Talk:Han Chinese

DNA section biased

The text in the DNA analyis is misleading

"Despite this, tests comparing the genetic profiles of northern Han, southern Han and southern natives determined that haplogroups O1b-M110, O2a1-M88 and O3d-M7, which are prevalent in southern natives, were only observed in some southern Hans (4% on average), but not in northern Hans. "

This would imply the paternal contribution of southern natives is only 4% when this is far from the truth. Y-DNA O1 (all subclades) is very common in (and perhaps more associated with) Dai populations. It is also very common in southern Chinese. Y-DNA O-P201 is very common in southern natives and is very common in Guangdong. There are many subclades of Y-DNA O1, O2 and O3 shared by both Dai and Han alike.

References

Summary

Main article: List of political parties in China

The number of speakers derived from statistics or estimates (2019) and were rounded:

Number	People	Subgroups	Main Area	Population
1	Cantonese people	Taishanese people, Hongkongers, Macau people, Macanese people	Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Hong Kong, Macau	120,000,000
2	Hakka people	Ngái people	Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangxi, Guangxi, Sichuan, Hunan	120,000,000
3	Min people	Fuzhou people, Hoklo people, Hoklo Taiwanese, Putian people, Teochew people	Fujian, Hainan, Southern Zhejiang, Guangdong	115,000,000
4	Shandong people		Shandong Province	100,000,000
5	Sichuanese people		Sichuan Province, Chongqing Municipality	100,000,000
6	Wu people	Shanghainese people, Ningbonese people, Wenzhou people	Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Anhui, Jiangxi, Fujian	90,000,000
7	Hebei people		Hebei Province	75,000,000
8	Jianghuai people	Subei people	Jiangsu Province, Anhui Province	75,000,000
9	Gan people		Jiangxi, Eastern Hunan	60,000,000
10	Hunanese people		Hunan, Northeastern Guangxi	40,000,000
11	Taiwanese people		Taiwan, Southeast Asia	25,000,000
12	Tanka people	Fuzhou Tanka	Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian, Hainan	5,000,000
13	Hainan people		Hainan, Southeast Asia	5,000,000
14	Chuanqing people		Guizhou	700,000
15	Gaoshan people		Yunnan, Guizhou	400,000
16	Waxiang people		Hunan	400,000
17	Tunbao people		Guizhou, Anshun	300,000
18	Hui'an people		Quanzhou, Fujian, China	50,000

References

汉人

@Remsense You used the logic that we don't say English people, we just say English, but using that logic wouldn't we just say 汉 because 汉族translates to "Han ethnic group" and we don't say "English ethnic group" in English. So if you want to talk about it using English conventions then it would just be 汉 and you can be the judge of whether that makes sense or not. I mean I don't object to it just being 汉. Alexysun (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Oh and also you're wrong because it is called "English people" as the article title and the infobox title. Check the English people article. Alexysun (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, it doesn't say "The English people, also known as the English". Remsense诉 21:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Exactly, so that's why I put 汉人(means Han people) in the infobox. Now I get that there is a point that you don't translate to Chinese something that is only used in English, but the thing is that 汉人 is actually very commonly used in Chinese so that point is null. Alexysun (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's just not really lexically distinct. The fact we're including it as its own "variant" is just a bit misleading to an audience that doesn't speak any Chinese. There's this sense on Wikipedia where we have to list every single way sources inflect a given term if enough of them do it, and it's simply not that useful when we do that if the terms aren't actually different. Remsense诉 21:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, so it's two sets of two characters that mean the exact same thing. Your point seems to be that since they mean the exact same thing then pick one. I agree with that. And my argument now is that actually 汉人 might be more commonly used than 汉族 in Chinese and we should just replace 汉族 in the infobox with 汉人. Alexysun (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Okay nevermind, you're right because the Chinese article uses 汉族. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that saying 汉人 in Chinese is completely valid too, but in English referring to the English people as the English ethnic group sounds weird and thus is not mentioned like that. Alexysun (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Genetics

@MingScribe1368 and @AngelusVastator3456: I really do feel that the comparatively enormous sections about genetic profile and history is undue on what is meant to be a general article about a people group. If Genetic history of East Asians and related articles are not appropriate places for this content, I recommend investigating creating Genetic history of Han Chinese as its own article, or something like that. Remsense诉 20:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Southward migrations and demic diffusion are an important part of Han history. It explains the existence of subgroups and dialects. Neither the ethnogenesis of the Han and their history can be understood without it. I am reinstating the deleted sections, and I am open to attempts at further summarization. MingScribe1368 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree it's important, but I do not understand why it's given its own section, as opposed to being integrated into the existing history section Remsense诉 01:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This can be done, but until then, I suggest the material remains as it is without deletion. In the mean time, I have already condensed the sections. Furhter condensation and integration will have to wait, and hopefully will be attempted by others. But deletion is simply uncalled for, in my opinion. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis doesn't have anything to do with genetics... So how can the ethnogenesis of the Han not be understood without it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis nothing to do with genetics? Are you sure? MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis is a concept within anthropology and history, not biology. Ethnic groups are social constucts, they aren't biological or genetic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. How did you formulate that opinion? As an Osage, in the past a person could be adopted into the Osage Nation. A Pawnee slave or a European (British or American). He or she could be adopted into our tribe, which is an ethnic group in and of itself. Most tribes are considered to be ethnic groups. However, that person, having been adopted, would not have been ethnically Osage. S/he would be Osage, but not ethnically. The equivalent would be becoming a citizen of another country. If you're a white American and move to Zimbabwe and gain citizenship there, you can be a Zimbabwean. However, that in no way makes you ethnically Zimbabwean. You might marry an ethnic Zimbabwean and your children will then be connected to one of the local tribes. Your children will be African. You will be legally African (Zimbabwean) and socially so. You live in the place, so you are. You married into the culture and had children, so you are. But your genetics are your genetics. You were not born a Zimbabwean by blood so you cannot be that thing. Ethnic groups are social constructs in that they are cultures and countries tied together by blood. That's what an ethnic group means. A culture bound together by blood. Ethnically European doesn't apply to people from China moving to Europe, it applies to white Europeans and a few other subgroups that evolved their features and culture in those lands. Wacape (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever actually read anything written by someone who might know about ethnicity or ethnography? It is not at all clear from this reply, which borders on delirium, that you have. Remsense ‥ 论 13:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Why was the image removed from the infobox? Sgt.McHale (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES nope see below. Remsense诉 03:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That image was there since forever why now remove it? Sgt.McHale (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like what actually happened is the image got deleted on Commons. Remsense诉 03:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)