Talk:Han Chinese/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Qin Shi Huang was Han?

Didn't he exist before the concept of a united "Han" ethnic group (although there where the Han of the Han kingdom)? Was he not a Qin? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) There isn't a Qin ethnicity,recognized or non-recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.210.116 (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Though Emperor Qin was not of the Han dynasty, he was indeed of the Han ethnicity DY (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that Bruce Lee is only 3/4's Han his mother was Half German!, he shouldnt appear here at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.244.63.128 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

YDaniel7, to my knowledge the Han ethnicity is named after the Han dynasty, so Qin Shi Huang couldn't be a Han before the Han dynasty. Plus, weren't the Qin originally seen as non-Chinese? They probably had some sort of ethnic identification. To the IP, Bruce Lee was still Han, just not fully Han. Yes, he as a quarter German. Then he should also appear on the German page! Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

the qin were originally vassals to the chinese dynasty of zhou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian of the arab people (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

... Yes, exactly. So Qin Shi Huang would be a Qin person. Seriously, this is like claiming Charlemagne the Frank as French or the Indus Valley Civilization as Punjabi. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a far-stretched comparison. The term "Han" came after the Han Dynasty, and is used to describe the majority ethinic group of China. In reference to Qin Shi Huang as Han Chinese is simply in termology (the phrase "Han Chinese" used in description for people's ethnicity wasn't around during Qin's time). By that definition, no one in the history of China before Han Dynasty would be technically classified as [Han], because this termnology as a proper designation didn't exist prior to that period. But there is no reputable source anywhere, be it encyclopedias or scholar sources that would say Qin Shi Huang was not Chinese, but you would seldom find prominent sources that say Charlemagne, the king of Franks was French.--Balthazarduju (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

After your logic, Qin Shi Huang is not Chinese. He exist before the concept of "Chinese".--刻意(Kèyì) 09:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias Regarding Han China v Rome

I am changing this portion "and even more powerful than the Roman Empire in military strength and territory." because it is biased. You can't compare the two civilizations in that fashion. Intranetusa 04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It's unfair that way, so go for it.--Johanna451940 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

speaking of size, i think rome was bigger during it days, china which outlasted them peak on a later period. but rome was largely made up of non-roman population too whereas china were largely chinese. as of military, china had always the largest standing army, but military force is not about numbers; both armies were suited to their need, geography and enemies. anyway the statement doesn't provide useful comparison, good call to remove it. Akinkhoo 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely correct either. Rome was not bigger...it only seems bigger due to the Mediterranean sea. Imperial Rome was slightly bigger or smaller depending on the reign of different emperors. Also, if China was largely Chinese, then Rome was largely Roman as well, because they gave citizenship to the conquered. If the Roman Empire was composed of non-Romans, then it's the same for the Han Dynasty....you can't say they were largely Chinese because "Chinese" is a modern concept. During the Han Dynasty, the empire was composed of many different ethnic groups with their own different languages...they would've been as different as a Gaul and an Spaniard in the Roman Empire. Also, China/Han Dynasty did not have the largest standing army. The Han didn't have a huge army since they abolished regular conscription and used volunteers. Roman armies during the Republican Civil War was actually larger than the Han army during the Eastern Han Dynasty period. Intranetusa (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Korean relations

Why is koreans under possible related ethnic groups keep getting deleted? Were culturally, genetically, and physically similar i would say that qualifies us to at least have some relation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.161.98 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-23 00:49:35

What qualifies as related ethnic groups was never quite vaguely defined. Some users tend to base it on similarity in languages, others on similarity to cultures, or whether or not they inhabit the same areas or same countries, and others on genetic relationships. Because of this, no one could really agree, and all but the most incontroversial ones were deleted.

As for Korean (and other East Asian cultures), while they may share the same surnames, they don't fall into the same linguistic group, and cultural similarities weren't because of common origins or common ancestors, but because they adopted elements of Chinese culture into their own. On the other hand, relations between Han Chinese and the listed ones, like Overseas Chinese, are completely uncontroversial. I personally disagree on the heavy bias towards using linguistics as basis of relationships (Chinese doesn't seem to be that close to Burmese people, from what I can see, for example), but as I said, the anthropology and ethnic groups wikiprojects don't seem to have outlined very clear guidelines on what consitutes as relatedness between ethnic groups. --Yuje 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if linguistics is used as a "basis of relationships", but it's often used as evidence of common ancestry. The fact that Burmese people don't seem to be that close to Chinese doesn't mean they could not have common ancestry. They could have branched off a long time ago. However, the fact that Korean and Chinese languages are very very different is not absolutely conclusive that Chinese and Korean peoples have common ancestry, but it certainly is pretty strong evidence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A distinction needs to be drawn between Koreans and Japanese imo. Whereas the Japanese had no "ethnic" interactions with the Chinese in recent history, Koreans intermixed with other peoples of Manchuria and surrounds, including Han Chinese. --Sumple (Talk) 10:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

maybe, but the korean had been able to maintain their 'uniqueness' quite effectively. intermarriage is only useful if the culture influence is retained, but it appears to be just a minority and absorb. i think the culture influence is largely from state interaction, you will need allies when japan keep trying to invade you =P Akinkhoo 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "Korea" and "Korean" didn't actually exist during the time of the Han Dynasty. Korean nationality/identity formed after the 4 main Han military-colonies became independent after the collapse of the Han/3 Kingdoms and the settlers started intermingling with migrating nomadic tribes and people who had already settled in the peninsula. Intranetusa (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what is Han-Chinese? If Han-Chinese ever existed. Korean nationality/ Korean identity derived from Puyo Tribe that lived in center core Manchuria. Korean blood lineage is from Puyo tribe in which they formed Ko-Chosun, Three Korean Kingdoms ( Korguryo, Baekje, Shilla and Kaya Kingdom), Korean Balhae Kingdom ( which occuped half of Manchuria). Modern day english word Korea is derived from Korguyro, Koryo, Korea was founded by Puyo tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbibimbap (talk • contribs) 2009-09-26T09:24:21

Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Madagascar and Oceania are Han too? Korea too?

Jiang wrote in 2003 in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Music_of_Taiwan ... "The Hakka are usually considered Han Chinese too, and so are the native Taiwanese. --Jiang 02:56, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)"

The Native Taiwanese are Austronesians. Austronesian blood is also in the majority of Taiwanese that immigrated to Taiwan since the 1400's, due much to the Qing Dynasty ban on importing women from China (so they mated with the aborigine women instead). So does that mean that other Austronesians like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Madagascar and Oceania are Han too? In addition does this mean the Han Chinese have the special distinction of heritage through males not females? As in if a Han Chinese mates with a Black woman, their offspring mates with another Black woman, and we then continue this dilution for 30 generations, as was the case for the majority of Taiwanese, their offspring is still considered Han Chinese? I mean if that is the case then can't it be argued that since a large portion of Koreans now reside in northern China, and are considered Han, can't the rest of Korea be Han Chinese too? --72.229.114.117 14:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No because it doesn't work that way, the native taiwanese are autronesians, like the filipinos and the malays, the maoris etc. however about the statement about about the Korean people doesn't make sense, and would boost up the population of the han people not by just ADDING the korean people, because then by that definition you would have to add the Filipinos, the Malays, etc.Australian Jezza 11:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Native Taiwanese are Austronesians." some words used by the aborigine native are similar to the malay, so yes. "their offspring is still considered Han Chinese?" Han is a culture, traditionally chinese didn't develop strong ethnic concept or view it as important. one thing should be noted is Han culture is dominance in taiwan, also the language of fujian is also retained and use widely as "taiwanese". but not in korean or other example. Akinkhoo 13:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Culture/Names

Doesn't the surname precede the given name? --Kpengboy 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Kpengboy

If nobody's going to respond, I'll change it. --Kpengboy 03:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Kpengboy

The so call the surname is in fact the name of the family. It may be originat way in the prehistoic time that by telling people which family you are from will determin how people will treat you. So your family name is more important than your actual name, and might be the reason why the Chinese family name will always precede the actual name of the person. --Foolish First Time User 16:00 Eastcoast Australian Time 06/05/2007

yes, the treatment is different, it is like buying branded goods. i has heard that in the past; chinese emperor might even give subject who serve them well, a well known family name as a "reward"! eg. "Sun", "Sima". =) Akinkhoo 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Number

The number of Han Chinese in Russia looks much overestimated.In 2002 census 34,577 persons declared themselves to be Han Chinese [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.244.125 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A reference in English would be better, the link is not much use for those of us who do not read Russian. LDHan 09:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the Census website [2], some of their tables are available in English. Or you can try a dictionary, since it's just a list of names of nationalities and corresponding numbers. Anyway I agree with the anon, there have been all sorts of absolute bollocks thrown around about the number of Chinese in Russia. The Russian press write these fantastic figures because they want to sell newspapers with sensationalistic yellow peril stories about how the "Chinese are taking over the Far East"; I have to doubt the reliability of any source who are repeating those numbers. These types of figures claiming nearly a million Chinese in Russia were pretty much torn apart in scholarly works; see for example:

• Alekseev, Mikhail (2006). "In the Shadow of the "Asian Balkans": Anti-Chinese Alarmism and Hostility in the Russian Far East". Immigration Phobia and the Security Dilemma: Russia, Europe, and the United States. Cambridge University Press. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)

Has a detailed analysis of entrance and exit statistics. On the other hand, the Russian census is also known for underestimating stuff (for example, they seem to have missed about 1/3 of the Koreans on Sakhalin Island; they also try to claim there's only 835 Japanese people in Russia, when hundreds of thousands of POWs were taken there after WWII). Cheers, cab 15:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

err, wouldn't a large number of chinese be there illegally? :o Akinkhoo 13:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Philippines

in the article about Chinese Mestizo it says there are 9.8 million chinese people, not the 1. something listed here, i am sure that it isn't all of the 9.8 million that are FULL han but wouldn't they count as well considering alot of Chinese people IN china wouldn't be full blooded Han as well? well all i am saying is, is that i don't agree with the number of Han people listed with the philippines. Australian Jezza 11:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

if someone call himself a chinese. i think that is good enough no? or would you prefer we break down who in chinatown is cantonese, shanghaiese, hakka? i think it would take forever and only serve to confuse people. next we will be asking American if they are from Texas or not! =) Akinkhoo 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are a 100% Chinese, then it is a Han. The only Non Han chinese are the indigenous groups such as the Zhuang, Miaos...etc.

--Takamaxa 09:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent single-origin hypothesis

Regarding the origin of the Han Chinese, this article should consider the modern evidence supporting the Recent single-origin hypothesis, by scientists both in and out of China. Shawnc 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Han Chinese as a cultural identity

This article is accurate. Han Chinese or Hanzu is a cultural identity for the largest ethnic group in China and overseas. It is used to distinguish from the other groups like the Maio, Zhuang...etc.

