Jump to content

Talk:Han Chinese/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Pictures

Upon looking at the pictures of the selected Notable Han Chinese, I cannot deny that Jiang Qing(江青) is definetely a notable one. But what the hell, why don't you include Qin Hui(秦桧) as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.216.60 (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

He represent Hanjian.--刻意(Kèyì) 19:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

% of total world population

The side bar states: 1,310,158,851 19.73% of global human population

Currently there are 7,013,903,621 humans (http://www.census.gov/population/popclockworld.html), this would mean that Chinese are 18.68% of the global human population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreutznaer (talk • contribs) 09:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Total population

The side bar states: total population: 1,310,158,851.

Where does this figure come from? If you take the sum of the values that are stated on the page you get 1,279,516,635. So where's the extra 30,642,216 from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreutznaer (talk • contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese

Are we counting all Overseas Chinese as Han? I'm pretty sure the U.S. Census, for instance, only counts "Chinese" as an ethnicity and doesn't distinguish among ethnic groups from China. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone should clarify this, as the values stated on this article are quite different to those on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversea_Chinese). On that page the term "Overseas Chinese" refers to those of Han Chinese ethnicity living outside of China, or more broadly. For example in this article it is stated that there are 296,623 Han Chinese in the UK, whilst on the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversea_Chinese), the number is 500,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreutznaer (talk • contribs) 09:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Current day Han Chinese identity

Are you actually suggesting that the people who currently identify themselves as Han are genetically the same as the original people of the Han River area? This is like calling all European Americans "Anglo." The Anglos were a Germanic tribe who contributed the principal material to the English language. Many cultures and peoples have been subsumed or intermarried into the dominant Han culture over the centuries. This is how empires are consolidated; you convince all of the conquered people that they share a common identity. i think that this point should be clarified. If 92% of the current population of China is Han, how the heck did the Han reproduce so abundantly while all of the other tribes and cultures of this VAST country simply disappeared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.158.157 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"There is considerable genetic, linguistic, cultural, and social diversity among the subgroups of the Han, mainly due to thousands of years of immigration and assimilation of various regional ethnicities and tribes within China.[12]" ButOnMethItIs (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Can someones elaborate on this a bit I was confused by the genetics section. On one hand someone described in detail the male pattern migrations, and on the other, out of nowhere some one post "there is little geographic-genetic dispersion from north to south". How much geneticly are chinese composed of assimilated population & how much are of the Han population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.191.20.2 (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source for DNA section

The author of this dissertation uses that evidence to indicate that most southern Chinese, including Cantonese are descended from Han from northern China marrying native women in southern China. The evidence are DNA studies of y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing of southern Chinese populations from Guangdong and Fujian and other areas in southern

China which indicate that a majority of southern Chinese have mostly northern Chinese y chromosomal DNA (paternal dna) and only a small amount of northern Chinese mitochondrial DNA (maternal DNA), indicating that most southern Han Chinese descend from an expansion of northern Chinese males marrying native women in southern China.

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "northern Chinese males marrying native women in southern China. "? Southern Chinese people were originally from northern China?! Are you meaning to say "Men in Northern China are not Chinese natives?"

Religion section of Infobox

This is to discuss the minor dispute on the infobox's religion section. The Han Chinese are majority non-religious, whether it be atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, unaffiliated, or as User:AngeloDeLaPaz pointed out "spiritual", these would in all likelihood be grouped as irreligion in surveys. To leave out such a major tradition in the infobox is disingenuous (and I also think the section on #Religion should be expanded to include the irreligious as well, as seen in the article Religion in China). There are many articles on ethnicity/nationality that includes the irreligious. Most noticeably that of the more atheistic nations, Estonians, Czechs, Swedes, Norwegians, Russians, Australians, etc. even the Americans article notes the "Unaffiliated", which could very well include the "spiritual". On the point of labeling Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Chinese folk religion/Shenism as the "traditional religions", I think we should first define what is considered to be traditional to the Han Chinese. Christianity and Islam came to China quite early as well, just two to three centuries after Buddhism in the former's case. If you are referring to San jiao he yi, that is not as much a description of the religious traditions of the Han Chinese than it is a description of the philosophical tradition. --108.48.23.190 (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: Notable people representing Han

I've updated the infobox with a mosaic of notable Chinese Han. The previous pictures mainly focused on Han people that have lived/are living in the 20th and 21st centuries, which obviously isn't an accurate representation of the entire history of the Han ethnic group. It's also much more cleaner looking than the previous mess of pictures. The following are rationales for the inclusion of each picture, and what they represent:

Any objections? Due to PRC/Taiwan political issues, I deliberately avoided Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao Zedong.--Hongkongresident (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the historical and cross-disciplinary balance, but can't but notice that 11/12 of the figures are men. Quigley (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's an unfortune artifact of a society that has been largely patriarchal for most of its history. The same can be seen with other historically patriarchal societies: the image for the article on French People, which has 4 women for 27 men, the article on German People, which has 2 women for 25 men, and the article on Greeks, which has no women. I think there could be a way to incorporate more women, like the Empress Dowager Cixi to represent the Qing Dynasty, but I wouldn't be sure who to replace. This is a tough problem, suggestions? --Hongkongresident (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
What about Wu Zetian? and also can you rearrange the placement? Leaders on 1st row, philosophers on 2nd row, and others categorized in 3rd and 4t row? And for each row do it chronologized order (eg. Qin Shihuang, HanWudi, Tangtaizong, Sun yatsen).--LLTimes (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm hesitant about Wu Zetian, her reign is too close to Tang Taizong's. However, I do want to see one of the Soong Sisters represented, perhaps Soong May Ling for Taiwanese Han Chinese. But, I'm against ordering it chronologically or by field. It goes against precedence, and nullifies one of the aims of the infobox picture, to compare and contrast notable Han from different time periods and different fields.--Hongkongresident (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Li Qingzhao, famous female Chinese poet, could be included. Would represent Song Dynasty poetry.--Hongkongresident (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Planning on expanding it to a 5x5 to include more entries. That leaves 9 open entries. --Hongkongresident (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
So far leaning towards: Yang Liwei (space travel), Empress Dowager Cixi (Qing dynasty), Lee Kuan Yew (Singaporean Chinese), Li Qingzhao (Song poetry), Shing-Tung Yau (mathematics), Soong May Ling (Taiwanese Chinese), Qiu Jin (modern Chinese literature), and Lai Man-Wai (Chinese cinema pioneer). Of these, Qiu Jin, Cixi, Li Qingzhao and Soong May Ling are women, which would up the count to 5.--Hongkongresident (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Collage has been changed. There are now 6 women, and better quality pictures. --Hongkongresident (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Empress Dowager Cixi was a Manchu, not a Han.Дунгане (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thankfully I remembered to look her up before I started the collage, since I wasn't sure about her heritage (other than that she was an Empress of the Manchhu Qing Dynasty, but that didn't necessarily mean she wasn't Han). Didn't add her in, so there's nothing to worry about. --Hongkongresident (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to nominate some westerners who are of Han Chinese ancestry for consideration, like Yo-Yo Ma or Stephen Chu. →⚙量zhu (talk·contribs) 19:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget Su Shi. He may be the most well-known poet through the whole Chinese history.Besides,he is a notable artist, calligrapher, pharmacologist...-- A rare universal genius.--Kuanyui (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs more northern chinese. Liu Bei, Guan Yu, Zhuge Liang, Zhang Zuolin, Zhang Xueliang, Yuan Shikai, Lizicheng???? Almost all everyone in the collage is a southern chinese.

Han Chinese subgroups

I noticed that the article for Han Chinese subgroups just redirects to this main article. Is there any plan for a subsection for this subject. The category Category:Subgroups of the Han Chinese also applies to this main article, quite erroneously. I'm not sure whether this would go under the Culture or Genetics section. →⚙量zhu (talk·contribs) 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No Mao Zedong

travesty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzz41 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the English version is run by white washed Chinese cunts and White thrash. They don't even know what are: "Unification" and "Nuclear Power (WMD)". Check out the Chinese version, Mao Zedong picture is there.

Better Bruce Lee Picture

It's very hard to see the facial features of a monochrome bronze statue. Perhaps a better picture is in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for a "subgroups of han chinese" section

That lists the ethno linguistic groups of han chinese. Cantonese, Min, Sichuanese, Hakka, Northerner etc... as well as differences in culture, beliefs, genetics, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzz41 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

LARGEST ETHNIC GROUP? INDO-EUROPEAN IS LARGER I think that the Indo-European ethnic group is larger, comprising 700 million people in Europe, another 700 million people in Western and Southern Asia and 300 million in the Americas.--88.1.244.26 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Europeans have been trying for thousands of years to live a distinct identity from the rest of her neighbors... Han Chinese have convergence social norms and identity over the past thousand years. Completely opposite. That's like saying Indians are "White Caucasians" since they are Indo-European (Aryan race)... which is obviously not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Indo European is considered a linguistic group. It comprises several ethnic groups. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
My understanding was that "Han" was the correct and most useful grouping called "ethnic." Are Catonese, Min, etc. considered sub-ethnic groups?--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Population by country

Some of these numbers seem to be inflated, for instance the figure for Chinese people in Indonesia is 8.8 million, while the article Chinese Indonesians (which is a Good article by the way) indicates 2.8 million.

