one might suspect that Eastern Tibetans have had more influence from the Chinese than Bhutanese have had from anywhere. Obviously, the language people speak in Bhutan is different from the Lhasa dialect (which is now seen as sort of a standard spoken Tibetan), but the same is true in Kham and Amdo.

I'm not saying that the article should state "Bhutanese are Tibetan", which might be offensive to Bhutanese people and would certainly have political overtones. However, it would be best if we explain the complexities of the situation clearly. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scroll paintings

This edit changed "Thangka paintings, a syncretism of Chinese scroll-painting with Nepalese and Kashmiri painting" to "Thangka paintings, a syncretism of Indian scroll-painting with Nepalese and Kashmiri painting". I have no idea which is correct, but it was an anonymous change without citation, so I thought I'd flag it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Custom - Tashi Delek

The claim that "Tibetans usually greet a friend or relative by saying 'Tashi Delek'" is wildly innaccurate. The use of the term "bkra shis bde legs" as a greeting is a neologism of Tibetan exile culture. The term is not used by Tibetans within Tibet itself. Since only a very small minority of Tibetan speakers live in exile communities, it is thus quite inappropriate to say of Tibetans (in general) that they use the greeting "Tashi Delek." 72.94.184.4 06:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I was in Lhasa, I would often say "bkra shis bde legs" to the locals, and they would always smile and respond with "bkra shis bde legs". Of course, that doesn't prove anything—they had probably just figured out that this is something foreign tourists like to say! Nevertheless, I thought I had heard that this expression is used commonly in Lhasa, but not in other parts of Tibet. In any event, I agree with your removal of this passage, since it is not a widespread Tibetan custom.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Nat, you're sort of right. When Tibetans (in Tibet) are speaking to each other, they would not use the phrase "tashi delek" (not even in Lhasa). However, many Tibetans, in Lhasa and elsewhere in Tibet, will say "tashi delek" to foreigners (especially when greeted with the same phrase) -- usually because they think that's the only Tibetan word that most foreigners know. Ordinarily, however, the term "tashi delek" is (in Tibet) only used during Losar and (perhaps) during marriage ceremonies. Chosgrags 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)(formerly 72.94.184.4)
On the other hand, Tournadre and Sangda Dorje in Manual of Standard Tibetan give bkra shis bde legs as a gloss for "hello, best wishes" and elsewhere as "hello (formal)".—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The greeting Tashi Delek has only emerged within the exile community in the last 50 years as a greeting. It is not commonly used within Tibet. In fact, in Amdo and Kham, it is never used as a greeting and would be seen as quite inappropriate to say to someone informally/casually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinklady99 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obviously

Central Tibetans (those living in the vast area around Lhasa, Ü-Tsang) obviously share a strong Mongolian component in their ancestry.

How is it obvious? Mallerd 12:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not. This should be removed from the article.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Tibet - Avoid personal preference

I have checked the history of this page and found that there are edits going around the status of Tibet, which is now in a hot debate. Wikipedia provides facts to its users and we have to observe the facts but not your own political preference or likeness. This talk page is the right place to discuss these matters prior to make changes. --Xavier Fung (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit was reverted by Angelo De La Paz and claiming that I'm violating NPOV. Please have a look at that. --Liuchoi (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK! You Chinese (Liuchoi) and about 1.3 billion Chinese people said that Tibet was, is and will a part of China forever and supprot the governance of PRC but about over 1.5 billion non-Chinese people (mostly Europeans, Americans, other Asians, etc...) don't think so, they support "Free Tibet". And in fact, both governments of Chinese people and Tibetans said that Tibet and Tibetan lands in Qinghai or Sichuan are their motherland. And although I'm a Chinese mix but I don't support anyone because remember what happened in our Chinese history when Manchu people governed our China in over a hundred years although Han Chinese population is larger 100 times than Manchus (1.3 billion and 10 million). And now, it's happening again with Tibet where Tibetan is the predominant ethnic group here (from 96% in the past to 92% now by the Chinese immigrations which was encouraged by the Chinese Communist Gov.). I only hope that the Chinese Communist Party and our Chinese people should be open-minded to accept the political system in Tibet as is in Hong Kong (1 country 2 systems) or we will face the foreign oppositions to China and Chinese people...WORLD PEACE PLEASE!Angelo De La Paz (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't you think that Wikipedia should state facts (Currently administered by PRC) rather than preferences? I'm trying to be neutral but this article is talking about an ethnic group, not a place. Is that really important to state the political claims of a place in this article? --Liuchoi (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Liuchoi, you said that you are neutral? No, I don't think so because if you were a sensible guy so you would not keep the Tibetan lands under Chinese Communist flag only...There is no problem to keep the existing entries of "governed by People's Republic of China, claimed by Central Tibetan Administration" because both sides have their own right reasons. Do you understand the meaning of "self-praise is no recommendation". So please stop it. OK?Angelo De La Paz (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So you think it's appropriate to state claims in an ethnic group article? --Liuchoi (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Definitely YES because over 1.3 Chinese people support you (Tibet is the land of China only) but over 1.5 billion non-Chinese people will support the existing entries of "governed by People's Republic of China, claimed by Central Tibetan Administration".Angelo De La Paz (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Where is your source of these figures? --Liuchoi (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Which ones? Come on! Please stop your quarrelsome attitude to me. Some anti-Chinese persons are attacking the article of Han Chinese now and I am protecting it[3]...Now, you can see the result of karma. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


"This figure has been disputed by Patrick French,"
Now that's exactly what I call a selective quote. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)