Therefore within the sub Han group there are Gan, Wu, Yue and the Min dialects. They are still Han. The only non Hans if they speak their own indigenous languages.--Takamaxa 09:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Han-Chinese are mixed with ( Altaic Tribal people) Koreans, Manchurians, and Mongols. Han-Chinese is superficial word for Mixed ethnic identity tribal people living in south yangtse river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbibimbap (talk • contribs) 2009-09-26T09:26:37

Christmas Island

Chinese on the island are predominantly Hokkien, not Han. Is this article about Han Chinese or all Chinese? Better make it clear and consistent Kransky 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Hokkien is a Sinitic language; its speakers form a subgroup of Han Chinese. No such thing as "Hokkien, not Han". cab 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Agreed, Hokkien is a sub-group of Han originating from the Chinese province of Fujian. Hokkien people live mainly in Fujian, Taiwan and Singapore. I'm Hokkien and my family speaks both Hokkien and Mandarin.116.15.11.188 (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Descendents of the Dragon"?

Quoth the opening:

An alternate name that many Chinese peoples use to refer to themselves is "Descendants of the Dragon."

Is this really true? Where? Is there a source? How do you say this in Chinese? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.173.174 (talk • contribs) 2007-10-10T04:25:09

Yes it's true. It's called 龍的傳人 in Chinese. But no, I don't have a source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Huaxia

To my knowledge Huaxia refers to the old China proper or Zhongyuan, i.e. it's the name of a place, rather than the name of a people. It's not until recently that Huaxia is being coined to refer to the ancesters of Han Chinese, mostly because there simply isn't a specific term that describes this people prior to Han dynasty. Linguistically and genetically the dominant group in Huaxia were an early offshoot of Sino-Tibetan peoples, likely the Zhou people. Some have suggested that Shang, who contributed significantly to the genetic makeup of early Han Chinese, were in fact an early offshoot of Dongyi. Feel free to change it if you disagree. 128.147.38.10 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is done

Sorry it took me a long time. Its just that i'm blocked and this is my sock puppet. And it took me a long time to fill all the licenses. if you'll enter to the image page you'll see what i'm talking about.

Anyway, if you have and suggestions for changes, mention them hear and i will do them.

note: the reason there are no modern chinese there is because modern photos have license problems. it's easy to request modern people, but if you make an offer, please give a link to a photo whic is public domain. Shpakovich (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Shpakovich, as he had foreshadowed, was not allowed here in the first place as he was a sockpuppet account of a barred user (at the time the images in question were uploaded). Please check the bottom of this page for further details. David873 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

** THIS ARTICLE IS WOEFULLY MISLEADING **

(Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal)

(Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal)

Confucian Confusion... What is Han?

Throughout this article and this discussion there seems to be major confusion over the term Han. The mix up is mostly between the Han ethnicity and the Han Dynasty. Though they are the same character, are they actually related in any way? Isn't it just a coincidence, like if George Washington had been named "George White"? White people wouldn't have all come from the "White Dynasty". There were Han people long before the Han dynasty. I'd look at the Chinese wikipedia, but it is blocked here in China. Other Chinese sources I've looked at and other Chinese I've talked about this with mention no connection between Han Dynasty and the Han ethnicity. Those of you who want to edit the Han Dynasty should go there(and do some research beforehand). Those of you who wish to edit the Han ethnicity stick around(but also do some research beforehand).

On a side note... remember race and ethnicity are extremely subjective and much of modern racial and ethnic identity has been forged from nationalism, ethnic identity politics, racism, propoganda (for and against), etc. Why should we even accept China's 56 official ethnicities? Mike (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about identity politics. I don't have a source for it on hand, but I believe Han people are so named as a reference to the Han dynasty itself. And it should be asked, were there really "Han" people before the Han dynasty? Remember, the short-lived Qin dynasty, which came immediately before the Han dynasty, served to unite about 7 different tribes or nations of people, and marked the first unification of China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I just wonder, even if the Han ethnicity is named for the Han dynasty, are they really the same thing and should they be talked about in this article as though though are one in the same? Sayin that the Han ethnicity's armies subjegated millions is very different from saying that the Han dynasty armies subjegated other nations. Also, compared to other "races" or ethnicities, 2000 years seems like a very short time within which to form such a distinctive group of people. The Hui are the only other group that formed in such a short-time and they are really only seperated by religion. Most other groups in China are seperated by many more millenia. So many questions, so little time.Mike (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I haven't done a comprehensive review of this article. Some parts of it may have WP:Synthesis problems. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

From the Chinese legends I have heard, the Han ethnicity comes from a myth that all the Chinese (as in Han) were descended from a single man named Han. It had something to do with a dragon and the formation of the earth, but my memory is a little fuzzy. But I think that's where the name Han for the ethnicity came from. The Han Dynasty came from the surname of the first Han emperor, and I think that the orginins of the Han ethnicity and Han Dynasty are unrelated. Furthermore, the "Warring States" period before Qin's unification was comprised of several states with all the same people, it was just different people ruling over them, sort of like the city states of Italy and Greece. During this period, the states encompassed a much smaller area than China today, so I think it could be reasonable to say that they were all of one ethnic group. DY (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Greece and Italy aren't really good examples. Greek nationalism and Italian nationalism is recent - these peoples were born out of many different, related, yet distinct, tribes. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsuitable References

References five and six might be inappropriate for this article. At least some of the information in the references contradict those from other sources. For example, check this out: [[3]]

As can be seen from the diagram, it is clear that something just does not add up.

Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese Nationalisms

(Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal)

Well, this page deals primarily with the history and development of the Han Chinese ethinicity. These sort of topics would be more appropriate in a page dealing with controversies within China. DY (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal) (Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal)

Frankly, I have not heard of any such movements so far; I only know of Tibet arguing ethnically, and the PRC already recognizes it as non-Han Chinese. I would of course respect any ethnic protest that has been initiated, and I even see reason to declare Cantonese and etc. as different ethnic groups due to their difference of culture, language, and lifestyle (The Han Chinese group is too big, anyway ^^), but I think it would be a lot better to avoid attacking the Han or any other ethnic group. DY (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Removed comments as per WP:ATTACK) The Taiwanese movements have little to do with Taiwanese people claiming they are not Han Chinese. The comments here are so exaggerated is almost silly. Benjwong (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal)

'Indigenous' Versus 'Native'

Note that 'indigenous' and 'native' are not entirely interchangeable terms. Because 'indigenous' status is reserved for indigenous peoples and this status does not apply to the Han Chinese, I have replaced 'indigenous' with the more general term 'native'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.144.244 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Factuality disputes

There seems to have been a sudden explosion of WP:AD and WP:NPOV labels all over the Han Chinese page. I would think that it would be necessary to explain these actions. It looks nothing more that blatant racism against the Han ethnic group. I hesitate to use the word "vandalism," but please, if you have any misgivings about the page, please discuss it here, rather than filling the page with an overload of headings. Maybe China is a controversial subject, especially in light of recent events and the 2008 Olympics, but let's try to keep it clean. DY (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide population figures

A number of the references for "Han Chinese" in other countries are in fact referring to Chinese citizens or people with China as their place of birth, or don't clearly define what they mean by "Chinese"; these people referred to may be of any ethnicity, and it's a rather poor assumption that they're all Han Chinese, or even that the proportion of Han Chinese vs. other ethnicities among them is precisely representative of the overall population of China. E.g. Italy [4], Ireland [5], Serbia [6], New Zealand [7]. Furthermore the link [8] used to support the number of Han Chinese in Taiwan doesn't make any mention of Han Chinese; it divides the population into "mainland Chinese", "Taiwanese", and "indigeneous" groups. And the OCAC link uses the vague term "ethnic Chinese", which doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they haven't lumped in Hui, Manchu, and other random Sinophone people. cab (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

More on the Difference between 'native' and 'indigenous'

Some people still do not understand the difference between 'native' and 'indigenous'. 'Indigenous' strictly speaking can only be applied to the first peoples of a particular region, e.g. the indigenous peoples of Taiwan are the Taiwanese Aborigines and does not include any other people. In contrast, 'native' is a more general term that can be applied to both the indigenous peoples of a particular area as well as other non-indigenous peoples that have 'settled' and lived in a particular region for a long time (usually this means for at least a few centuries), e.g. the native poeple of Taiwan includes both indigenous Taiwanese and non-indigenous peoples who have taken up residence in Taiwan prior to the mid-twentieth century. Thus, while it may be appropriate to claim that the Han Chinese are native to China, to say that the Han Chinese are indigenous to China is both misleading and incorrect; in fact, doing so contradicts the internationally accepted meaning of the word 'indigenous'. If no comments about this are made within a week, I will reinstate the reverted edits regarding this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.146.77 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind providing some reliable sources for this claim? DY (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For the convenience of anyone who is not sure of the internationally accepted meaning of 'indigenous' check out Indigenous peoples. One of the links there gives a listing of the world's indigenous peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.119 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Suppressed paragraph as per WP:ATTACK) Benjwong (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone out there actually check the claim that about the Han people being indigenous to China? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The Han people are not considered indigenous by any reputable international organisation nor does the article indigenous people mention the Han Chinese. It would appear that the author of the sentence in question meant 'native'. It would be somewhat analogous to ethnic group XYZ being 'native' to region ABC but not being 'indigenous' to the said region. After all, 'indigenous' has a very specific meaning in international law whereas 'native' is loosely defined. I understand that the comment earlier that used Taiwanese peoples as an example did not go down very well with a user labelling the comments as 'nonsense'. In any case, there is simply no credible source to suggest that the Han Chinese were the original settlers of any part of modern-day China.

There are no credible sources to suggest otherwise, while on the other hand, there are many "reputable organizations" that acknowledge that the Chinese originated from China (now isn't that strange...). I would suggest you check out the definitions of the words "indigenous" and native." Both essentially mean the same thing, except that native now contains more neative connotations. Which is, I suppose, why you want to use it to label the Chinese, as so many people would like to do. I hope that you can look beyond the credos of the CCP (yes, it sux) and try to be more tolerant. And please sign your posts; Sinebot is getting very tired. DY (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(Suppressed defamatory comments by IP editor)

Please explain

(Suppressed defamatory comments by IP editor)

If you provide a source for your claim, then it might not be reverted again. Please try to base your statements on citations, rather than finding an excuse to badmouth the Chinese. DY (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

About the edits of user 116.48.83.61

(Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal) (Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal)

Religion

Since most Han Chinese are in China, and since China has until recently not recognized any religion, I'd say that "Predominantly Mahayana Buddhist and Taoist" should be changed to "Predominantly non-religious". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the state advocates atheism, but I think that most of the population have Buddhist or Taoist traditions. Y D 7 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Paragraph

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Those who have studied the 20th century history of China and Taiwan would be aware of the migration of many Chinese to Taiwan after the government was taken by the Communist Party. Most of the Taiwanese population have roots in Han Chinese families. Perhaps they wish to be identified by a different culture, and that is perfectly acceptable, but the fact remains that they did, in fact, descend from the Han.