Also, I updated the number of Chinese Americans according to the 2010 estimate by US Census Bureau. --Երևանցի talk 21:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Contributions to humanity

The "Contributions to humanity" section seems very excessive given the link to the main article, particularly the last huge paragraph. Moreover, no other ethnic group page that I have seen has a similar section, so is it really appropriate to include at all? It should be shortened to a paragraph or two at the very least, to match the other sections under "Culture". Or perhaps even moved out from under Culture. DuBistKomisch (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

alternate names

Cantonese call themselves men of Tang, or Tang people, since they were descended from northern migrants from Central Plain (China) region who fled south during the Tang dynasty, and central plains people back then were called Tang people.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ERnrQq0bsPYC&pg=PA752#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=O72FhsxwzcAC&pg=PA37&dq=cantonese+middle+chinese+mandarin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4aGAUqnLC8flsATRgIGQBA&ved=0CD4Q6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=cantonese%20middle%20chinese%20mandarin&f=false

Cantonese dialect is close to Chinese language during the Tang dynasty

http://books.google.com/books?id=8OT_Sbk0yekC&pg=PA99&dq=cantonese+middle+chinese+mandarin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4aGAUqnLC8flsATRgIGQBA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cantonese%20middle%20chinese%20mandarin&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fo087ZxohA4C&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=_-dJxMfdhvEC&pg=PA6&dq=cantonese+middle+chinese+mandarin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4aGAUqnLC8flsATRgIGQBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cantonese%20middle%20chinese%20mandarin&f=false

14:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Other uses of the character "Han"

Nguyen Emperor Minh Mang claimed that the Vietnamese had the right to call themselves Han people 漢人

http://books.google.com/books?id=py5Xh0-pw18C&pg=PA115&dq=minh+mang+han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOZSUqPkLcbgyQHVzYD4AQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=minh%20mang%20han&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=q5C3Sbe1iMoC&pg=PA209&dq=minh+mang+han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOZSUqPkLcbgyQHVzYD4AQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=minh%20mang%20han&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2j6GNiMMc1oC&pg=PA474&dq=kinh+people+of+capital&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g7xJUs2iMoO48wSzq4GYBg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kinh%20people%20of%20capital&f=false

http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue4/article_353.html

Minh Mang called Vietnam "Zhongguo" 中國

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-asia&month=9906&week=e&msg=28mq4qDZEWt3sD%2B6t6h/lw&user=&pw=

Sinocentrism#Vietnam

Rajmaan (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Qing dynasty Aisin Gioro Y chromosome DNA found in several ethnic minorities but not found in Han Chinese

Aisin Gioro Y chomosome DNA was found in "Xibe, Outer Mongolians, Inner Mongolians, Ewenki, Oroqen, Manchu, and Hezhe" males and number around 1 million people. Their ancestor was Nurhaci's grandfather Giocangga, whose descendants made up the Qing dynasty nobility. But the Y chromosome was not found in the general Han Chinese population.

The Y chromosome cluster is specifically C3c, part of the General Haplogroup C-M217, which Genghis Khan's lineage is a part of, although the Manchu Aisin Gioro Y chromosome is part of a different cluster than Genghis Khan's

The reason it spread among these specific minority groups, but not among the Han Chinese population, is because the Qing Manchu nobility was concentrated specifically in the ethnically Manchu Eight Banners and not in the Mongolian and Han Eight Banners, and the specific ethnic groups which made up the Manchu Eight banners were "Manchu, Mongolian, Daur, Oroqen, Ewenki, Xibe".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1285168/

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(07)63394-1.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707633941

http://www.genebase.com/learning/article/23

Rajmaan (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion

Despite this section containing much positive writing about religious harmony and tolerance, etc. I see no mention of Falun Gong. Curious. Henners91 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should a cult that have only been around for 20 years warrant a mention on an article dealing with the Chinese people? There have been many other cult/religious movements in Chinese history that have been far more important and impactful and yet they rightly receive no mention. Why should Falun Gong recieve special treatment? You an initiate of FLG perhaps? AnAimlessRoad (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Falun Gong is noteworthy today, just like if you were to talk about Christianity denominations, you wouldn't dismiss sects like Seventh Day Adventists or Mormons, they would still at least get a mention, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity or Panethnicity?

Maybe it should be more clear that there are many groups within Han, and by some measures do not constitute a single group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.132.89 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Some groups like Hakka were dismissed historically as Han, even though they migrated from traditional Han areas of north China (proper) like Shandong to southern provinces like Fujian, however there customs like round houses are pretty endemic to them. Therefore, does that mean historically southerners were not Han?

Also some Han people in the Gansu and Ningxia regions have traits perhaps inherited from the Tungut, like larger noses and eyes, their ethnic appearance is vastly different to those of the eastern provinces. When Empires like the Tangut or dynasties collapses, the people and their genes, don't all just vanish overnight. There is a lot of inter-mingling with conquered people, be it even through forced coercion (rape). Also the Hui, are consider a different ethnic group, when sometimes 'Hui people' are just Han who practise Islam, a Hui person from Gansu, will have nothing perhaps in common ethnically with a Hui from Xiamen. This is when ethnicity and religion get confused with ethnic-religious groups like Jews.

Obviously Han people must have a lot of genetic influences assimilated considering the vast terrain inhabited by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What about those that have a multi-ethnic background? In the PRC, you have to be classified in a box for your ethnicity. Some children may have parents that have 2 or more backgrounds, yet they can only tick one box for identity? This kinda pigeonholing rationale is the norm in China. Some Han parents may choose a non-Han category at birth just to gain better social benefits for the child, like added points on their gaokao score or the ability for the child have more more of their own offspring as minorities are exempt from the one-child ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the title

1. "Han Chinese" gives people the impression that this article is only about the Han people in China.

2. For Wikipedia articles on other ethnic groups mainly found in China, we don't say "XXX Chinese". Instead, we say Zhuang people or Hmong people.

3. For Wikipedia articles on most ethnic groups in the world, we seldom see titles like "XXX demonym". For example, we don't use "Navajo Americans", "Ainu Japanese" or "Pashtun Afghans"; instead, we use Navajo people, Ainu people and Pashtun people.

For these reasons, I propose to rename the page to Han people. "Han Chinese" will be redirected to the page and noted in the first sentence. Lysimachi (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This can be quite problematic, this differentiation is asking us to use the term "Chinese people" to mean "中華人"/"中國人" which are already covered by the articles Zhonghua minzu (中華民族), Demographics of Taiwan, List of ethnic groups in China, and Demographics of China, while "漢人" (alternatively Tang People "唐人") refers to largest ethnic group of China (and the world) regardless of nationality. As most people usually mean Han people when they refer to "Chinese" in general, and Zhuang, H'mông, and others are often referred to as "Minorities", but then again the popular name for the Hui's is also "Hui Chinese" so you might have a point. But another difference is that what most of the world calls "China" and/or "Chinese" and/or "Taiwan" and/or "Taiwanese" is Han, Ainu are a minority the largest ethnic group in Japan are the Yamato, Navajo are a minority as well as most U.S. Americans are Non-Hispanic German-Americans, Pashtuns are a majority in Afghanistan though, but they share their country with Persians/Tajik's and Baluch people. But Han are different as they are in fact what has always made up the "Chinese" population, and "Han" is only an alternative name, in Viet-Nam they're "Hoa" (Civilized people), in the Spanish East-Indies it was "Sangley", in Nusantara it's "Peranakan", and I can go on, placing "Chinese" next to the name is explanatory and in the context of the article maybe necessary.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of Chinese in South America is VERY QUESTIONABLE

Anyone from that region can shed some light on it?

I'm not from there, but having lived in Brazil for several years I can estimate the number is correct. I lived in a small city of approximately more than 100,000 people. While most "Asians" I knew (or knew of) who lived there were 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation Japanese - at least several thousand including ones who were mixed with another Ethnicity like Italian or Portuguese. To my knowledge, I had one young student whose family moved there for work from Peru who was ethnically Chinese and trilingual (Mandarin, Portuguese and Spanish). Later I saw an ad for a local dentist.Her last name was Wang. Now a small family and one doctor are totally anecdotal, but if we estimate AT LEAST 5 people in a town of roughly 100 thousand people, we can easily extrapolate the numbers given as a portion of the total population of Brazil (around 180 ~ 190 million if I recall correctly). Japanese are the dominant ethnic group from Asia with around 1 million in São Paulo metro area alone. 50.144.2.11 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Tom in South Florida

infobox image problem

the image associated with Chien-Shiung Wu in the infobox appears to be an actor i recognize (but who's name i don't know), while the linked page is not him. Perhaps someone knows what to do to fix this. BakerStMD 01:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancient DNA Reveals That the Genetic Structure of the Northern Han Chinese Was Shaped Prior to 3,000 Years Ago

While it's not really of utmost importance, I don't see why this paper should be at the bottom. If anything it should be at the top, like it previously was. If readers desire is to learn about "DNA analysis" or prehistoric origin of Han Chinese, this is by far the most up-to-date of the citations listed. It actually might even actually refute some of the material in the paragraph as well, or at least require the paragraph to be rebalanced. The origins of East Asians (or at least Han) in bronze age North China, in or nearby Henan, and expanding in all directions is something I've read many scholars assert. It's surely more informative than a vague "northern" vs "southern" grouping which downplays the complexity of the scenario. In any case, I won't take any actions as I don't feel it's my place to do so. Cheers Easy772 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Han Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ip vandal

Zanhe STSC Nlu

We got a troll on the loose, trying to insert his own POV and agenda that southern Chinese are all Baiyue descendants and not Han people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.238.79.44

some of the studies, which are likely censored by the oppressive PRC government, are unreliable; one even falsely claims the Han have "one language and culture" which is utter non-sense

despite PRC trolls, "Han" are a supra-ethnic group; fact is the Yue and other southern groups are highly distinct genetically, linguistically, culturally from other "Han", esp. Mandarins and others in north China; languages are not mutually intelligible

I've been rectifying the issue by adding reliable sources- all of which are by western historians. But this troll might come back to engage in an edit war and needs warnings.