I would also like to point out something in your previous post "About the edits of user 116.48.83.61." Your source, the image at "wufi.org.tw," is a site belonging to a Taiwanese independence coalition. I would now like to refer to many people's earlier statements that "CCP propaganda sites" are not acceptable resources, because they are biased in their favor. Well then, wouldn't a pro-Taiwan, anti-China source be biased as well? Please provide a source that is third-party and, preferably, accessible to the common public. (^^) Y _{(D 7)} 03:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

Please note that mainstream urban Taiwanese culture, such as that found in the major cities, is Chinese culture. One must realize, that as with the Native Americans, the natives of Taiwan have become a minority, and Chinese traditions have taken over. Yes, it is indeed a sad concept, but, as we all know, reality is often very depressing. (^.~)余^(姚七) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

However, one must realize that a nation is sometimes made up of several different ethnic groups; for example, Russia used to contain a large mix of Baltic peoples along with its Slavic population, the UK contains elements of English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish peoples, who all identify as different, and the USA is probably the most famous for containing a multitude of different ethnic groups. It stands to reason, then, that China, the third-largest country in the world, would contain many different groups that would be called "Chinese."

余^(姚七) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should view "Han Chinese" as more of a cultural group?

余^(姚七) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Qing dynasty

My understanding is that the Manchus (Qing) distinguished between Nikan (north Chinese) and South Chinese and didn't recognise a single Han ethnic group. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this article?

Bathrobe (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comments are spot-on. In fact, the distinction is well documented in history books. 122.105.147.208 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that "Nikan" is a Manchu exonym for the Han Chinese, as stated here. 余^(姚七) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be stated there, but what I am saying is that Nikan was NOT applied by the Manchus to the south Chinese (e.g., in the populous areas of the Yangtze River basin).

Bathrobe (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Attention all editors

Please note that the Hoa people are NOT considered ethnic Chinese by immigrants from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan; the 'Hoa' are considered 'Vietnamese'. In light of this, I urge all editors to check that this and all related articles reflect the said classification. 122.105.147.208 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelo De La Paz now needs to explain why an edit to remove 'Vietnam' and 'Taiwan' from the population box was reverted. Removing 'Vietnam' from the box is justified on the grounds that the Hoa people are NOT considered ethnic Chinese by the vast majority of Mainland Chinese, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese. As for Taiwan, the statistics are not accurate anyway, given that the ROC government is often pressured into telling high tales to the world in order to avoid military action.

Sorry about the pedanticness but I believe that it is really important to look at the whole story before any edit is declard vandalism. 122.109.121.124 (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the population figures for the Chinese immigrants in Vietnam are not inclusive of the Hoa.

The Hoa is estimated to have a population of around 2.3 million, while the population stats for the Chinese in Vietnam stand at around 1,200,000.

Therefore, I believe that the Vietnam statistics are referring to actual Chinese immigrants.

As for Taiwan, due to the influx of Chinese immigrants during the displacement of the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party), the majority of the population is made up of Chinese.

余^(姚七) 01:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

Yes, you are correct, the "mainlander" Chinese only make up a smaller portion of the population; however, when people migrated to Taiwan, they mixed with the "native Taiwanese." Note, however, that the "native Taiwanese" were in fact early immigrants from China. They are not to be confused with the Taiwanese aborigines. Therefore the majority are Chinese.

However, I am perfectly ready to accept that these people should not be considered Chinese, if you wish.

In response to your post further up about "Nikan," I have already conceded that the southern peoples, the Cantonese and etc., do merit to be separate ethnic groups. However, "Nikan" is an eponym for Han Chinese.

Perhaps it would be better to think of "Han Chinese" as a culture(s), rather than an ethnicity?

余^(姚七) 00:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

Your second point about the "Nikan" also makes no sense. The category of "Han Chinese" currently includes the southern peoples. The term Nikan does not. Nikan was an ethnic and cultural term used by the Manchus for what we might now call the northern Han Chinese. It didn't include people from the Yangtse Valley or further south. "Han Chinese" is a modern term that belongs to the ethnic terminology of the Chinese state. It includes both north and south Chinese. In fact, it seems to be a kind of supergroup covering speakers of the Chinese languages (i.e., Chinese dialects) who subscribe to the core features of Chinese culture (thus excluding the Hui, who largely speak Chinese dialects but believe in the Koran, which is not a core feature of Chinese culture).

Given that, as I understand it, Nikan excluded much of the heartland of Chinese culture, namely the thriving commercial areas of the Yangtse River basin, which provided a disproportionate number of people to the Chinese bureaucracy, I don't see how you can blithely state that "Nikan" is an exonym for Han Chinese. The names are simply not synonymous in what they refer to.

I was raising the question of the distinction between northern and southern Chinese under the Qing because it seems highly relevant to discussing the question of "Han Chinese". When people say that "Han" derives from the name of the Han dynasty, it makes it sound like "Han Chinese" is a historic ethnic group dating back almost 2000 years. If the immediately preceding dynasty split this so-called ethnic group into two, it seems to be a relevant point for inclusion in the article. Before anything is put in the article, I think we need a bit more information about the actual policies of the Qing. But simply repeating the mantra that '"Nikan" is an eponym for Han Chinese' is not the way to go.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "native Taiwanese" is what early immigrants from China call themselves. They are distinct from the Taiwanese aborigines.

Is there a source you could provide to show that the Manchus did not apply "Nikan" to the whole Han Chinese? Even so, I have already conceded that the southern Chinese could be a different ethnic group.

Even so, it does not merit to label "Han Chinese" to be some sort of ethnic propaganda. You mention that it is a "supergroup covering speakers of the Chinese languages." Well, the Indo-European language groups are used to classify ethnic groups in Europe. The Indo-European group contains Slavic, Germanic, Latin, Celtic, and others, and within these groups are several subgroups: for example, Latin Europe consists of the French, the Italians, the Spanish, and the Portuguese; Slavic Europe contains the Russians, the Poles, the Serbs, the Czechs, the Ukrainians and many others. Even several of these subgroups contain even more subgroups.

Thus, it is not uncommon to classify ethnic groups by the language they speak. Perhaps it is not always accurate, like in the US, for example, but it also shows that it is possible for ethnic groups to have several subgroups that seem different. There exists enough difference between existing groups in China, but it is not absurd to classify them under one larger group.

Furthermore, I have not stated that the name Han Chinese descends from the Han Dynasty, but rather stems from the legend that the group is descended from a single man named Han.

Also, I would like to make sure that you know that I am not advocating the superiority of the Chinese. I assure you, I am not trying to be chauvinistic, but merely trying to save the reputation of the Chinese peoples from the unpopular credos of the CCP.

余^(姚七) 21:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it is my understanding that this is how the term "Nikan" was used. However, I don't have any sources and would appreciate any editors with greater knowledge/access to sources to step forward.

I see no particular reason to deconstruct the "Han" ethnic group. All ethnic identities are fictions in some way or another. The "Han Chinese" can be loosely defined as speakers of Chinese dialects who embrace the "Chinese" cultural tradition. Although this is vague, it is coherent enough and reflects a certain cultural and historical reality. The Hui are not included as they have a different cultural tradition. (Note: The Hui of Hainan are actually a totally different ethnic group from the Hui of the Mainland). Racially and perhaps even culturally, the Cantonese, Hokkienese, etc. differ significantly from the northern Chinese, but that is not a reason for saying they are not "Han Chinese". The ethnic group of "Han Chinese" is not based in bloodlines, etc. That doesn't detract from its reality as a perceived ethnic group of modern China.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. (^^)

I will try to find some sources for you to use.

余^(姚七) 05:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess this means that anyone interested about the idenitity of the Hoa should visit Vietnamese people and request on its talk page that the Hoa people be counted. The same goes for related articles Apparently, there seems to be major inconsistencies across Wikipedia articles, even on the same or similar subject. 122.109.121.182 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia

To editor 69.181.214.248. Thank you for providing a reference! I believe the full name of the book is "China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia".

It would useful if you could provide a page number so that we can check where Prof. Perdue actually makes the claim that you added to the article. Since it is an entire book it would take a very long time to find that information just by reading through it.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've glanced through the book "China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia", but was unable to find anything to support your edit. The overall message of the book seems to be at odds with your assertion that the term "Chinese" has always referred to more than just the Han Chinese. Please give page numbers so that people can check the grounds for your edit.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We're going on a while here and we still haven't got a proper page reference for that paragraph. I've also looked at Perdue's book again and haven't found anything to support it.

Logically speaking, the paragraph doesn't make sense, either. It's pretty clear that the English word "Chinese" doesn't date from the 19th century. So perhaps it's the Chinese term 中国人 that dates to the 19th century, I guess because the Chinese didn't refer to their country as 中国 before that. But the fact that 中国人 dates from the 19th century doesn't mean that the English term "Chinese" is the same. Also, notwithstanding that the word 中国人 may have been applied to all inhabitants of the Qing empire, the question must be asked whether English speakers in the 19th century used "Chinese" as a cover-all for the Mongols, Tibetans, and all the rest. All-in-all, the paragraph appears to be based on an equation of the terms "中国人" and "Chinese", which is not really tenable.

Without a source, of course, it's hard to say whether the above points are correct. But there is enough doubt about it that unless a decent source can be provided, the paragraph should be removed.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already a week since I deleted the section in question and we are still waiting for a source.

Bathrobe (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

About the origins of Cantonese, Hokkien and other 'Southern' peoples

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) (Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

Okay, did anyone bother to check on the references provided by this anonymous user who started this "controversy" section? At first, I looked at the electronic references cited on this section and couldn't find anything in that article that denotes 'controversy' about this ethnic group; the article was mostly about genetic analysis. Then, I checked the homepage, and it turn out that wufi.org is a Chinese language political website promotes Taiwan independence. Its homepage says "WUFI is dedicated to the establishment of a free, democratic and independent Republic of Taiwan in accordance with the principle of self-determination of peoples". Its not a academic reference and definitely don't belong to this article.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) (Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) (Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) (Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal)

The distinction between 'nationality', 'ethnic identity' and 'cultural identity'

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

It would be perfectly fine to express the idea that "Han Chinese" is a cultural identity, provided you have a credible source.

However, as for systematic bias, I must put forth three points:

First, all major international powers, including the US, UK, Japan, etc. do not recognize the ROC as an independent sovereign entity. The UN expelled the ROC from all UN organs by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, and the ROC is required to use the name "Chinese Taipei" while participating in international events.