Rajmaan (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You aren't "rectifying" anything. There are a variety of genetic studies there. Non-PRC sources are more reliable, for obvious reasons. One of the genetic studies from the PRC makes an idiotic claim that "Han Chinese have a single language", which is unsupported by any credible linguist not censored by the PRC regime. The Sinitic languages are a group of distinct languages more different from each other than languages in several families around the globe. All of the studies show the closer genetic affinity, with regards to several markers, of Yue peoples to other indigenous groups of southern China who comprised the ancient indigenous Baiyue kingdom, namely Tai and Austroasiatic speakers.

Cantonese is the official language of Hong Kong, NOT Mandarin and NOT some fake "Chinese language" which does not exist. Cantonese is mutually unintelligible with other Sinitic/Chinese languages, and it has many words in common with Vietnamese, for example, which are not shared with Mandarin and other Sinitic languages.

This article is thus not providing a neutral point of view in its current form, as it is clearly a propagandist view of PRC Chinese nationalists rather than being a balanced view including the millions of Cantonese in Hong Kong and elsewhere who identify distinctly as Cantonese first and foremost before any connection to some wider Sinitic, Han ethnic supra-group. How can Cantonese be considered the same ethnicity as Mandarin when many don't even understand what they are saying, unless they have learned Mandarin. Prior to the 20th century, practically no Cantonese person could understand a Mandarin from northern China. Saying you are politically part of one country is one thing, but saying you are the same group ethnically is just being disingenous. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep on exposing yourself as an ignorant POV pusher. You don't know anything on the topic from your totally unsourced claims here. Cantonese and Hoklo are regarded as CLOSER to Middle Chinese and Old Chinese than Mandarin is. [1][2][3] Linguists say Cantonese has preserved the phonology of Middle Chinese since Cantonese are mainly descended from Northern Han migrants who migrated to Guangdong during the Tang dynasty, hence them calling themselves "people of Tang". Cantonese does not have words in common with Vietnamese that are not shared with Mandarin. Vietnamese is heavily influenced by Chinese and has tons of Old Chinese and Middle Chinese loanwords from the thousand year rule of China over Vietnam. - Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary. The words shared between Cantonese and Vietnamese, are also shared with Mandarin, and are NOT of Baiyue origin but of Old Chinese origin. Vietnamese is distinguished from its fellow Austroasiatic languages by the sheer amount of Chinese influence and words in their language. The Vietnamese word for country, quoc, is derived from Chinese 國 as an example, there are thousands of other words like that.
And Mandarin and Cantonese are far more similar to each other than Vietnamese. Vietnamese uses an entirely different numueral system. Their numbers share no similarity with Cantonese. While Mandarin and Cantonese both use Sinitic numerals. Mandarin and Cantonese both follow the same word order, Vietnamese word order is reverse, Mandarin and Cantonese say 廣東人 (Guang dong rén) (Gwong Dung yan). Vietnamese says 𠊚廣東 (Người Quảng Đông), using an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT word for person, 𠊚, while Mandarin and Cantonese both use 人. Same with Mandarin and Cantonese using 廣州話 (Guǎng zhōu huà) (Guong zeo wa), Vietnamese says Tiếng Quảng Châu 㗂廣州. The word for "I" in Mandarin and Cantonese is 我, the word for I in Vietnamese is Tôi 晬.
Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mandarin yi er san si wu liu qi ba jiu si
Cantonese yat yih sam sei ng luk chat bat gau sap
Hokkien it ji sam su ngou liok chit pat kiu sip
Vietnamese Một Hai Ba Bốn Năm Sáu Bảy Tám Chín Mười
Now tell us how "similar" Vietnamese is to Cantonese. Vietnamese also follow different naming habits from Cantonese. They use "thi" in women's names and "van" in men's names which were never used by Cantonese. The ethnic Chinese community in Vietnam is entirely made out of Cantonese and Toishanese and they have hostile relations with the Vietnamese population.
The issue in Hong Kong is not even about ethnicity. Hong Kongers are made out of a variety of different Han people, such as Hakka, Toishan, and Shanghainese people who moved to Hong Kong in the 19th century. Hong Kongers identify themselves as HONG KONGERS 香港人- as opposed to Mainlanders 大陸人, NOT AS Cantonese 廣東人. Hong Kongers call mainlanders as 大陸人, they don't distinguish them as Han people like you claim. Its about Hong Kongers 香港人 vs Mainlanders 大陸人, NOT Cantonese 廣東人 vs Han. The Mainlanders include Cantonese mainlanders in mainland Guangdong. Hong Kongers, including Hakkas, Toishan and others, regard Cantonese from Guangdong as mainlanders and extremist Hong Kongers also oppose Cantonese mainlanders as foreigners. Its clear you are obtuse and totally ignorant about Hong Kong and Cantonese identity. Hong Kong identity is not centered around blood and ethnicity. Macaunese are not even in question, Macaunese identity is centered around a creole Catholic identity and has nothing to do with this topic.
China never claimed mutual intelligibility. China calls Chinese as 中文 - the Middle [Kingdom's] "language", in this case, it does not imply mutual intelligibilty. Chinese call Cantonese, Hokkien and Hakka as "Fangyan" which simply means "Regional speech" and carries absolutely no connotations of mutual ineligibility. The English word "dialect" means "regional speech" too but ALSO carries a connotation of mutual intelligibity with other dialects of the same language. It was westerners like Samuel Wells Williams who chose to translate "Fangyan" into "dialect" in the 19th century. Chinese people just followed suit and when talking in English, translated "Fangyan" as "Dialect" after copying what those westerners did.
Mutual intelligibility between different varieties of a language is not a criteria for different ethnicity. Tōhoku dialect of Japanese is not mutually intelligible with other varieties of Japanese. There are some Swiss German dialects not intelligible with standard German. Moroccan Arabic is not understood by Middle Eastern Arabic speakers, and is not intelligible at all with Central Asian Arabic.
Chinese traditionally employed Classical Chinese as the written language and used Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, and Hakka "readings"- Literary and colloquial readings of Chinese characters. It was recently when Mandarin on the standard of Baihua was made the written language. All Chinese varieties of speech are descended from Middle Chinese and Old Chinese from which Classical Chinese is the written form.
Dialect groups are not regarded as ethnicities or markers of shared ethnic identity. There are clans from the same ancestor spread across multiple provinces who speak different dialects. The Confucius Kong family has branches spread all over China. Are you going to claim that a member of the Kong family in Guangdong is of a different ethnicity than a Kong member in Mandarin speaking Shandong? The very word used for "Cantonese" is simply the provincial unit- 廣東- not signifying ethnic identity, only regional identity. Guangdong province didn't exist before the Ming dynasty. Cantonese, Hoklo, and other south eastern Chinese people referred to their ethnicity as "people of Tang" 唐人, and they called China Tangshan 唐山 because a massive part of their ancestry is from Tang dynasty era northern Chinese migrants to southern China. The Baiyue were marginalized into the minorities like the Zhuang, Miao, Yao, and Tujia. Baiyue practiced tatooing. Those minorities practice tattoing. Cantonese people didn't practice tattooing, they share more taboos and culture as northern Chinese than southern minorities. The Cantonese even used slurs like "barbarian" to refer to southern minorities.
furthermore, the sources used for DNA have been corroborated and peer reviewed by westerners, and the historical sources on southern Han originated from northern Han migration are written by western historians.Rajmaan (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Cantonese very much has several words in common with Sino-Vietnamese words which are not shared with other Sinitic languages and are quite distinct from them. See here. China also did not rule over Vietnam "for 1000 years"; it was far less than this, and the Chinese rule which did occur was interrupted between centuries of indigenous Vietic rule.
In any case, I never said that Cantonese was more similar to Vietnamese than to other Sinitic languages. Vietnamese is an Austroasiatic language, more similar to Khmer than to any Sino-Tibetan language. What I DID say was that Cantonese has similarities to Vietnamese, stemming from their common Baiyue origins, which are not found in other Sinitic languages, and which are absent in northern Sinitic langauges like Mandarin. Mandarin meanwhile has significant influences from northern languages like Mongolian and Manchu which are absent from Sinitic languages like Cantonese. Standard Mandarin itself in its current only arose after so many Manchu and Jurchen peoples settled in Beijing starting from the Yuan dynasty, which was when Bejing was first made capital, and continuing into the Manchu dynasty period.
With regards to Hong Kong, ethnicity very much is a factor besides political differences. The majority of Hong Kongers are of southern ethnic origins, mainly Cantonese from Guangdong, but yes also Hakka, Hoklo and others. Cantonese is the official language there, not Mandarin and not Hakka or Hoklo, and the people are constantly protesting for greater protections and rights for the Cantonese language, media and culture in the face of Mandarin use by the PRC. Hong Kong is a major centre for Cantonese language media used in China and elsewhere.
With regards to mutual intelligibility, the example of the Tohoku dialect of Japanese you mention is not a sufficient comparison for your argument. Tohoku is still mutually intelligible with the other forms of Japanese, just with greater difficulty. Cantonese meanwhile is not mutually intelligible at all with nearly any of the other Sinitic languages. This is also not just simply with say Mandarin, but even with geographically closer languages like Wu and Hakka which are not intelligible with Cantonese.
Anyway, I'm done with this. Do what you want. If you want to tow the line of the PRC government, go ahead, but you aren't doing any service to anyone, nor are you presenting a balanced, accurate article. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Modern Chinese varieties Sino-Vietnamese Sino-Korean
(Yale) 		Sino-Japanese[1] Middle Chinese[a]
Beijing Suzhou Guangzhou Meixian Go-on Kan-on
1 一 yī iɤʔ7 jat1 jit5 nhất il ichi itsu ʔjit
2 二 èr ɲi6 ji6 ɲi4 nhị i ni ji nyijH
3 三 sān sɛ1 saam1 sam1 tam sam san sam
4 四 sì sɿ5 sei3 si4 tứ sa shi sijH
5 五 wǔ ŋ6 ng5 ŋ3 ngũ o go nguX
6 六 liù loʔ8 luk6 liuk5 lục lyuk roku riku ljuwk
7 七 qī tsʰiɤʔ7 chat1 tsʰit5 thất chil shichi shitsu tshit
8 八 bā poʔ7 baat3 pat5 bát phal hachi hatsu pɛt
9 九 jiǔ tɕiøy3 gau2 kiu3 cửu kwu ku kyū kjuwX
10 十 shí zɤʔ8 sap6 səp6 thập sip jū < jiɸu dzyip
All of those words in the table shared between Cantonese and Vietnamese are of Sinitic origin from Old Chinese and Middle Chinese. FYI those words are explicitly Sino-Vietnamese numerals - numerals whose names are directly borrowed from Old and Middle Chinese, which are NOT the same as indigenous Vietnamese numerals. Vietnam used Sino-Vietnamese numerals to pronounce Chinese characters only when reading Classical Chinese texts, when they speak their own Vietnamese language, they use native numerals - Một Hai Ba Bốn Năm Sáu Bảy Tám Chín Mười. I already showed how native Vietnamese numerals have absolutely nothing in common with Cantonese. Vietnamese borrowed those words from Old Chinese and Middle Chinese during Chinese rule, and Cantonese preserved those words because Cantonese is closer to Middle Chinese and Old Chinese than Mandarin.
Go add up the years at Chinese domination of Vietnam. It is over a thousand years of rule. The rebel Lý Nam Đế who established the Early Lý dynasty was a Chinese. His family fled from China to Vietnam during Wang Mang's interregnum. He was not a "indigenous Vietic". The Tran dynasty and Ho dynasty which ruled Medieval Vietnam were also of Chinese origin. The Ho dynasty even claimed descent from Chinese Emperor Shun.
Your claims on ethnicity are a joke again because Cantonese, Hokkien and others don't use Cantonese and Hokkien as ethnic identities. "Cantonese" literally means "Guangdong province person" and has no ethnic connotation at all. Again, a branch of the Kong family in Shandong could be Mandarin speakers while another branch of the Kong family could be Cantonese speakers in Guangdong, now are you going to claim they are different ethnicities?
Cantonese and Hokkien refer to their own ethnicity as "Tang people" which is because they are mainly descended from Tang era northern Han migrants. They boast about how Cantonese is the closest to Tang era Middle Chinese spoken in Northern China. And when they use it as "Tang people" they use it as synonymous to "Han people"- all the Sinitic speakers of China were "Tang people" in the eyes of Cantonese and other southern Chinese. They referred to the entire China as "Tangshan" (Tang mountain). You clearly don't know anything about ethnic identity of southern Chinese.Rajmaan (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Both Northern Han Mandarin speakers and southern Han like Cantonese, Hoklo and others all referred to themselvesa as 華人 "Hua people" and overseas both of them were called 華僑 Hua qiao. In Korea, Mandarin speaking northern Han from Shandong were called 華僑 hwagyo, in Vietna, southern Han like Cantonese and Toishanese were referred to as 華 Hoa people. 華人 has been another name for the entire Chinese ethnicity even before Han people was used.
In Nguyen Dynasty Vietnam the Vietnamese Nguyen Emperors even referred to Vietnamese as Han people. 漢人Talk:Vietnamese_people#Han_as_a_name_for_Vietnamese_people
Balthazarduju can you fix Cantonese people, Taiwanese people, Yue Chinese, Chinese Canadians, and Speakers of Wu Chinese as well?Rajmaan (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Miller (1967), p. 336.

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. This has been set up to determine the appropriateness of sections such as the "DNA analysis" section in this article. I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

As a synonym for "people of China"

There's an interesting use of "Han people" that is not quite explained in this article: that is, when "Han" is used as a synonym for "Chinese" in the multi-ethnic sense, so Hanren may be better translated as "Chinese people" or "people of China". One academic describes this usage in Jiang Jieshi's Double Ten Day speech in 1950, where Jiang draws a distinction between People of Han (which the mainlander communists could be) and People of Zhongguo (which the mainlander communists could not be), because Zhongguo has a more civic connotation than Han, although Han as conceived by Jiang is more national than ethnic.

This is not to say that Zhongguo is civic and not national, however: earlier in the chapter it explains how Zhongguo refers both to the mainland and to Taiwan, even in Taiwan's domestic media. There's also an interesting aside about how being a Zhongguo person, in addition to being the cultural inheritance of all people native to Zhongguo, is something that has to be learned, perhaps with analogy to Americanization. Actually, our article on sinicization should describe this process of adopting Chinese literary culture and style of government, instead of post-1950 claims of ethnic discrimination (thanks, Mao, for your Dahanzuzhuyi meme). Notice that sinicization is Hanhua, but also there Han properly refers to China as a civilization, and not "Han Chinese" as a post-Qing ethnicity. Shrigley (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Why citation is needed for certain terms?

There are many citation request in the first chapter "Terms and etymology", for example, the term Huaren 华人. Why? Hua Ren literally means Chinese Person, it is not some individual's invention, it is a term used by general public for a long time. An equivalent example is "Svenska refers to Swedish person" or "黄(Huang) means Yellow in English". How could they be cited as there is no single source, nor a dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadhund (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC) 

WP:V "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Lysimachi (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Protection?

HAN-CHINESE POPULATION IN SOUTH KOREA IS NOT 800,000 THOUSAND. MAJORITY OF CHINESE NATIONAL LIVING AND WORKING IN SOUTH KOREA ARE KOREAN CHINESE ( CHOSUNJOK, OR KOREAN RESIDENT IN CHINA). THEY ARE NOT HAN-CHINESE. THEY ARE KOREAN. NO SUCH THING AS HAN CHINESE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate1one (talk • contribs) 10:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)



Caucasian race article is protected, and the article is shorter than Han Chinese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian

Redundancy?

User:Lysimachi constantly reverts this edit of mine, the last revert citing "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence." Could anyone tell me what is "redundant" that has been removed in this edit? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Also referred to as" doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:REDUNDANCY ("Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article", emphasis in original). I personally think the article scans a little bit better with "Also referred to as" than without it, but I think both versions are acceptable. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Chinese people"

Can anyone verify whether "Chinese" is a synonym for "Han"? It seems like it is in popular usage.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If these two terms are synonyms, the meaning of "Han Chinese" (whatever it is) would be the same as "Han Han", "Chinese Chinese" or "Chinese Han." Lysimachi (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have actually seen them used as synonyms. In fact, "Han Chinese" is generally used to refer to people of ethnic Chinese ancestry. Let me see if I can find a source for it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The word Hàn (漢／汉), like every Chinese graph of sufficient antiquity, has a number of meanings, one of which usually translates to "Chinese", "China", etc., in the nature of an abbreviation. For example 漢英 means "Chinese–English" when used in the contexts of books, like 漢英辭典 means "Chinese–English dictionary" (specifically in that direction, i.e. there are not Chinese glosses for English words), and 漢英對排 means "Chinese and English on opposing pages". 漢美關係 are China–U.S. affairs; 漢日關係 are China–Japan affairs, and so on (although these are much more commonly rendered as 中美／中日關係, using the abbreviation for China– sorry I used this as an example; now it seems really confusing). In each of these examples, the character following the character 漢/Han is also being used as an abbreviation: 英文、美國、日本, respectively.
To address Lysimachi's concerns, yes, the term "Han Chinese" is pleonastic, and does not exist as such in the Chinese language (the word is 漢族/hànzú: Han ethnicity, unless you're referring to a member of the ethnic group or the set of members, in which case you'd use 漢人/hànrén: Han person/people). The word here is being used in a less general reading, referring to one specific ethnic group, rather than the whole of China. We do have to make that distinction though because "Chinese people" is ambiguous. Hope this addresses your concerns. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Han Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent mass addition of tags

I reverted most of the mass addition of tags as many of them already had citations. If anyone feel this is an issue, please try to demonstrate community consensus preferably through an RFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No discussion? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If the listed number of Han people in a country can be attributable to a source that is already cited, of course no tag would be needed. Otherwise, proper sources should be provided before the tag can be removed per WP:V. Lysimachi (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems you are the only one who think so. This is a fairly well known fact that ethnic Chinese in other countries are of Han Chinese descent. Stop reverting and try to get consensus. You don't have consensus for your edits. If you revert one more, you will be reported for edit warring. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lysimachi: You are edit warring now. You have concerns - discuss here first before editing the article again. Dead links are not supposed to be removed as someone can find an archive version. I'm warning you not to edit war again. You will be blocked for a longer time if you do it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Take the country Japan for example, the source for 655,377 says very clearly the number is the number of residents with the Chinese nationality (国籍) instead of the ethnicity of Han. Lysimachi (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Lysimachi Most overseas Chinese are overwhelmingly Han Chinese. We generally tend to use the population like that. If you have concerns, you can start an RFC on your own. Stop reverting. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Lysimachi You edits are removing dead links. They are not supposed to be removed. You can replace them by an archived version. You edits are also changing the lead. If you want change, persuade other editors that you changes are right. There are 2 editors here who think your changes are not justified. You want change, get consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). Also see WP:BRD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
So you yourself admit that there is no source for 655,377 Hans in Japan. Lysimachi (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - For the {{citation needed}} tags in the Infobox, these seem to all relate to a concern that the current sourcing specifies only Chinese, not Han. Could we resolve this with a brief footnote stating that? Something like "Count of all Chinese, including Han"? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
1. It's not just about reference to Han. Some citations are dead links. 2. If it's the count of Chinese, it should be listed on the Article on Chinese people. 3. They do not include all Han people. Many Chinese are Han, but not all Hans are Chinese. Most references are sorted by countries of origin instead of ethnicities and no reference mentions the Han ethnicity. Lysimachi (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lysimachi: Consensus is against you here. WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Continue edit warring and you are moving yourself closer to an indefinite block. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Which consensus tell you there are "15,722" Han people in Finland? Lysimachi (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh? That makes no sense. Do you even understand English? If you have a language problem I suggest you edit on your native language Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on unsourced numbers of Han people