Second, you seem to be making the point that the Taiwanese government wholly wishes to separate itself from the PRC. Actually, of the two parties, one of them (Kuomintang) wishes to be united with mainland China, only under the jurisdiction of the ROC. In fact, the ROC is a dislocated Chinese government. It used to rule over mainland China, until it was displaced by the Communist Party.

Third of all, judging by the posts on this page, most of the editors here seem to keep pushing the notion that Taiwan is not part of China.

Most points dictate that Taiwan is Chinese, just like how Hawaii and Puerto Rico belong to the US and Scotland to the UK. Unrest about the government exists in all these areas. Perhaps someday Taiwan will win its freedom, and well-deserved it will be. However, today, popular international thought states that it is part of China. 67.42.220.5 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed! Unlawful image found

Unfortunately, the current image at the beginning of the article constitute Wikipedia policy violations as they were uploaded by a sockpuppet of a barred user.
More precisely, the following occurred:

• MVEi temp uploaded a new image depicting Han Chinese throughout world history and altered the article to show the new image on 4 April 2008.
• Shpakovich made some other adjustments to the article.
• Shpakovich then confessed to utilising sockpuppetry on this talk page.

In fact, Shpakovich was a sockpuppet of M.V.E.i.. Furthermore, M.V.E.i. was already blocked from editing Wikipedia articles when the said image upload occurred and it is clear that MVEi temp is also a sockpuppet of M.V.E.i..

Because the edits are clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy, I propose that the 'illegal' image be removed immediately. In its place, a new, clean and lawful image can be uploaded. David873 (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:SSP. Thank you. nat.utoronto 23:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

MVEi temp has been 'convicted' for being a sockpuppet of the banned user M.V.E.i.. So the issue here is that the image that is shown at the beginning of the article contravenes Wikipedia policy as it was placed by someone who was then serving a one year block (he has since been banned permanently). David873 (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but legalist terms should be used when dealing with an issue such as a block or a ban on Wikipedia, unless it is warranted especially when the ban or block is directly related to a "real-world" legal case. However, there are some actual probable legal problems with the image as one of the images in this collage does not assert or prove that it is Public Domain. nat.utoronto 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there who has actually thought about getting rid of the image I have referred to previously? Are there any ideas regarding what people should be used in a new image that would replace the 'illegal' image?
Anyone who is interested in getting rid of M.V.E.i.'s 'illegal' edits may also want to check out the image at the beginning of Arab as that image was also uploaded by the same sockpuppeteer. David873 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The image was uploaded on Commons, I would suggest that you go there first. nat.utoronto 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(Suppressed soapboxing by IP vandal)

Pinyin format

What is the phrase "Descendants of the Yan and/or Yellow Emperor" in Chinese? It is mentioned twice in the article and the Chinese characters are given but not the phrase in Latin characters. --DelftUser (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the following pinyin format Yán huáng zǐ sūn for 炎黃子孫 on this page. --DelftUser (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Malaysia

This edit, removing discussion of Malaysia's Chinese population, is not good. Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image problem with politics

The current Han image is very political and offensive due to Chiang Kai-shek among the PRC. I believe any politicians of modern Han should not be represent beside Sun Yat-sen due to political resons.

As for female Han, Wu Zetian is a better replacement of Soong Ch'ing-ling since the PRC vs ROC issue. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 04:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally with you. Wu Zetian is best know as the first female emperor in the Chinese History, who has putted an important point in the national history. I also think that there are many politicans here. Why don't we put Jackie Chan (very famous), Zhang Zi Lin (the first Miss World from China), Yao Ming, etc...I support your ideas! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So the Han Chinese people are represented by three leaders of the Kuomintang ... and the first Emperor? Bias much? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to come up with a better image. There are close-up pictures of both Jackie Chan and Yao Ming that we can use - Image:Jackie Chan 2002-portrait edited.jpg and Image:Yao Ming Interview.jpg. I would love to also use a picture of Zhang Zilin, but I don't think we have any close-up pictures of her that we can use. Remember, the pictures that we use for the image cannot be fair use or copyrighted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Teresa Teng and Bruce Lee. Then you have Sun Yet Sen represent for the mainland Han, Teresa Teng for Taiwan and Bruce Lee for HK and oversea Han. Everyone is Happy. IMO Teresa Teng and Bruce Lee is more iconic than Zhang zilin and Yao Ming. Teng and Lee are all pass away and there are not many controversy and scandal associate with them so that is a another plus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.53.67 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright I've replaced the images. Two actors (Jackie Chan and Tang Wei), two athletes (Yao Ming and Guo Jingjing), and Sun Yatsen and Soong Ching-ling. Some of them may not be the most prominent people we could have, but keep in mind that the pictures we use here need to be close-ups that are free to use (not uploaded for WP:Fair Use). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok so as I expected, some of the pictures I used were quickly replaced.[9] But now we've actually got 4 historical figures, one of which is even a brush painting and not even a close-up of the person's face. I have to say I prefer the people I chose. The two athletes are only celebrities because they are world-class athletes. Plus, now we have 2 women and 4 men. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war by anonymous

An anonymous editor with dynamic IP

70.107.79.101;
162.83.168.122;
162.83.132.54;
141.155.144.100;
98.207.166.114
68.160.245.28

has been waging an edit war persistently adding an unscientific text. For example, the anonymous editor has been claiming that "Tang dynasty brought the mongols into submission". The anonymous editor however fails to bring evidence that such an ethnonym existed in those centuries. Also the anonymous editor claimed "russian steppes" as territory of Tang dynasty. Gantuya eng (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he is confusing Buryatia with the areas along Volga and Don? I agree that the bit about "Khitan Mongols" looks quite a lot like "Gaulic French" - not something you would expect in a history section. The bit about "acceptance of Chinese rule" by the turks also makes one wonder if all this stuff about a second Gökturk empire might just be a myth. Having words like "The words of the Chinese people are sweet, and their stuffs [or fabrics?, Yaan] are soft" written down does not yet equal submission, IMO. Yaan (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to remove that hooliganism? I've got tired doing that. That unscientific piece of text has been inserted to this article and to several other articles. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

it says "khitan mongol" in the source. Mr. Latouretter has a PHD in oriental studies at Yale university and is certainly smarter than you.

Kenneth Scott Latourette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.28 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The courageous Gokturks shortly chased away the Tang Chinese aggressors from Mongolia. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

and the arabs beat you both.Historian of the arab people (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like racial dick wagging to help improve an article! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise the anonymous user to have courage to login first and then edit. If you don't login, then I have to think you are ashamed of your unhealthy irredentist and chauvinist edits with intentionally biased wording. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

thats funny because the whole paragraph about the mongol rule is not even sourced, and no ones complaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.78.33 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are free to delete the paragraph about the Mongol rule. This article is about the Han ethnic group, but not about the Mongol rule, a topic well developed in relevant articles anyway.

BTW, the year has changed. Are you not gonna mature a little bit? Gantuya eng (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. that dead guy with the Ph.D., maybe we could just go along with Mr. Herbert Franke in Cambrige History of China, Vol. 6, 1994, p.45f (see, I'm even kind enough to give you a page number), where he states that even the ethnic affiliations of the Khitans are unclear and may as well be tungusic? Yaan (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous 68.160.245.28

Your hooliganism on the Internet has crossed all limits. Stop personal attack! Be civilised !!! Stop your politically ignited edit war. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

while i certianly do not know your iq, i can say Mr. Latoretter is certainly lessed biased than you and does not have any POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.139.68 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editors' edits

There have been anonymous editors (first 151.151.7.51 and then 76.94.164.125) who are both trying to add chunks of paragraphs to the article's Distribution section. There are several problems:

• The statements the anonymous IP editors inserted does not have the correct attribution, i.e. the CIA Factbook reference did not state "The descendants of both Han immigrants and aborigines on Taiwan become the largest ethnic group in Taiwan, ethnic Taiwanese, ...", but rather "Taiwanese (including Hakka) 84%".
• The user is inserting a Chinese language article from a Taiwanese newspaper site to back up a statement that previous used a political website's source, and since this is English Wikipedia, English-language article takes priority for the sake of verifiability. And for statement that carry considerable weight, you are going to have to find reputable schoarly references.
• To the anonymous IP user, you can move these information to specific articles about Taiwanese identity, however, under a summary article's main section about Distribution, it is not relevant and does not tie in with the main section.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

76.94.164.125 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)To Bal, I believe IP user 151 had some good information and was rudely deleted by you entirely. You could have moved it or organized it better. I share your take on the wufi site and I bothered to find another source that would be more neutral, but you treated my effort with equal rudeness. The reason I come across to this page is because many people currently citing this site as an evidence that 98% of Taiwanese are pure Han Chinese and share no difference with Han Chinese in China. This is very misleading. Taiwanese Hans are at most culturally Han from all available informations and scientific evidence and should not be considered ethnic and cultural Hans. The CIA factbook states the current reality of ethnic Taiwanese and the source was given to validate the percentage. An English article does have priority over foreign language news articles; however, if English language equivalent cannot be found and the content of the article has direct relevance to the topic, then it should be accepted. The "distribution" is not very widely used among other wiki pages on ethnic groups, so I do not think you should impose your own narrow definition for what it should be. The version I have come up with conforms with the theme of "distribution" and also gives reader a closer look to the Han people on Taiwan. I firmly believe my version can eliminate confusion people have regarding Han people in Taiwan and Han people in China. If it is going to be a narrowly defined category, then perhaps the whole category of "Distribution" should be eliminated like all other wiki pages on various ethnic groups. 76.94.164.125 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Anyway, you do whatever you want, Bal, I am not going to have an edit war with you. I just think to eliminate the whole thing altogether and it is excessive.

Anonymous user (and please try to break-up your comments), you said:

"The reason I come across to this page is because many people currently citing this site as an evidence that 98% of Taiwanese are pure Han Chinese and share no difference with Han Chinese in China. This is very misleading. Taiwanese Hans are at most culturally Han from all available informations and scientific evidence and should not be considered ethnic and cultural Hans."

I did remove that statement. You had problem with this particular information, and it has been removed. The problem I had with your attribution to the CIA World Factbook reference was that the source itself only offered statistics (the percentage), which is fine, however you inserted statements along with it which isn't found in the source. Like I said, this is a summary section, thus it should be concise and about essiental information about distribution of oversea Chinese; the information you wanted to insert about information that touches on semi-political issues (some directly came from government websites), which is not necessary.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa,I just realized what happened now after i finished reading all the stuffs you guys wrote. Seriously, I do not know what your problem is, man. It seems pretty clear to me what the other guy did for me, which I am grateful for, is pretty much making it very logical to follow. The format first establishes the position that it is ROC governmen's position that 98% of Taiwan's population is classified as Han Chinese. Which is what i wanted to say originally with a ROC government information link provided for that purpose.

second, he went on and explained how they migrated to Taiwan and have assimilated with fellow Han immigrants and local aborigines in a very short and concise manner. He even provided a non-WUFI links from a scientific research and an online news article from a mainstream media. Both of those evidences show that the Han people in Taiwan are mostly not pure Hans by blood and they may have been thinking they are Hans because of Sinicization.