The consensus is to remove all the unsourced numbers of Han people. This RfC does not discuss the sourced numbers of Han people. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some numbers of Han people are unsourced, even after being tagged for citation needed for over a month. Examples are, as in this version, "15,722" in Finland, "ca 40,000" in Cuba, "144,928" in the Netherlands and "197,214" in Spain. Should we Keep them or Remove them? Please indicate which one you prefer. Lysimachi (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Choice

  • Remove Per policy Wikipedia:No original research, "'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Even after the numbers have been tagged for a long time, no one has provided any source for them, which are clearly original research. If they are not removed, anyone could just add numbers they made up. Lysimachi (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove Yet another case of the wrong-minded lenience shown by Wikipedia editors, and especially administrators, towards unsupported or poorly sourced information. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove I guess this half of your RfC is about numbers without any source / numbers that aren't backed up by their source (for example, I couldn't find the 114,240 number on the World Factbook's Cuba page)? Those absolutely have to go until someone can find a source. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • KeepI think add citation needed tags to the numbers which have no tag to start the clock.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC) If tagged numbers have not been sourced after 12 months, then delete the #s.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove Anything that has been questioned needs a citation. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove The figures are too specific to be without a source, and if there is none, they should go. JamesBay (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove – (Somehow I had missed this section.) In the spirit of WP:BURDEN, it's the editor who wants to add or keep content who should have to prove that something belongs in the article. And per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, any figure that has the potential of being contested (as it is now) should be referenced or otherwise removed. Madalibi (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove; this doesn't need an RfC. Simply remove what's unreferenced. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove: Policy is pretty incontrovertible, despite patchy application across Wikipedia, that all details must be verifiable by reference to a published source. In the case of explicit figures being cited, the need for a reference is pretty unambiguous. If the figures weren't invented, they must have originated from somewhere, so either cite that source or accept deletion. (Invited by Legobot as an disinterested observer.) Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove - From the OP, it's obvious that these numbers aren't counting "Han people" in other countries, but "people from China" in other countries. Few countries make the distinction between Han and non-Han Chinese, and therefore these numbers are incorrect and misleading in addition to being unsourced. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on inclusion of numbers of Chinese people

REMOVE
Remove per WP:OR. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some numbers of Han people are actually those of Chinese people, where there is no reference to Han in the source and where non-Han Chinese are included. An example is "655,377" in Japan. There are three possible solutions:

Keep
Remove
Move to Chinese people

Please indicate which one you prefer. Lysimachi (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Choice

  • Move to Chinese people Most sources only mention Chinese, but not Han. Many sources, where the links still work, clearly say that the numbers listed are the numbers of Chinese people by citizenship/country of origin, for example Japan ("国籍") and Italy ("Paesi di cittadinanza"). These numbers therefore should be removed from this page and may be moved to the separate page of Chinese people. Note that not all Chinese are Han (Manchus, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Zhuang, etc.; see also another post on this talk page saying that most of the Chinese people in South Korea are not Han, but Korean Chinese), and people from other countries with sizable Han populations (Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc.) generally have their own categories separate from "Chinese". To equate the numbers of Chinese from those sources with the numbers of Han are questionable per WP:V.Lysimachi (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The term "ethnic Chinese" which is used is most countries is used for "Han Chinese". I have never heard of a Tibetan being referred to as "ethnic Chinese". That's why these stats are informative. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove Unsupported information is equivalent to editors' own research or personal opinion and must be removed. Whether or not the article for "Chinese people" must be amended is a different issue that should be discussed on the article's Talk Page. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove The overseas Chinese population includes about five million people from non-Han ethnic groups. If our sources are lumping Han Chinese in with other Chinese ethnic groups, then we shouldn't point to them and say "here, this is the number of Han Chinese in country X". -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove The exact same numbers already appear in Overseas Chinese. This is where they belong, as our sources do not distinguish between "Chinese" and "Han Chinese". Madalibi (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep but note that they are all Chinese and not just Han. If the above IP user's stat has the backing of a reliable source, it would be good to put that in a footnote, and possibly factor into the total population statistic. Due to the sheer bulk of countries that do not count Han separately from Chinese in published statistics, as well as the need for accuracy and the fact that 92% of Chinese are Han, it's safe to use these statistics. Just add a disclaimer indicating that, presumably, about eight percent of these Chinese are not Han. I suppose including 92% of the statistics would work too (multiplication by 0.92), but to be honest, I think that's unnecessary. Nuke (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
But how do we know the Chinese immigrants in every country are also 92% Han? Is it some kind of original research?
How do we know there are no Han people from countries other than China? Lysimachi (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This would be, as they say, "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The distribution of non-Han overseas Chinese is not going to be perfectly even around the globe. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no evidence for a constant proportion of Han in Chinese. Lysimachi (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Bit late on the response here, but our own Overseas Chinese article provides sources for recent estimates of 3.4 million non-Han overseas Chinese (2004), 5.7 million (2001 and 2010), and 1/10 of all overseas Chinese (2006 and 2011), so that's where I pulled "about five million" from. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep (with footnote) per NuclearWizard and add the note. This is informative and encyclopaedic. In addition
  1. This is similar to the stats at Vietnamese people and Slavs. Note that the article about "Vietnamese people" is specifically about the "Kinh people", who are generally what we refer to as "Vietnamese". The stats however do not differentiate between "Kinh people" and other ethnic minorities in Vietnam (Because these are literally the only stats available). We still keep these stats as it is informative. Similarly, the English term "ethnic Chinese" is usually interchangeably used with "Han Chinese". The solution here is to use the stats and mention it in the footnotes.
  2. The terms "ethnic Chinese" and "Han Chinese" are often used as synonyms. In fact, in certain countries like Singapore and Malaysia, the term Chinese Singaporean/Chinese Malaysian is only used for "ethnic Chinese" (subgroups) regardless of nationality. A Tibetan/Uyghur (even if they previously held a Mainland Chinese passport) for example, would be classified as "Other" (and NOT Chinese) according to the CMIO model in Singapore.
  3. The Taiwan Yearbook clearly says 95% of the population is Han Chinese.
I think keeping the stats along with the footnote is a better solution here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
By specifically notifying NuclearWizard based on his previous edits, Lemongirl942 seems to have violated WP:Canvassing. "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate." WP:VOTESTACK: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ..., and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Lysimachi (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. The Vietnamese people and the Kinh people are synonyms and the same article. Chinese people and Han people are two different articles and concepts.
  2. There are ~30 countries listed. How could the two countries speak for the others? In addition, is there any evidence for Malaysia and Singapore, "Chinese" includes all and includes only Han people? Lysimachi (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh please. 3 editors were involved in these exact edits and ideally everyone should have been informed about the RFC. This is not canvassing per WP:APPNOTE. Yes, I agree that Vietnamese people and Kinh people are used as synonyms (just like Han Chinese and Han people) ) as well as Ethnic Chinese and Han Chinese . Which is why it is perfectly fine to use stats for "Ethnic Chinese" in "Han Chinese" right? I'm glad you agree. What I am opposing here is a blanket removal of all population stats. Also Taiwan says "95% of its population is "Han Chinese". None of these are grounds for a blanket removal. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Which of the sources of those numbers cited in the info box say their "Chinese" refers to only Han and all the Han people in that country? For sources that do not say so, it is original research to make such assumption. Lysimachi (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Quoting this The country with the largest Han population outside China was Indonesia, with about 7.5 million Chinese. The country with the highest Han proportion was Singapore, where in an estimated 2005 total population of 4.27 million, 2.68 million (62.8 percent) were Han. In 2007 Hong Kong and Macao had combined total populations of about 7.5 million people, overwhelmingly Han Chinese in both places. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have already voted for "remove" above. Here's a stronger reason why I think these numbers should go. Like all ethnic categories (including Caucasian, Hispanic, African-American, etc.), "Han Chinese" is a fluid construct that is mostly stabilized by population censuses and claims of self-identification ("I consider myself Han Chinese"). Beyond the few countries in which "Han Chinese" is an official census category — as in China, where "Han" appears on people's ID card — there are simply **no inherent criteria** (linguistic, genetic, cultural, etc.) by which someone may be called "Han Chinese". In other words (and in the absence of reliable sources), we have no justification for saying that 92% of people of Chinese origin in all countries in the world **are objectively Han Chinese** as the numbers imply. Yes, China classifies 92% of its population as "Han Chinese", but this fact does not turn "Han Chinese" into an objective label that we (WP editors) can project on all people "of Chinese origin" throughout the world as if it were self-evident. Madalibi (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree. -The Gnome (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove or Keep with footnote Alerted here by the RfC bot. This article clearly distinguishes between the general term "Chinese" and the more specific ethnic term "Han." Of the cited sources in the table that I looked at, none use the term "Han" in specifying the Chinese population; they only state "Chinese" or "China." The title of the table (and the article itself) is "Han Chinese." Therefore, the table in its present form is misleading, because many if not all of its numbers are simply for "Chinese," not "Han," and "Han Chinese" is the subject of this article. A footnote of some kind could perhaps explain the issue, but that leaves open the question of why to include the table at all, since it does not give statistics that support the specific meaning of the article. DonFB (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove or footnote per DonFB. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Just to note that "remove or [keep with] footnote" is just restating the original choice: it's not a solution. :) Madalibi (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove Whenever there is no reference as a source of what is presentred as fact. Moving unreferenced assertions from one page to another is just shuffling a problem. (Invited to comment by Legobot as a disinterested observer.) Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove or move - Per my response to the other RfC. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove per The Gnome and Peterstrempel. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 10:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the footnote is a good compromise, we would basically be saying "our sources don't actually support our extremely specific numbers" and then tucking that away where the reader might never see it. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - another way I'm thinking of a slightly different solution here which might be able to accomodate everyone. It would be helpful to add a section about population where we mention the fact that "Han" and "Chinese" are sometimes used interchangeably in other countries. As for the stats, we only keep the numbers for which we have cited information that they are "Han Chinese" - for example the Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese stats. For others, we move it to Chinese people and I think a "See also" link to the stats at Chinese people might suffice. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on languages

While there is a majority favoring the "A" proposal, an unimpeachable consensus is not evident, particularly after reading some of the more nuanced explanations and reservations offered in the "A" !votes.
At the present time, the status quo should be maintained for lack of consensus to amend. The status quo, prior to the conditions emerging which caused this RfC to become necessary, was identical to the "B" proposal. However, because this was a close decision, it would be appropriate to re-open this RfC as soon as 60 days from now in hope of achieving a solid consensus one way or the other. LavaBaron (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a dispute over the languages used by Han Chinese. I want the community to decide. We have 2 options here.