China Post is widely perceived as a media that leans toward a political platform very different from what WUFI supports. If you do know about this news back then, you would know that the China Post article was the original news on the issue and WUFI just forwarded the article from there. You criticized it as a news from WUFI source without verifying the source yourself, that is very unprofessional. I have an actual hardcopy of the news article myself back in early 2000's with name of reporter and everything. I just could not find the article online anywhere and he found it, you deleted it because you do not like WUFI. I understand WUFI is political and it is subject to bias, I would apologize for that and respect your decision to take that out, but I thought what you did was ridiculous since he went through the trouble of getting that original news article and you discounted them anyway because there was no "English article" on it? Well, just FYI,there are tons of valuable information out there that is not available in English, what gives you the right to discriminate credible information in Chinese language or Taiwanese mainstream medias?

Finally, I admit when I first written all these up yesterday, I did not really make it clear that "Taiwanese" are those Han people lived in Taiwan before 1945. I thought it would be enough if I just put brackets around Taiwanese so readers can read more about it by clicking on it. And in that section it would discuss about the whole issues with descendants of Han immigrants and aborigines which I did not think we needed to go in detail in this site. After all, this IS about HAN PEOPEL and NOT Taiwanese.

The whole point with referencing to the CIA factbook is to show how many % of those "Taiwanese"(culturally Han Taiwanese) are in Taiwan. CIA factbook does not have to explain what "Taiwanese" mean because it would conform with the definition provided by "taiwanese" on wikipedia. Anyway, I just want to throw that out there and let you think about it. I am very upset that you deleted the whole thing instead of modifying it. If you continue to insist on your position, then I will just let you be. The only reason I am doing this because so many people think Taiwanese Hans = Chinese Hans when in fact the Hans in Taiwan have gone through a much different history than rest of them.151.151.98.238 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC) (Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

That would be the "ethnic Taiwanese", since they are Han-related, so I basically word it another way. the CIA factbook states that 84% of Taiwanese population is "ethnic Taiwanese", base on the definition of Taiwanese, that would be the Han people lived in Taiwan before 1945. Maybe we can include a source to indicate that, but I thought with a link to Taiwanese would suffice. Please advise. 151.151.98.238 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with the other guy, there arent a lot of "distribution" sections in other wiki pages on ethnicity. Perhaps you can reword them to "Han Chinese in China" and "Han Chinese around the world" or something. Koreans have a section for "Koreans outside of Korea". However Taiwanese would like to identify themselves is their business and that should to go "taiwanese idendity"; however, we are discussing about HAN people here, and I think we should go in-depth and let the world know the difference of Han Taiwanse and Han Chinese. Just my 2 cents. 151.151.98.238 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC) (Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

that is a fantastic idea. How about changing Han Chinese to Han people? Like the way we do for other ethnic groups? Since there are many Han people around the world with different political identity? But I like your suggestion. 151.151.98.238 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Better to just go with "Han Chinese in Greater China" and "Han Chinese around the World", as is usually the difference between Oversease Chinese and non-Overseas Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) (Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.):::::And the best thing to do is to take this issue somewhere else. Preferably Taiwanese people, so you can argue about it over there instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This would work if you are saying Taiwanese are NOT Han-related. However, that is not the case. Taiwanese Hans are indeed Han-related and deserved to be on this page, they are just a bit different than other Han Chinese. Kind of like Ethiopian Jews or Chinese in Madagascar...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_people_in_Madagascar 151.151.98.238 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)'(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)::Hey guys, why don't you just leave it alone and stop inventing terms for Taiwan independence purpose? There is no such thing as "Han Taiwanese". Even the DPP government website says 98% of the people on Taiwan are *Han Chinese*. They are not "descendants of Han Chinese" nor "Han Taiwanese". There are people in Taiwan who feel strongly about being Chinese if you look at the statistics. Status quo is what the majority of Taiwanese prefer.--pyl (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please calm yourself. No one was suggesting we use the term "Han Taiwanese" in any article. It was simply used to communicate, and the fact that you understood it means it was effective.

As for the question of "people in Taiwan who feel strongly about being Chinese" versus "descendants of Han Chinese", the former definition would result in a much lower number, as only about half the population self-identifies as "Chinese" while about 98% of the population has some Han Chinese ancestry. Many people prefer to define ethnicity by ancestry and culture so for this article there is good argument for providing the 98%, but it might not hurt to give both numbers.

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)::::As for your comment that Taiwan is technically overseas because it is across the strait, I think you are splitting hair here. That's not the natural definition of the term. By your definition, all Chinese people not living on the Chinese mainland are overseas Chinese.

No, 98% of the Taiwanese population themselves are defined statistically as "Han Chinese". They aren't talking about Han Chinese ancestries. While I respect the ideas of self-identification, this is not one of the areas that is subject to that. A white person is a white person even if he or she thinks that they should be black.

Whereas for the made-up "Han Taiwanese" term, you may think it is an effective communication tool. I don't agree with you. The fact that it made me think about making a term for Taiwanese independence purposes means that the communications may not be that effective if the readers are clinical with your political motivations.--pyl (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Han Taiwanese is pretty much 台灣漢人 and Han Chinese is 中國漢人. In my opinion, this whole topic can just be "Han people"(漢人) instead of "Han Chinese". 76.94.164.125 (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's your misunderstanding in translations. Han Chinese = 漢人 (read the first paragraph of this article). It is not a 中國 vs 台灣 issue like most Taiwanese independence supporters like to make it. Not everything is about China vs Taiwan. Most ethnic Chinese would happy accept a label of "Han Chinese" or even "Chinese" irrespective of their nationality. Taiwanese independence supporters are the exception. In my experience, they tend to politicise everything and force feed people with their ideology. That doesn't make Taiwan more independent. It just makes me feel annoyed by them.--pyl (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how this becomes a Taiwan vs. China issue to begin with. Nobody is advocating "Taiwanese independence" on this page here and I think you are becoming pretty offenseive in a way and it is getting a bit frustrating to be honest. I think user 76 brought up an excellent point by showing us the translation in Chinese because the word "Chinese" is nowhere to be found in tyhe actual wording of "Han people". I can even go as far as saying whoever created the site and term entire Han people as "Han Chinese" a bit Sino-centric. If you look around the internet, there are HARDLY any sites talking about Han people in general refer to the ethnic group by "Han Chinese". China may be the "center of universe" to Chinese people, but it aint so to rest of the world and academic community. Look at these pages:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Han-people

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781533351/Han_(people).html

http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/nationality/han/ (this is even cited as one of the sources on this wiki page, and the site says Han NATIONALITY and Han Chinese was only used to address those who, live within CHINA.

http://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Han-Religion-and-Expressive-Culture.html (this is ALSO cited as one of the sources on this wiki page)

http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/H0039900.html (this is cited as one of the sources on this wiki page)

I mean, SERIOUSLY? Pyl... come ON. With all your intelligence you cannot see the flaws in your own arguments? This ISNT about Taiwanese politics, this is about doing a good job EDITING on WIKI.

And Bal, you said you dont like Chinese language news articles and WUFI for verifiability. Look at the last external evidence on this page.

http://www.claytonbrown.org/ (a phd CANDIDATE's own personal web site??? Has he gotten his PHD yet??? Come on, my TAs from UCLA Asian Studies can do better than THAT. He can't even spell TAIPEI correctly. That is I am giving him the benefit of doubt that he isnt being political and siding with PRC position of ONE CHINA policy.)

http://www.geocities.com/bx_huang/han_chinese.html (Balthazar, did you catch this??? It's an article that is published on personal web site? Didn't this bother you a single bit???? http://www.geocities.com/bx_huang/family_pic.jpg Does this family picture from Bx_huang look like Yahoo News Staff??)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) I think this discussion is getting way too complicated. This "Taiwanese" issue is best taken to another article that is actually about "Taiwanese identity." This is not the article to discuss it. Under the distribution section, if Han Chinese population in Taiwan are to be mentioned, do it with a few statements about the actual "distribution" about them, and leave the rest (about their ancestors and how Han Chinese they are) to articles about Taiwanese people. --Balthazarduju (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's Han Taiwanese issue, not just Taiwanese, Bal. What do you have against Han people in Taiwan? Why do you think they deserve less attention and less information on wikipedia? Are you a Han Taiwanese? If not, perhaps you should let them edit the section on this page the proper way. How do you know if they would not feel this whole "Han Chinese" thing is too complicated and just change it to "Han people" so we can all forget about this "Chinese vs. Taiwanese" BS? 76.94.164.125 (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This argument is typical of cross straits arguments on English WP. It's cluttering up the Talk page of an article that's barely related to the issue. Like I said before, it is more appropriate for Taiwanese people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has a problem with the Han Chinese in Taiwan. I think people are pretty irritated by politicising everything into a China vs Taiwan issue as I pointed out above. "Han Chinese" means 漢人. "Han Chinese" is the common term in English, not "Han people" and certainly not "Han Taiwanese". Don't make up terms for ideology purposes. "Han Chinese" has nothing to do with China vs Taiwan. So as I said, could you guys just leave it alone?--pyl (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Han Chinese" means 漢人. "Han Chinese" is the common term in English, not "Han people" Look at my response above and I can show you more English terminologies that shows just HAN PEOPLE.

Don't make up terms for ideology purposes. Why don't you tell these people that?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17067345

http://books.google.com/books?id=S4vg8BQrqA4C&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=Han+taiwanese&source=bl&ots=D--y96338C&sig=0f8skFiJaAnmCdZQIzEfQ4gO2KY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA125,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=3DtPHIARfocC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Han+taiwanese&source=web&ots=8VTd0QHQlG&sig=DSLBFD-1nMpOfMQIizDPzFsdbnA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

www.cpu.edu.tw/~fsjournal/content/vol1.no.1/p3(27-30).pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/525hectwg40r7jyk/

www.soas.ac.uk/taiwanstudies/events/conferences/papers/24339.pdf

I am sorry that REALITY is disappointing to you, Pyl, but wake up and smell the tea!If you look back, only you, Bal and Hong here brought up the whole argument of "Taiwanese independence" and "taiwanese ideology" as red herring. We just want to provide some information about Han people in Taiwan! Now, unless you can quit the political rhetorics and get back on earth so we can discuss about this Han people in taiwan issue like matured adults, then do not post anything. Seriously, it is only cluttering up the place because you guys started to have problems with my contribution with unfounded argument.151.151.7.53 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Chinese language article that you (anonymous user 151.151.7.53) are trying to insert is that you are using it to back up statements concerning academic "studies".--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Verifiability states of Non-English sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.".

However, none of the editors on the talk page has agreed that the statements you wanted to insert is indeed crucial to this article, thus the Chinese language article is not necessary as you haven't elaborated that the information is essential to this article. If you were using Chinese language article reporting on news events that normally would be okay, but using it for research is not, because the statements you inserted carry much more weight than that.--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the policy as stated clearly that English language article is preferred assuming English language equivalent with equal quality is available. The WUFI site, obviously, would not be of equal quality for it is political. In that sense, this article published by a mainstream news media in Taiwan would then fit under the reliable source provision.

Furthermore, I am not BACKING anything, it is not an "argument". Wikipedia is about facts, we just forward the facts from reliable source. Not to mention the details of the scientific research has already been provided by another link that leads to the detail of her research on the issue. I take that your whole reasoning for editing is already wrong in the first place if you view contributions as "argument" when in fact it is more of contribution of quality information from reliable sources.

Again, let me respectfully refer you back to the TOP of the page of wikipedia verifiability policy... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. By asserting your own judgement on what should be admitted as "reliable resource" and what is "varifiable" OUTSIDE of wikipedia guideline is a form of violation and overstepping boundaries.

Finally, the news article I have presented is related to scientific research and an academic scholarly report relating to the information is of course most highly valued and takes the highest position in admission preference. However, according to the wikipedia policy again, Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The materials I have presented OBVIOUSLY fits in the last sentence as stated in the wikipedia policy, and the article should be admissible by default. Your lack of understanding of the policies and the language is what troubled you.

Please refrain yourself from doing so as it is a clear violation and a display of incredible bad manners. It does not matter how many or who agree with the statement I want to insert, it matters with how many disagree with me BASE ON the VERIFIABILITY POLICY as stated by wikipedia. Please argue from the perspective of policy, not what you think is true or not. 151.151.73.163 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are citing a foreign language news article to back up a claim of substantial weight. If you find an English-language source, then it wouldn't be much of a problem. So far, you are the only one that keeps repeating it's "a reliable source of information".

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."

These above statements are referring to English language sources (it isn't in the section where it refers to Non-English Sources). If you find an English language China Times, perhaps it will have more weight. But for a statement that you "translated" yourself from a foreign language article, you'll need consensus.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I do not want to keep on repeating this to you because I trust you can read above grade school level. The policy of the wikipedia clearly states the requirements for reliable sourtces in general. It does not say it only applies to English language sources, if so, please cite the EXACT wordings from the policy because I must have missed it. Also, any interpretation different from what the wikipedia policy already stated must be affirmed by a concensus on that page, which you clearly have not attained for this purpose. Please do not interpret outside the context of the policies as it does not say only English sources may be reliable. The concensus requirement is nowhere to be found regarding translation of non-English source, Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.. Please do not assert your own interpretation outside of the context. 151.151.7.53 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Bal, since you are so into deleting unreliable resources and non-verifiable information, why don't you go ahead and remove the external links? They clearly would not be admissable under the "Self-published and other questionable sources" section of the policy.

• http://www.claytonbrown.org/ (a phd CANDIDATE's own personal web site??? Has he gotten his PHD yet??? Come on, my TAs from UCLA Asian Studies can do better than THAT. He can't even spell TAIPEI correctly. That is I am giving him the benefit of doubt that he isnt being political and siding with PRC position of ONE CHINA policy.)

• http://www.geocities.com/bx_huang/han_chinese.html (Balthazar, did you catch this??? It's an article that is published on personal web site? Didn't this bother you a single bit???? http://www.geocities.com/bx_huang/family_pic.jpg Does this family picture from Bx_huang look like Yahoo News Staff??)

If you honestly do not know the policy well, serve this exercise as an editing practice. If you are just after me with mal intention, I question your motive for such a blatant double standard? 151.151.73.163 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

These links were added a long time ago, and unlike in this case, an anonymous IP editor trying to insert chunks of disputed paragraphs, recently. If you want to remove these links, I'm fine with it. They don't seem like relevant links in my opinion.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not about YOUR opinion. It is about the policy. The contribution I have made to the page meets all requirements as demanded by wikipedia policies. Not what Balthazar thinks, but what wikipedia requires. 151.151.7.53 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To go back to your previous claim

"Finally, the news article I have presented is related to scientific research and an academic scholarly report relating to the information is of course most highly valued and takes the highest position in admission preference."

Read the Chinese language news article you used [10]. You are inserting a foreign language newspaper to back up statements about scientific studies, you are also trying to relate the newspaper's article to an "academic scholarly report." However, the Chinese language newspaper "maybe" reporting on scientific claims, but itself is an extremely short article and it did not list any reference and bibliography of the supposed "studies", and that speaks of how poorly-constructed this source it is. Who is the author that wrote this piece, and what is the reporter's credential? These are information that'll be easy to verify if you use an English language source. When you cited it you did not give much valuable information to this article.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again. The article's information is to summarize a scientific research report and the article its self is NOT the scientific report as it is clearly a non-academic source. However, what i am extracting from it would be the "material" and the scientific related material I have extracted from this report does not need to be from an academic or scholarly report as stated in wikipedia policy. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The policy does not state that the news article must state those information YOU perceived as necessary requirements.

If you can read Chinese, you would be able to see that the article actually mentioned the information on the research and who conducted the research also the reporter responsible for the news article. Whether or not the structure is poorly constructed or not is YOUR OPINION and serves no merit in justifying your action to discredit them if the information and the source presented are clearly legal within the policies. The English-first guideline is mentioned for the sake of CONVENIENCE to the readers, and the thresheld is still VERIFIABILITY. Wikipedia sets a set of guidelines for verifiability and it does not say, "we follow whatever Balthazar says"! Even you very much would like that. If that is the case, most of the sources cited on wikipedia would need to be deleted "per Balthazar's decreed". 151.151.7.53 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean, SERIOUSLY? Pyl... come ON. With all your intelligence you cannot see the flaws in your own arguments?

I am sorry that REALITY is disappointing to you, Pyl, but wake up and smell the tea!

With all your intelligence, don't you realise that you have been patrolising to other editors? I am not sure who you think you are but, why would you think I would care about if you are disappointed in me.

The references you gave are just absurd. The links say "Han Taiwanese men", "Han Taiwanese identity", "Han-Taiwanese", "Taiwanese Han population". Did you just look up google and type in "Han Taiwanese" and didn't bother reading the results? None of these terms mean the "Han Taiwanese" you are trying to make up. In any event, if you search "Han Chinese" and Taiwan, you will see even more results. The POV are you advocating is marginal, and according to Wikipedia policy, it shouldn't be stated.

Since you are into genes and scientic research, have you been bothered looking into this?

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=91834

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/10/1760

All I did was typing in ("Han Chinese" Taiwan) in google. If you are really into the "truth", you could have easily done that.

Dressing your own political ideology in the so-called neutral "scientific research" is just so offensive. It is clear what you are doing here: you are only into one side of the argument, not both.--pyl (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pyl, just a few posts ago, you claimed that Han Taiwanese was not supposed to exist because they were suppsed to be something I "made up for ideology purpose"! Oh wow, all of the sudden people started to make up Han Taiwanese and searchable by google? Please. You are just trying to dodge and deflect serious flaws in your argument by saying all these are politically motivated. Incredibly bad taste, really. Can we stick to the subject?? I am not advocating any POV, as I said before, I am simply providing information according to the guidelines of wikipedia. Not Balthazarpedia or Pylepedia, but wikipedia. Also, the Han Taiwanese language as of now is only limited in this discussion page and not on the main Han page, I have no clue what made you so jumpy? Also, in case your understanding of wikepedia is at the same level as Balthazar, let me cite this from the policies again... for your benefit. ''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. No, I wasnt seeking the "truth", you were, I was seeking counter examples from reliable sources. And that is not what wikipedia is about. And finally, I have repeated many times, there is not an ounce of political advocacy in the text I have contributed to the page, if so, please show me or you would be throwing unfounded accusations and that does not make you convincing at all. The scientific research information I have provided was within the guidelines of wikipedia policies, whether or not it may seem "offensive" to you is not my business and certainly not wikipedia's business. Please keep your own personal POV to yourself as we must aabide to NPOV principles. And at the end, I was not making any argument, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Thank you. Please only criticize me from te perspective of the wikepedia policies.151.151.7.53 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are only into one side of the argument = not NPOV--pyl (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)::::::I read what you have to say, but NPOV is the point.--pyl (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Because we all have different interpretation of what NPOV may mean, hence I refer back to the wikepedia policies for legitimacy. I think what I put down was fairly neutral and it does not violate any existing wikipedia policy on verifiability. If you do not think it is neutral, then provide "balance" as what the conflict resolution policy states.Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Deleting is NOT a good way to make it neutral.151.151.7.53 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.):I don't assume people's political motivations unless they consistently favour only one side of the arguments from the political spectrum.--pyl (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again. NPOV principle according to wiki describes the POV as presented by the content of the material. The materials I have presented were facts and not arguments or opinions base on value. It is pretty basic fudamental knowledge in evidence selection and evaluation. Again, the wikipedia does not want you to FOCUS on the editors, but the content. The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Please refer back to the Conflict Resolution page. ..... do you even read these things? encyclopedias are built on inequisitorial principles like in US legal system, both sides present quality evidence of reliable sources and the READERS will make their evaluation base on available evidence!!! it is not YOU who determines if the editors are biased, if you think it is biased... BALANCE it with counter evidence of equal reliability and quality. Does it make sense? 151.151.7.53 (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your edit on Frank Hsieh. Is there a reason why the fact he is NOT a scientific researcher justify your deletion? the reason for the part about him to be included was very simple...

• he was a prime minister of Taiwan at the time, the highest executive in the Executive Yuan, so he is privy to all valuable scientific research reports relevant to the affairs relating to the administrated area -- Taiwan. Whatever he cited would held extreme weight if it is not his personal opinion.
• he is a prominent figure of the Han people in Taiwan and thus relevant to the topic of the wiki page.
• the source of the event was published and reported by a respected mainsstream news media, and it is in English. The purpose of the article is to show that the research report deemed valuable to the government comes close to the result from researches done by Dr. Mali Lin in the subsequent sentence.

Also, this is not an original research as defined by wikipedia. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. It is a prime minister of Taiwan citing a research result sanctioned by the head of the authoritative governing polity of Taiwan. It is not opinion, argument, or experience. Because the news paper is not reporting the research report, it is reporting what the premier is saying, so I think his name should be left in so to keep NPOV and accuracy of the fact. Where does it violate the original research policy??? I am not going to revert it yet, but I need your response on this, according to the policies set forth by wikipedia. Thanks 151.151.7.53 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pyl's removal of the reference to Frank Hsieh. It doesn't add to the understanding of what "Han Chinese" is or to understanding the Han in Taiwan. It does provide weight to the argument for including the statistics, but it doesn't add to the article. i.e., it's worth mentioning on the discussion page but not worth mentioning in the article.