A:native: Mandarin, Yue, Wu, Hunanese, Hakka, Minnan, Mindong, Gan
others: English, Malay, Thai, Castilian, Japanese, and other local languages.
B Chinese languages

Please indicate which one you prefer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Choice

  • B This was the long term stable version before one particular editor decided to start POV pushing long term on this article. Chinese languages actually encompasses all the varieties of Chinese and reflects the language associated with Han Chinese. I don't see why we need to mention local languages like Castilian, Malay etc. I mean, every ethnic group going to a different country is bound to use the local language. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A minus The expanded list of languages is more informative to the reader, and more aligned to the instructions at {{Infobox ethnic group}} (List of languages spoken by group.), but I share the concern about languages spoken only in the diaspora, and would exclude those. This would leave the list of native languages only. Inclusion of an expanded list also aligns with other articles on multilinguistic ethnic groups (e.g. Swiss people, Scottish people, Canadian people). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A minus essentially per Ryk72, but I also understand Lemongirl's concern below. Surely there is a way to address this concern under option A, though; for instance, you could list the most common languages (perhaps with a minimum population cutoff) and also add "other chinese languages" or some such. Vanamonde (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • B Apart from consistency with other articles, I see no reason at all to include diaspora languages, and it's my understanding that the Hakka language is spoken by the Hakka people, who are not ethnically Han Chinese. Putting "Chinese languages" in the languages section of the infobox for "Han Chinese" does seem kind of "well, duh", but I would counter that having a link to the Chinese languages article is much more useful to the reader than links to each individual language. Maybe we could try listing the languages but pointing them collectively to the Chinese languages article? I read through {{Infobox ethnic group}} and its associated talk, and the only instructions I found were the single line quoted by Ryk72 above: "List of languages spoken by group." There was a rather incivil kerfuffle at Talk:Maltese_people#Language_section_of_infobox back in 2008 about a related issue (second languages), which seems not to have reached consensus, but today the template at Maltese people appears to be listing second languages understood by more than half the population. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A minus 'others' Summoned by bot, and knowing nothing about the subject apart from what I've read today. 'Chinese languages' seems vague, however there needs to be a number of 'cut-offs'. Languages of the diaspora, languages of relatively recent migrants into 'Chinese areas' and International languages (inc. English), are NOT Han languages and should not be included. Native languages spoken by a significant percentage should. From linked articles, it appears that part of the problem is that there is some debate about what are 'languages' and what are simply 'dialects'. 'and other Chinese languages', might help clarify. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A because it's more informative. Others can be taken out. Lysimachi (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • B to avoid the rabbit hole, but with one reservation. See below. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A minus per the above. Every writing system that exists (with native speakers) is used to some minor extent by individuals and groups thereof to encode other languages (en.WP itself does this every time we transliterate: "kung fu (/ˈkʊŋ ˈfuː/; Chinese: 功夫; pinyin: gōng fu)" – neither "kung fu" nor "gōng fu" are really Chinese, they're adaptations of Chinese to Latin alphabet characters, at varying degrees of anglicized imprecision. We would not on this basis say that the English alphabet is, encyclopedically speaking, used to write Chinese. What we care about at Han Chinese encyclopedically is native language use, and perhaps some neighboring non-Chinese languages for which Han Chinese writing has been widely adopted, not just by Chinese immigrants struggling with language contact, but by native speakers of that other language, due to Chinese cultural dominance in the area. That surely is not Spanish or English (the people I know from Hong Kong are bilingual, fully, and use the English alphabet to write English). Nor is it Japanese (Japanese kanji and kana, like Korean writing, evolved from Chinese but is hardly identical to it). Malay and Thai I'm also skeptical about, but I have no expertise in that area, nor any sources at hand about how widespread the use of the Chinese writing system is for them. Our own articles suggest Thai is conventionally only written in its own writing system, and Malay in three (formerly six), none of them Han.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wider discussion

  • The only reason why I prefer using Chinese languages instead of the individual ones is because I don't want to go down the rabbit hole. There are multiple varieties of Chinese and deciding which ones to keep in the infobox is another problem. So I think using a single umbrella term is easier. An analogy would be like using Slavic languages in the infobox about Slavs. Ping Ryk72. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this reasoning. If there has to be a rabbit hole, let's go down in it one place: the Chinese Languages article. As for having more detailed information in this article (saving readers a click), that extra information isn't a service if it's of disputed quality.
However, I have a reservation I can't resolve because of insufficient knowledge of the language group. I notice the (A) list consists of the traditional 7 groupings, with one exception: In place of Min, it lists two subgroups of it, Mindong and Minnan. Is there some factual significance to this difference? Does this make (A) more informative? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I had just copied the version added by another editor. I doubt there is some factual significance as Mindong and Minnan are both considered sub-varieties of Min Chinese. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't concur that a list of 6 or 7, which is overwhelmingly likely to remain static, is a rabbit hole. If this were 20 or more, and in flux, then I might agree; but it is not. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is which classification to use. Traditionally the languages were classified into 7 groups. But newer classifications have emerged. See List of varieties of Chinese. Another problem is the status of language vs dialects. I personally prefer an umbrella term which links to an article explaining the varieties of Chinese. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Chinese people" as a redirect

As it stands, the latest draft of the Chinese people article is a subpar mishmash of various content from articles like this page, Chinese nationality law, list of ethnic groups in China. Basically "Chinese" is synonymous with "Han" in plain language, although in reality the relationship between the two is a lot more nuanced. It would probably cause quite a bit of WP:ASTONISHment for some to happen across the page about "Chinese people" in its current state, considering that it's been designated a high importance article in two wikiprojects.––Prisencolin (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing citation

The information "There are over 22 million Han Chinese in Taiwan" is not cited and where is the proof the Han Chinese migrated from southern coastal china to Taiwan in the 17th century––Keleka11 (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Han Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

To that IP who keep on giving unreliable source and content

please read these:

and this:

In the process of the Mongols invasion of China proper, many Han Chinese were enslaved by the Mongols rulers.[1] According to Japanese historian Sugiyama Masaaki (杉山正明) and Funada Yoshiyuki (舩田善之), there were also certain number of Mongolian slaves owned by Han Chinese during Yuan. Moreover, there is no evidence that Han Chinese, who were considered people of the bottom of Yuan society by some research, were suffered a particularly cruel abuse.[2][3]

Also the source you had added to the page several times has nothing to do with "primae noctis in Yuan dynasty": [4]. It would be great if you can stop vandalising this page.

--No1lovesu (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

From Northern Zhou to Tang,Han chinese was ruled by Xianbei(鲜卑)

Xianbei soldiers((八柱国關隴集團) only merried only their relatives. Emperor Wen of Sui (隋文帝)had a Xianbei name's(金剛那羅延),when he was a child.Also,Emperor Gaozu of Tang Li Yuan was Xianbei ethnicity.He and Western Wei general Dugu Xin (獨孤信), who was of Xianbei ethnicity are close relatives.ethnicity.[4][5][6]49.254.221.90 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you are so bad in English, read this: 維基百科:可靠來源. Also your sources have nothing to do with "Han Chinese were Xianbei's slaves".--No1lovesu (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Rodriguez, Junius P. The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery. ABC-CLIO. p. 146. ISBN 9780874368857. Retrieved 20 March 2017.
  2. ^ Sugiyama Masaaki(杉山正明), "忽必烈的挑战 (Large turn of world history by the challenge of Mongolia Kublai Khan)", 社会科学文献出版社, 2013, p44-46
  3. ^ Funada Yoshiyuki, "The Image of the Semu People: Mongols, Chinese, Southerners, and Various Other Peoples under the Mongol Empire", Historical and Philological Studies of China's Western Regions, p199-221, 2014(04)
  4. ^ https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=1361220
  5. ^ https://kknews.cc/history/malmep9.html
  6. ^ www.wontackhong.com/homepage1/data/1090.doc |Sui and Tang Successors to the Xianbei Conquest Dynasties

Requested move 17 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No clear consensus for a move - I think we should clear it up first that even though the nominator is correct with his logic, there needs to be substantial coverage to prove a COMMONNAME, whatever the RL situation cannot be the rationale for a page move even if the move is a step in the right direction. Also, I believe that some of the discourse here has raised questions on naming ethnic groups' articles and a discussion in that field is the way to go forward. QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Han Chinese → Han people –
First, Han people is a ethnic group, although it account for a proportion of 92% of China's people, not all of it is "Chinese nationality", Han people is a ethnic group. There are also Han people of Japanese nationality, Han people of French nationality, Han people of U.S. nationality. So the correct usage is "Han people".
Second, we can refer to“Yamato people”,although “Yamato people” account for a proportion of 99% of Japan's people, we call it “Yamato people”,not “Yamato Japanese”.
MacArthur1945 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Han people is similar to Hän people people in Yukon/Alaska， so what? There are so many ethnic groups have the same name is English, but we cannot give a false name to "Han people" because of it. We can created a disambiguation page "Han people (disambiguation)" for the other meanings of Han people.--MacArthur1945 (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
What's a Han? Han is "the Chinese peoples especially as distinguished from non-Chinese (such as Mongolian) elements in the population," according to Merriam Webster.Oxford defines Han as "The dominant ethnic group in China."American Heritage says, "A member of the largest ethnic group of China, especially as distinguished from Manchus, Mongols, Huis, and other minority nationalities. Also called Chinese." Notice that all three of these dictionaries refer to "Han" and not to "Han Chinese." Great scott (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not an improvement. Khestwol (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Han doesn't mean "ethnic Chinese", no matter what popular English usage dictates. Such an expression simply doesn't exist in Chinese. The expression "Han American" is uncommon because Americans don't know about ethnic groups in China. You can't compare different countries because every case is unique. Moreover, "the way Wikipedia does it" is a weak argument. You are mostly arguing about form, but you are avoiding the matter itself owing to the lack of historical background knowledge. By the way, Hakka people are Han too. The motive behind this request can be interpreted as political. By eliminating the word "Chinese", you further the non-existence of China as an entity. This is not an exaggeration since it's something certain people want. --Explosivo (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Explosivo:Wowowow......You do see that we are mostly Chinese people here right? This is a very broad accusation you just made. I gave up man, This is getting weird. Have you not see Macarthur1945's userpage? How could he have any "political" stuff. If no body says that he wants to eliminate China, then according to his word, we say that we do not know if he wants to do it or not. Your accusation is hardly related to the current topic.----損齋 (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Actually sometimes that Han as ethnic group but for a long history it represents Chinese. And the name comes from the Han Dynasty, just like the Americans now, as it has the name Chinese now. So would Africans American just call the African? I don't think so. Because throughout history, the African Americans might have been very different from the Africans that are still residing Africa. That's why I think it's important that having a suffix Chinese for Han people. Devil-lightening(talk)
  • Oppose. The common name is Han Chinese and there seems no challenge to that, just suggestions that we should correct the English language. Using Wikipedia for this purpose is simply and clearly forbidden. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Han Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Han Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Can Should I assume that "Chinese" means "Han Chinese" in this case and others like it?

Can Should I assume that "Chinese" means "Han Chinese" when referring to genetics or anthropometry, unless it is stated in the study, diagram, chart, etc. that "Chinese" does not just mean "Han Chinese"? For example, should this stacked bar chart about the genetics of the "Chinese" reference population go in this Wikipedia article or the Chinese people Wikipedia article?--Ephert (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC); edited 07:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Promotional language


I'm quite sure this is not adequate wiki style language ... in some parts appears to be rather promotional. Like here:

The Han Chinese are bound together with a common genetic stock and a shared history inhabiting an ancient ancestral territory spanning more than four thousand years, deeply rooted with many different cultural traditions and customs.

I mean, this is just like from a tourist flyer. Even if its kind of facts: Isn't this short of being propagangda language ??

ps. It gets clearer if you read chapter "Contributions to humanity" ... multiple rocket launchers -- wtf ?!? 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:89:2C63:1848:227:10FF:FE26:D460 (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree, but good luck getting any kind of neutrality past the online Chinese army210.168.225.179 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Nobel Prizes

There seems to be a block on completing the list of Chinese Nobel Prize winners, which seems a glaring omission considering the self congratulating nature of the rest of the passage on international recognition and scientific prize winners.

Any possible solutions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.120.231.132 (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede and citations

I'm not very happy with the current cn tags in the lede. The way they've been formatted leaves rectangular fragments and just looks a mess considering that they're effectively arguing against "the sky is blue" on the basis that the sources don't explicitly state Han when referencing people of Chinese ethnicity in those locations. Also requiring a CN on Han Chinese being the predominant ethnicity in Hong Kong? Again, the sky is blue, and this is the lede; I would honestly prefer it not to be over-burdened with unnecessary citations. I don't want to edit war with the IP editor (I checked and the two IPs appear to be the same editor) who keeps restoring this, so I thought it best to open it to discussion here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor never commented. Another removed the superfluous cn tag from Singapore and I put in some census data for the Hong Kong statement; though again, I think it's like asking for a citation that the sky is blue. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong, Macau and other countries

One can do a simple Google or Yahoo! search to find out the reason why the sky is blue. But that's apparently not the case for the ethnic background of the "Chinese people" in Hong Kong or Macau. It's self-declared. And no such data on the breakdown of different Chinese peoples have ever been collected. That's also the case for many other countries - in censuses only "Chinese" exists as an option. No breakdown. Do not OR whern there's simply no such information. 219.73.72.185 14:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputes

Were some people in Vietnam considered Han due to Han ancestry?

Also is Pham Tu (476-547) considered what? His father was Jie ethnic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:B8C7:377A:E43E:A343 (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Koreans of Han Chinese descent extent

@Nkon21: Just a query to try and achieve WP:CONS. If the article shows that the average Korean studied has very little genealogical difference or "is almost distinct" from the average 'southern' Han Chinese, then wouldn't it be more appropriate to suggest that larger numbers of Koreans are of 'southern' Han Chinese descent? Just saying "large numbers" probably isn't specific enough, as some people may view the existing 200-odd thousand Koreans officially acknowledged as Han Chinese descent as "large numbers", when research shows that it is probably "larger numbers". Important difference ThanksKip1234 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. However, statements that possess a passive tone such as "but most Koreans are probably" are best to be avoided. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

In the romanisation section, the Wade-Gales version should be 'Han4-tsu2', rather that 'Han-tzu' - in order to be in line with the rules of Wade-Gales. Charlesjerom (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute

@七战功成: Apparently you didn't know but the Taiwanese count anyone with even a small percentage of Han ancestry as Han, I admit its a peculiar quirk but I thought it was one everyone was aware of (similar to how in the United States just a small amount of African heritage makes one Black). 85% of the population is on mixed Han and indigenous descent, that leaves small proportions that are just Han, just indigenous, or some other ethnic group.[1] You are also edit warring to restore the edit of a indefinitely banned user, were you aware of that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cheung, Han. "Book Review: Charting Taiwan's future through its past". www.taipeitimes.com. Taipei Times. Retrieved 15 July 2020.

Indonesian Chinese

The official figure for Indonesian Chinese is only 2.8 million. Why do people use unsubstantiated figures?

The unsubstantiated figures for other countries would be also higher and it will all be a mess.

This wikipedia Indonesian Chinese figure has been changed many times in the past. Please follow official figure from Indonesian government which is 2.8 million.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1i7FrGLh14 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberxwiki (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit protected

To add {{Failed verification}} after the refs for Hong Kong. The referenced materials only referred to Chinese, without specifically referring to any ethnic groups. 219.76.24.207 (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.

Would {{better source needed}} be an alternative choice? 219.76.24.202 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Found a better source but still does not specify Han Chinese. I've put {{better source needed}}. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It's very unlikely that there would be any. This isn't asked in the censuses taken in Hong Kong, Macau, or Singapore (or Christmas Island). The same is true for all overseas Chinese communities. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC) IP hopping sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew hk (talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC) 219.76.24.198 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Thanks. Would it be OR to simply assert so on Wikipedia? There's practically no source which would suggests so, given the very fact that no such data is collected in censuses and there is no survey on this. 219.76.24.198 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Total population

@Karl Krafft, in this edit, you reverted an IP who changed the number for total population from 1.4 billion to 1.3 billion. Upon checking the source that is cited for this figure, I discovered that it also states the number to be 1.3 billion. However, this would be in conflict with the "Regions with significant populations" column, in which the PRC alone contains over 1.3 billion Han people. Does anyone know what to do in this situation? INDT (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The source for the number in the PRC (CIA World Factbook) shows a different number too, with the number of Han Chinese people being 91.6% of a total population of 1,397,897,720, not 1,433,783,686 as stated in the article (or, to quote it exactly, "1,433,783,686 billion"). INDT (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The 1.3 billion figure figure seems to be outdated (2014). There were 1.29 billion in China proper as of 2021 [5]. 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Singaporean Chinese

A lot of the times, people are confused between the words citizens and residents. The residents in Singapore shouldn't be counted because they are citizens of other countries especially Malaysia and China. If they are counted , you are artificially double counting in their home country and Singapore.

Singapore Chinese citizens is around 75.9 or 76% of the total citizens as of 2020 census.