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)::I will let it remain the way it is reverted then. But not because I think the possibility of he doing so selectively is an issue, but the content of the article is actually predominantly about the research result. Personally, I think what we suspect the motive of a politician or political figure mentioned in an article might be is not really relevant. I mean, we cannot really be able to verify the true motive of the people mentioned in an article if the article its self does not explicitly report it as fact. 151.151.98.238 (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

the above vietnamese user who is currently living in australia

User:Nationalist320, AKA User:Sea888, AKA USer:David873, AKA USer:Dave1185, AKA USer:Yellowmonkey and crossed the line in his major sockpuppeting here, trying to push a POV that cantonese are vietnamese yueh.

My Input with regard to the Han being of African descent

I had entered a comment that the Han were orginally of African lineage. I had given a scholarly reference for my input. Someone commented that my input was bias against the Han. Is there something bias about stating what a reknown scholar, Benedict Alexander, has researched? What is biased about stating a lineage? Did the person that had power to say I was bias check the reference? I hope that eradication of my input was not based on a Chinese feeling of superiority to an African heritage. That in someway being African is not to be accepted. The point remains that there many artifacts older than those of the Han from other cultures in China.Henryjos (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

i hope you realize we aint blind and we can see you added nothing to the article in its history log.... and the skulls of people found in china were always mongoloid, not african of anytype.

ive seen the website you stated, #1, that guy BENEDICT is refering to the OUT OF AFRICA THEORY, he was saying that han chinese WERE DESCENDED from non chinese africans. #2 he said nothing whatsoever about africans starting chinese culture, or some other aliens out of place in china.04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)~~

Are you talking about the Negrito people of Southeast Asia? They kind of look Black African, but genetically are distantly related. In any case, the Han Chinese ethnic group is not African in origin (although very distantly related if the Out of Africa theory holds firm; then again, all human beings are supposed to have come out of Africa thousands and thousands of years ago, but not when the Han Chinese ethnic group was formed).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Henryjos misread the article. the benedict dude said chinese were descended from non chinese africans, see out of africa theory. henryjos thought it said that africans were in china before chinese.04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.144.131 (talk)

some people are trying to take advantage of teh fact that n and s. chinese have different DNA to make chinese not an ethnic group. that is complete BS, because n is full of immigrants like jurchen and wuhu tribes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.128.190 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon, don't forget that an ethnic group is not based solely (or even at all) on genetics. Language, culture, history, ancestry, physical appearance, religion and nationality are far more important in the formation of ethnicity. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But ancestry and physical appearance would certainly fall under the category of genetics (unless you are talking about clothing in regards to physical appearance, lol). But you're right, genetics is about race, not ethnicity. Ethnicity is subject to cultural criteria.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had a higher opinion of Wikipedia than I see reflected here in your feedback. "BS", "dude", "ain't", "guy" are words that I am surprised to see here. But not so damning as to see a poor attempt at explaining "race" the definition of which remains unresolved. Sorry for attempting to contribute. Henryjos (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

henryjos, stop blaming wikipedia for you misreading the website. it clearly stated that han chinese were descended from non chinese africans, not that africans were in china before chinese and started their civilization

Henryjos, you can't be serious. You are letting something like that ruffle your feathers? Plus, I don't see this as a substantive rebuttal to arguments against "African" people in ancient China.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Crap in han diversity and genetics

Southern chinese are descended from the original chinese who fled from north, as altaic nomads moved in , with limited genetic contributions from native peoples in the south. Northern chinese are majority descended from altaic nomads, as evidenced by their DNA, high cheekbones, and slit type eyes. Southern chinese are descended from real chinese. whoever wrote that section was trying to pull some BS for unifying nationalism propaganda.

and vietnamese have lots of chinese blood. dont try to cover that up, thats why chinese are "genetically similar" to southeast asians, its because the southeast asians received genes from chinese, not the other way around.

oh yeah, and there were chinese nationalist in tang dynasty who tried to drive foreign peoples out etc. like the altaic nomads who were ancestors of northern chinese. they would be horrified at this "new breed" of chinese "nationalists" trying to link southern chinese(who are descended from original chinese who fled the altaic nomads during the Jin, tang, song, dynasties) with northern chinese(altaic nomads) for unification purpose

im not saying i agree with those ancient nationalists

This is a complete strawman argument. Northern nomadic peoples (i.e. "Wu Hu") who had "high cheekbones, and slit type eyes" as you describe them (as if all the nomads are one big homogeneous group, which they are not), intermarried with many northern Han Chinese, while tribal peoples of the south who became assimilated into Chinese society also intermarried with many southern Han Chinese. But you act as if the story just abruptly ends there roughly around the time that the Jin Dynasty (265–420) fled south in the early 4th century CE. It's almost as if you forgot that the Sui and Tang dynasties existed, when the whole of China (north and south) was consolidated into one empire, with massive migrations of people from north to south (and even some from south to north). This fact is very important, because at that point, there were still many non-Han peoples or mixed Han and non-Han peoples in northern China (even the Sui and Tang emperors who were part Han and part Xianbei in bloodline). By this point the populations of north and south under one political power became heavily intermixed with one another. If that's not enough, China was again consolidated under the Song Dynasty, where once again a huge migration south (with huge population boom) took place in the 11th century, followed by the Song court and hundreds of thousands of northern Chinese resettling in southern China to escape the Jurchen invasion of the Jin Dynasty. Then China was reconsolidated again under the Mongol-controlled Yuan Dynasty, which allowed for even more migrations of people from north to south (and some from south to north, lest we forget). Do I need to go over the Ming and Qing? I hope you get the point by now. This whole silly fight about the so-called physical or biological purity of "southern" and "northern" Chinese is a pure fantasy which has consumed too much time on this discussion page. It assumes that the populations of both northern and southern China were static and non-fluid, that for centuries upon centuries there was no movement of families at all in either direction. What a bogus assertion; yet, it's pretty much what you are trying to argue. I abhor it when some people look to some petty and minor cultural differences between northern and southern Chinese and immediately think this translates into some sort of great dividing line by biological difference. False.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

However, if you wanted to argue linguistics (which is an aspect of culture, not DNA), you could easily point out that Mandarin Chinese is born of northern China, is influenced by originally non-Han dialects, and bears little resemblance to the mainstream linguistic dialects of dynasties preceding the Yuan Dynasty, which can be associated with archaic forms of modern dialects such as Hokkien (although not even 100%, considering Min Nan influence in the latter). However, when we talk about the people who spoke Old Chinese and then Middle Chinese, we are not talking about people of a single, pure biological stock; this is purely about linguistics, and not all scholars agree as to how similar Old and Middle Chinese are to various southern dialects spoken today. In fact, some argue that Old Chinese bears almost no resemblence at all to any existing Chinese dialect (north or south), since it perhaps used clusters of consonants instead of different tones (like the four tones of modern Mandarin).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For more on this, you should look to Jerry Norman's Chinese (1988).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 07:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You would find that some web sites such as the one for "World United for Formosan Independence" do indeed push ideas that are consistent with the notion that most people living in Southern China before the 15th century were not ethnically Chinese. Then again, these sorts of web sites appear to use "strawman" arguments in order to make their point (and even let slip inconvenient truths at times!). We certainly ought to scrutinize every web site we read. Anti Manchu lobbyist (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

some trash named hongthay is trying to push a seperatist agenda by placing studies where the thing that is analyzed isnt even shown in the study. Dr lin makes no comment on her actual results, but delves right into a (false) claim that southern chinese are all yueh, and i still don't see her PHD in chinese history. whoever puts the section back up, has to display her full alma matter and EVERYTHING she studied, because im sure chinese history and migrations werent one of them.

Also DNA results have shown a clear genetic distinction between northern and southern chinese, this has been repetedly many times by people with different motives.

southern chinese, and mon-khmer southeast asians arent in the same genetic groupings. this proves that contributions from native southern tribes must be minimal, and the fact that there are only 7 unique whatever you called them when they tested random vietnamese people shows that the native aboriginals who inhabitated china are nearly extincy.

You have some good ideas. It would be very pleasing to see Wikipedia display a greater level of professionality, in this case, explaining the credentials of the scholars who are discussed (I was able to find some info on her which I inserted into the article). To say that southern Chinese are all "Yue" is just silly. Sure, when you take a sample of the population, you are bound to find "Yue" bloodlines in some people, but certainly not all, and as you rightly point out, mon-khmer southeast Asians clearly belong to a different genetic group.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And someone needs to thoroughly expunge the article of any content that might suggest the existence of an ethnic homogenuity in Northern China. Where is the stuff about the "Manchurianization" of Han Chinese during the past two centuries? Where is the stuff about how the number of Han Chinese living within the PRC is determined? After all, there are literally millions of those with Manchu ancestry, some even living in far flung places like Hong Kong! And what about the barbarians who keep pretending to be ethnically Chinese when they are clearly not, such as Manchus? Anti Manchu lobbyist (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, isn't the modern Chinese national costume is actually a Manchu (barbarian as you call them) costume? Qing culture looks quite different from Ming culture.Gantuya eng (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.185.78 (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just face the truth Bathrobe and david

USers bathrobe, and david's anon ips have been soaping all over the page trying to claim that han chinese is not an ethnic group, by taking advantage of the fact that northern chinese an dsouthern chinese have different DNA, and the fact that they speak different languages.

Bathrobe's brain is too small to remember the fact that the original chinese called themselves han chinese exactly because the northern wu hu and barbarians invaded and setteled all over north china, and that original chinese fled south. he also fails to comrehend that all chinese languages are in the sinitic language family.

david is a disgruntled vietnamese living in australia, who is extremely pissed off at the fact that vietnamese have lots of chinese DNA from chinese migrating into vietnam along time ago, therefore, he tries to create the myth that vietnamese do not have chinese blood, but have pure yue blood, and that cantonese and hakka, hookien and yueh too. its the result of inferiority complex that drives him to do this because he can't stand the fact that vietnamese have chinese DNA, and he claims northern chinese are the real chinese, when its the opposite. he continually tries to advance his position on the talk page, its best to shut your ears and dont listen, as he keeps providing the same source, a source by a person with no PHD in history, yet the entire content of the source is on history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.157.221 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why the anonymous editor is claiming that am "trying to claim that han chinese is not an ethnic group". If he/she would look back, he/she would find where I made the following comment:

I see no particular reason to deconstruct the "Han" ethnic group. All ethnic identities are fictions in some way or another. The "Han Chinese" can be loosely defined as speakers of Chinese dialects who embrace the "Chinese" cultural tradition. Although this is vague, it is coherent enough and reflects a certain cultural and historical reality. The Hui are not included as they have a different cultural tradition... Racially and perhaps even culturally, the Cantonese, Hokkienese, etc. differ significantly from the northern Chinese, but that is not a reason for saying they are not "Han Chinese". The ethnic group of "Han Chinese" is not based in bloodlines, etc. That doesn't detract from its reality as a perceived ethnic group of modern China.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But it would be problematic if this article attempted to describe people as part of the ethnic group that don't identify so. In Taiwan, during the Japanese period, Hakka weren't Han. Today, Hakka are considered Han, but it's not a salient identity in Taiwan. It's only used to basically mean "not aboriginal". People identify as Minnan, Taiwanese, Chinese, Hakka, Aboriginal, ____ (tribe name here), but very rarely as "Han".--PaulMSanders (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox picture

How about we don't use pictures of only dead people in the infobox, and actually have pictures (not paintings!) of people that are alive today? You know, contemporary people. K thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey look, I took the courtesy of commenting in the Talk page. The least you could do is engage me in discussion if you're going to revert. My selection of photos has 3 men and 3 women - 2 political figures, 2 actors, and 2 athletes. It's a pretty even spread, and they're actual photos of people instead of paintings. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Why use so many dead people? This is more accurate." Your reasoning in your edit summary is not a valid argument at all. "More accurate"? How is it more accurate? Many ethnic group templates has classical painting and mural pictures in them. My problem is that the picture template you envisioned concentrates too much on current pop culture and celebrities. Using pictures of Confucius, First Emperor and traditional Chinese paintings would gave a classier outlook to the article.--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't we incoporate pictures of scientists, writers and people of other profession?--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Photographs are more accurate because they are... photographic. They are not paintings, which are subject to the interpretation of the artists. Honestly I don't really care if other ethnic group articles have paintings and murals in their infoboxes, unless there is some WP standard to specifically include them that I am unaware of. In my opinion, the other ethnic group articles should stay away from paintings and murals in their infoboxes, too. Having said that, let me bullet point this:

• With pictures of Confucius and Qin Shihuang - you do realise that you have two people who actually lived before the Han Dynasty representing Han Chinese, right? This article is mostly about Han Chinese the people, not the history of China. That is why it's much better to have people who lived in modern times in the infobox.
• I absolutely agree with having Sun Yat-Sen and Soong Ching-ling in there, as they are very important figures and they are also neutral to the China-Taiwan edit warriors.
• I understand your concern that you think there are too many celebrities in my selection, but I do think we should have at least one or two, depending on how many total number of people we have in the infobox, so let's leave Jackie Chan in.
• Yes absolutely, let's incorporate pictures of scientists, writers, etc. I suggest we include a picture of Lu Xun in there - File:LuXun1930.jpg.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I put the template images into another older version, fewer "dead people" this time. I think five pictures should also be fine. Now Sun Yat-Sen and Soong Ching-ling are both here. We also have an actor and an athlete; so if you do insert pictures, please don't insert anymore pictures of these two professions.--Balthazarduju (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Contributions to the world"

The title of the section suggests that all these inventions spread from China to the world. This is clearly not the case for a large number or even the majority of these items. Modern printing, for example, derives completely from Gutenberg's printing press, including in China itself. The title should either be changed or reliable sources provided for each item. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You might want to elaborate on what are the specific items that you see as problematic, and perhaps you could then remove it (with good reason and consensus)? The section is unsourced, and needs clean-up (as does the article), however printing, paper, gunpowder, and many cultural and decorative items listed are usually described by mainstream encyclopedias as inventions in ancient China.--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But the headline "Contributions to the world" implies that these inventions spread to the rest of the world, totally disregarding the fact that much, if not the majority of the se things were also independently invented elsewhere. I would advise to provide evidence for the spread of these techniques for every single instance (plus adding possible conflicting opinions), the unsourced rest would then needed to be removed as unsourced claims. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Beginning in the 8th century, paper spread west from China into Islamic Central Asia. The spread of gunpowder from China is arguable (and perhaps invented seperately in the Islamic and European spheres). European movable type printing was obviously unknown until Gutenberg in the 15th century, despite a different form (which lacked the Hellenistic screw press) known in China four centuries earlier as the invention of Bi Sheng. Instead of worrying about all of this diffusion stuff, how about renaming the section to "Han-Chinese innovations", which does not imply anything about other world cultures importing original Chinese inventions?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Anachronistic use of "Han Chinese"

I notice that the article says:

'The Han Chinese are a subset of the Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu)'. It also says that 'In the English language, the Hans are often (and, in the view of many Chinese, incorrectly) referred to as simply "Chinese"'.

Historically the term "Chinese" is perfectly correct in referring to the Han. It was only after the adoption of the ideology of Zhonghua minzu in the early 20th century that Mongols, Tibetans, and other peoples started to be called "Chinese". "Han Chinese" thus came about as a new term (in English) to differentiate the original "Chinese" (whatever they may have been called historically) from these new additions. (Even during the last imperial dynasty, the Mongolians, Tibetans, and Uyghurs were not regarded as or treated as "Chinese", although they were definitely part of the empire.) The current position of Chinese governments is that non-Han people (in the modern nomenclature) are indeed Chinese. Any attempt to state otherwise casts doubt on Chinese sovereignty over these territories. This is at least part of the reason why the usage of "Chinese" to refer to "Han Chinese" is so controversial.

The problem is that pushing the modern ethnic term back into history is anachronistic. To say that Li Bai, for instance, was a "Han Chinese poet" is a linguistic innovation. "Han Chinese" is part of the modern ideology that the Chinese state is a multi-ethnic state, in which there are 56 recognised nationalities. By applying it to Li Bai, it seems to imply that the same ideology and situation applied when he was alive. In a less fractious time, it was sufficient to say that he was a "Chinese" poet, but because of the modern insistence that "Han Chinese" is only one member of the modern Zhonghua minzu, it seems that people now feel impelled to read the current ideology and its terminology back into earlier historical stages. This seems to me to be not a clarification but a distortion of history.

Having laid out my objection, I would like to suggest that the term "Han Chinese" in the article should be explained against this background, i.e., within framework of the modern state. This does not mean tracing the term "Han" back to the Han dynasty. It means explaining how and why the term "Han Chinese" came to be differentiated from the former term "Chinese". At this stage the article reads like "Han Chinese" is the neutral term and represents the universal and historical state of affairs, when in fact it represents a reinterpretation of ethnicity, culture, and history from a particular modern point of view. It obscures the fact that the innocuous statement 'The Han Chinese are a subset of the Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu)' is historically an innovation, which people living a hundred years ago would have found quite incongruous.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments on this suggestion so far, I will look at ways of implementing my above suggestion in the near future.

I would like to emphasise that this suggestion is actually a way of defusing the "Chinese" vs "Han Chinese" issue, not of inflaming it. By noting the historical usage it is possible to show that (1) "Han Chinese" is the usage preferred in relation to modern China (2) "Chinese" is not wrong per se; it is merely a continuation of traditional usage in English.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my late comment here. I think that the issue of anachronism in history is fairly complicated. To some extent, our view of history is always anachronistic and refusing to use current categories to describe the past can sometimes be artificial or even obscurantist. I think that every definition of "Han Chinese" involves a conception of historical continuity between living Han people and historical Chinese culture. Therefore, I don't think that it's false to say that Li Bai was a Han Chinese person, although it seems like bad style and an odd way to phrase the idea.

I personally quite agree with your analysis that "'Han Chinese' thus came about as a new term (in English) to differentiate the original 'Chinese' (whatever they may have been called historically) from these new additions." However, the fact is that expressly contradicting Zhonghua minzu ideology has become quite politically incorrect, even with regard to historical people (I've had Chinese people snap at me for implying that Genghis Khan or Wang Zhaojun's husband were not Chinese). I don't mean to imply that Wikipedia should react by expressly endorsing the Zhonghua minzu-ness of pre-modern non-Han people. I think we should basically ignore it. Pre-modern Han people are "Chinese" because everyone agrees on that; pre-modern Tibetans, Mongols, Zhuangs, etc. are "Tibetans", "Mongols", "Zhuangs", etc. because everyone agrees on that.

This article should remain silent on controversial points unless they are very well sourced. "The Han Chinese are a subset of the Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu)" should be rephrased as an opinion rather than a fact. I'm not sure what to do with "In the English language, the Hans are often (and, in the view of many Chinese, incorrectly) referred to as simply 'Chinese'".—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Chan Photo

Hi, I noticed that there is a photo of Jackie Chan as a representative of both Han and Cantonese ethnic groups. Is this possible and true?

Cheers ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.29.199 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Cantonese people are usually considered to be a subset of Han people.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Han Chinese is not exist in real world

Since when han Chinese ethnicity begun? han Chinese itself it's mixed ethnicity so can't be single ethnicity. It's more like Chinese government made up this imaginary ethnicity to claim the territorial legitimacy. Korsentry 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

I'm normally indifferent to trolls but those kids from Koreansentry are so irritating. It makes me kinda glad that the Korean peninsula is split today. You'd think a country in such a divided state would have a more humble population, guess not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.160.165 (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah apparently an ethnic group that traces it's origins to a dynasty over 2000 years ago is invalid because of what some Korean nationalist thinks. It's not as if you're not biased or anything right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when han Chinese concept existed? during Qing, way after all the previous empires that ruled now parts of modern China.--Korsentry 07:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah apparently 1.3 billion people just magically appeared out of nowhere. Seriously stop trolling

The Han ethnicity is just a highly varied and mixed group of people...more of a cultural + heritage designation than anything to do with biology. And this is 10x amplified for the concept of "Chinese" ...which is culture, heritage, and nationality. Again, nothing to do with biology considering there's 60 ethnic groups in mainland China and the dominant "Han" group is very much mixed.

But the concept of the Han originated in early imperial China...people who originally settled along the Yellow River, and this eventually encompassed everyone who was a citizen of the Qin and Han Empires. Intranetusa (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Han" ethnic group is a creation of political consolidation by the Han Dynasty two thousand years ago. Before that, the various ethnic groups of the Yellow River valley under the Shang Dynasty, Zhou Dynasty, and of the different Warring States that would meld together to form the Han ethnic group can be referred to as "Huaxia," which has now become synonymous with "Han" people. Of course, after the Han Dynasty, the so-called "Han" people were known by the current dynasty in each era. For example, "Jin" people, "Tang" people, etc. Within the "Han" ethnic group there are ethnic subdivisions by region, of course, but to say that the "Han" ethnic group does not exist is rather absurd.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Echoing PoA. Also, WP is not the place to argue. If you would like to help improve articles, by all means do so. If you want to troll, go to Youtube. There are many nationalistic pages there, you'll always find someone willing to argue with you. Not here. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)