Cyberxwiki (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there any statistics on how many of them are Han (or belong to one of the sociolinguistic (sub)groups of Han)? 219.76.24.207 (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Any breakdown figures on how many would be non-Han within the "Others" grouping under the table titled "Population Profile of Singaporean Chinese Subgroups"? 219.76.24.213 (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Singaporeans are citizenships/ nationalities, but Han Chinese is a ethnic group which does not belong to certain nation. There are many Chinese immigrants in Singapore indeed, but the population of citizenship alone shows over 75% local people with Chinese decent, which is already excluded the immigrants. 123.192.182.76 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Against the disruptive editing made above by 123.192.182.76 (LVTW) in the last month changing it like 20 times without consensus being formed. Before consensus is reached the table should be kept at the October 29 form before 123.192.182.76 (LVTW) made disruptive changes. Taekhosong (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, let me stress again the reason why singporean Chinese is not region with significant population is that it is NOT a region with Han Chinese significant in BOTH number and percentage. The only two regions meeting the above criteria are PRC and ROC. That’s why the page has been like this way long before you started this edit. Thanks. Taekhosong (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I would just bring my first response over here again... Han Chinese, as a ethnic group, the race, the ethnicity, not nationality as "Chinese people", which does not restrict to certain nationalities or defined by the politics, if you refer it to certain region or specific nationality then there is already an article called "Chinese People". The context also mentioned that Singapore has a majority (over 75 %) of ethnic Chinese group[6][7][8] along with the other two, also the main article of Singapore indicates the information clearly, and the title indicates the definition clearly as "Regions with significant population". Worth to note, I never regard Singapore as a "Chinese nation", but itself indeed is a nation with ethnic Chinese/ Han Chinese forming the majority of population, which is pure fact; This is your own problem keeping on confusion between the concept of ethnicity (Han Chinese) and nationality (Chinese people). I recommend you to do some reserch for the concepts between 中国人,华人, and 汉人. Similar to the case you gave by "Koreans", they also have a concept in distinguish by " Joseonjok" and "Hanminjok", or the concept between Yamato people (ethnicity) and Japanese people (nationality). Again, please build consensus in talk page before any further reversion, thank you.LVTW2 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You keep bringing up I go by “regions”, and I this is how listing the distribution of a certain ethnic group works — for every ethnic group you list the population where you can find it in each country/region, which has nothing to do with nationality to begin with, it is you who confuse them and this is not a problem with me and the rest of the editors. Let me stress my point for the last time, region with significant population means two things: high in both quantity and percentage. In Singapore Han Chinese people have a majority but in quantity it falls behind many other countries, so it is not a region with significant number of Han Chinese. By your reasoning, any foreign Chinatown would have majority Han Chinese population, and should we count them too in the first panel? Not to mention not all Singaporean Chinese are Han. Taekhosong (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your logic is funny and laughable. Are Chinatowns forming their own countries? The regions in this sense mean the individual political unit or at least a dependent territories such as Hong kong or Macau... when the heck is San Francisco Chinatown or London Chinatown being counted individually in any statics? Singapore is a sovereign city state, of course it is certain to be included as individual entry of its own. Otherwise the quantity of American Jews are more numbers than total population of Israel but how come it's not counted as "majority" or as "significant population" in the US? I doubt you really know what "majority" means? According to Collins English dictionary[9], the majority of people or things in a group is more than half of them, relative percentage among a region, not about what you said to be the total numbers or quantity. You should go back to school for redoing your math, or check a good English dictionary for the definition of "majority". LVTW2 (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The word is “significant”, not majority. I get it, you just want to show Taiwan and Singapore are no different in Han Chinese population but they aren’t. Taiwan is part of the greater China homeland whereas Singapore is a foreign land where the Han immigrant happens to be majority Taekhosong (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Guys, this article needs a big shuffle. First of all, this article is about a particular ethnic group called Han Chinese (汉人), not about nationalities, so no politics should get involved. Secondly, this article should align with other similar articles that focus on a particular ethnic group, see Punjabis as an example. The so-called "Overseas Chinese" section should be removed and all countries and territories should be placed under "Regions with significant populations" with their figures ranked purely by number, not percentage of total population. Finally, I would like to point out the fact that even though a lot of those overseas Chinese residing outside Greater China are believed to be Han Chinese, their exact number is unknown. Therefore, other than mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, figures for all other countries need a disclaimer attached informing the reader that these figures are approximates only. 14.203.165.238 (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Therefore, other than mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, figures for all other countries need a disclaimer attached informing the reader that these figures are approximates only. Hong Kong got no statistics on how many people are Hans, how many are Tibetans, how many are Manchus, etc. So the number of Hans among its population is unknown. The same is the case for Macau and Singapore. 210.3.171.98 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
And Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Sub-Saharan Africa. 210.5.183.142 (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Just a note that Taiwan is not part of the "greater China homeland" but is also a foreign land where the Han immigrants happens to be majority. Ask the aboriginal Taiwanese about that one. What you're arguing here is a PRC talking point which is incredibly racist, please in the future stick to facts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the Singapore gahmen ask the Chinese people in the censuses whether they are Hans, Tibetans, Hlais, Bouxcuenghs, Hmongs, Uyghurs, Manchus, etc.? From what's verifiable only the languages spoken are asked.​ 219.76.24.213 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

France

Is there a reason why the Han population of France is not given? It's generally considered to be Europe's largest. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:316F:B23D:69E:485D (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Past/Modern Chinese Phrasing

"Within the course of the Warring States period led to the emergence of the early discernible consciousness of the Zhou-era Chinese referring to themselves as being Huaxia (literally, "the beautiful grandeur"), which was distinctively used to adumbrate a "civilized" culture in contrast to what were perceived as "barbaric" towards the adjacent and adjoining vicinities bordering the Zhou Kingdoms that were inhabited by different non-Han Chinese peoples around them."

The issue here is that we all view these people as Chinese now, because they live in the nation of China. However, during this time period (as inferred by the article and what little knowledge I have about it from elsewhere) this country mostly contained Han/Huaxian/Hua Ren people, with minor exceptions (as most countries have when they have limited immigrant populations). This ethnic-nation viewed the other nations (ethnic-based or diverse) around them as being barbaric. From the description here it sounds like we're considering this country to be the basis of ancient China, with all the other countries around them that eventually became modern China to be..."kind of ancient China, but not really, because they hadn't merged with the Huaxia nation yet". Thus, we have the relatively normal-but-weird-when-you-think-about-it-phrasing, "ancient non-Han Chinese people." What I'm trying to say is that China doesn't exist yet, because it's called Huaxia...and also several other nations that surrounded them and several others that surrounded those. We're acknowledging the Hua Ren people here as more Chinese than the others which eventually merged/colonized them (depending on the history, which I currently do not know of well) while still recognizing all of the other nations as Chinese. But China doesn't exist yet.

Would it be alright to re-phase this (and the surrounding text) in a way where we acknowledge that they're all Chinese now, but in the past they were not considered to be Chinese, and they didn't acknowledge them to be Huaxin, but in a different way than what's been written? These are completely different cultures and ethnic groups at this point in time, and while their bias is worth remarking upon, it's also important to distinguish that these people aren't really Chinese yet and thus it makes sense that they would see these other countries as non-Chinese. It's no different than the United States with Canada and Mexico or the UK with Ireland, Germany, France, Norway, etc. Just because they're nearby doesn't make them the same people, and perhaps one day the United States will take over Canada and Mexico or the E.U will become one nation and bring Great Britain back. It makes perfect sense for us in our time to view these people as not a part of our country when they are not currently, in our point of time. Also, I don't know how to re-word this, perhaps as evident by my long descriptions trying to describe it. That's part of why I'm asking you. Wacape (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be tripped up with the specific label rather than what underlying phenomenon the label is assigned to. None of these groups considered themselves to be "China", because "China" is an English form of a word of slightly contested origin, but ultimately an exonym. The specific label doesn't matter because there's no break in continuity. The Huaxia people didn't take a year-long break from having a society, and then come back as Han Chinese in the 100s BC. "Huaxia" is generally considered to be contiguous with "Han Chinese" for our purposes, which are limited—these are incomplete models that intentionally pick and choose details for the purpose of coherent historiography, that meanwhile don't create new inaccuracies. The reason we make a distinction is partly due to which specific terms people thought of themselves in, but also because it would be unacceptable anachronistic to just use "Han" the whole time, or even more unacceptable to start calling Han "Huaxia" now, even though they call themselves "Han".
The further back you go, the more societies and cultures have evolved (of course, the degree to which you can differentiate and identify distinct societies and cultures at all must always be kept in mind, per above), and the more you have to clearly identify what the core connective throughline is in order to consider one of these categories to be coherent.
Also, you may be conflating past and present categories of ethnicity and nationality. I hope that makes sense. Remsense留 04:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
@Remsense Yeah I agree, so like if we use Anglo-Saxons becoming English people as an example, the change (distinction) occurred because of the Norman invasion led by William the Conquer in 1066 and the subsequent mixing of Normans and Anglo-Saxon peoples (at least I think that's why) and they formed a new identity which is also an ethnicity known as the English. But in terms of China and Han Chinese people I don't think major intermixing occurred so that most the population was intermixed with another ethnic group unlike the example I just said with the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans. Alexysun (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Wacape Pinging you too. Alexysun (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, In my thinking the reason why the Han Chinese didn't split off into different ethnic groups like in Europe was because the lack of an alphabet, so even though pronunciation became different with the different dialects, the characters were still the same so a common identity was still there, but in Europe, the words changed with the pronunciation changes so there was no longer a shared language. Am I wrong? Alexysun (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There's absolutely more complexity and reciprocity to it, but as far as I understand non-phonetic writing absolutely enabled shared institutions and bureaucracy of a kind phonetic writing couldn't in the premodern world.
With that said, I would be cautious of over-indexing how special the Chinese case is here, as every literary culture had something like this—it's just their official/literary languages (e.g. Latin, Sanskrit, Classical Arabic, Ottoman Turkish, Ancient Greek, Ge'ez...) didn't last as long as the 20th century in (most!) cases before being replaced with the vernacular. Remsense诉 21:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Using the term "China" or "Chinese" isn't predicated on an original Chinese nation's existence. The Japanese/Koreans and other peoples had their own terms to refer to Chinese people even while multiple states ruled territory in modern China. It's a category that for all intents and purposes fulfills the same function as "Huaxia" or any other arbitrary term. Taking this line of thinking to its ultimate conclusion would mean questioning things like whether or not Confucius was actually Chinese because he existed prior to a single Chinese nation state. I don't think this is useful or productive to continue thinking about. Qiushufang (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Han_Chinese/Archive_4&oldid=1250272607"