Talk:Guangdong

NPOV problems

Also, if you think that there are NPOV problems with the page, please discuss them. I have no idea what the problem with the page is.

It would really help if you at least mention your objections. I have no idea what they are....

This article is total garbage, similar to the Breanna, North Carolina and BethpageHillBrier crap that appeared on here earlier. There is no Guangdong and the Chinese race is not "superior".

If there's no such thing as Guangdong, how come it gets 502,000 hits on Google [1]? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 05:32 24 May 2003 (UTC)

1) I don't see anywhere in the article where it implies the Chinese race is superior

2) What do you mean there is no Guangdong? The province exists, and I'm not aware of any naming/boundary controversy regarding it.

Also, if you think that there are NPOV problems with the page, please discuss them. I have no idea what the problem with the page is.

It would really help if you at least mention your objections. I have no idea what they are....

This article is total garbage, similar to the Breanna, North Carolina and BethpageHillBrier crap that appeared on here earlier. There is no Guangdong and the Chinese race is not "superior".

If there's no such thing as Guangdong, how come it gets 502,000 hits on Google [2]? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 05:32 24 May 2003 (UTC)

• • What scares me about Wiki is this heavy dependence on Google. Google is not the beeall and endall of human knowledge!

I'm actually fascinated by your assertion that there is no Guangdong. Are you asserting that the province is a figment of people's imaginations or do you have a political ax to grind? I don't know of any political controversies regarding Guangdong.

If you don't explain your objections in enough detail for people to understand what they are, then you are a troll, and I will ignore you.

---

Yue

I guess that legendary ethnicity was called 越 rather than 粵. Gonna check that out. --Yacht 18:01, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

Guangdong's population

The 30 million extra population was a recent release (well, around a month ago) by the provincial people's government of Guangdong, by adding the number of non-locals (people from other provinces) residing in the province. — Instantnood 10:53 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Okay, can you add it in the demographics section? Something along the lines of: "millions of migrant workers, though not counted in the official statistics, are now living and working in Guangdong... if these statistics are added, then Guangdong is the most populous province of China..." etc. Right now I think it's better to keep an official statistic given out by the national government statistics bureau in the infobox, just like all other provinces. -- ran (talk) 16:57, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've added it. Thanks for alerting me to this very interesting development, btw. ;) -- ran (talk) 18:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This report by TDM talks about it. I'm looking on the web for more related reports. :-P [3] — Instantnood 21:39 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

I've been on the Guangdong government statistics website, and they seem to give the figure of 80 million for population, local and migrant included, in their report for 2004? ([4]) :| This seems way off from the latest figure of 110 million. Does anyone know what is going on? -- ran (talk) 05:46, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

According to TDM, the statistics seems like hadn't been released. Should be from the mouths of officials. — Instantnood 10:59 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

(deleted what essentially amounted to somebody advertising their own translation/interpretation/tour guide services in the province. This isn't the place for ads, folks.) -MattShepherd

Vietnamese

Why is Vietnamese listed for Guangdong? Vietnamese isn't an official language of the province, nor are there any statistically significant number of Vietnamese in the province, nor has Guangdong ever been part of Vietnam, nor does Vietnam have territorial claims on Guangdong. --Yuje 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess the Gin people are in present-day Guangxi, aren't they? — Instantnood 20:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction section of guangdong, what do the author said about not to play with my guangdong, quoted from the author.What is the exact meaning of this phrase?

comment by another user

I think the Chinese character "han4" oldstyle in the section on opera is actually the new style. Can someone who is a native speaker verify and fix?

De jure official language of the Guangdong Province

Currently (as of 2007-07-13), the article states that the de jure official language of Guangdong is Taishanese. This is surprising, as Putonghua is the national official language of the PRC, and Cantonese is the dialect of Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong. The Chinese Wikipedia article on the same subject does not mention any provincial official language. English Wikipedia articles on other PRC provinces generally mention no provincial official language. I conducted a brief Internet search and no corroboration from non-Wikipedia sources could be found.

I suspect that the information is erroneous. If nobody can back up the assertion with a verifiable, authoritative source, I think it should be removed from the article. --64.236.170.228 13:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's nonsense, I've removed it. Taishanese is only notable outside China because many Chinese Americans have family origins in the Taishan area, in Guangdong it is purely a local dialect spoken by local people, it is not even spoken outside the Taishan area and to claim it's the "De jure official language of Guangdong Province" is ridiculous. I've also removed similar edits added to Taishan dialect by the same anon user. LDHan 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

English Wikipedia name

To the best of my knowledge this province and its capitol city have been universally known, in English, as Canton. Indeed the main dialect in China is Cantonese (Mandarin being originally reserved for the nobility). I have five atlases here at home, the latest being 1978, and all say Canton. The Travels of Marco Polo also refer to it as Canton. Since when did English-language speakers world-wide start referring to it as Guangdong? Is this just another example of political correctness gone mad? Will the names of Rome, Munich and Warsaw now be changed on Wikipedia to that spelt/spoken by the locals? And if so, will instructions be given to foreign language versions of Wikipedia insisting that London only be spelt London? David Lauder 12:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actualy Cantonese (Guangzhou dialect) is the local dialect of Guangzhou and the surrounding areas, which is a very small part of China (not including HK and Macao). In China, the Yue dialect group which includes all varieties of Cantonese is only spoken in Guangdong and parts of Guangxi. And most Cantonese speakers in Guangdong, can speak both the local Cantonese and the national Putonghua (Mandarin). LDHan 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the discussion on the language but it fails to answer the fundamental question I have put. David Lauder 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that virtually every reference cited on the article page is, er, Chinese. I thought this was the English language Wikipedia? Surely these articles should not just be translations, but reflect also the world's English speaker's histories, &c.? (I suppose this follows on from my comment above). David Lauder 10:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

English references would be nice if more effort is put onto the article. But yeah i think theres a rule somewhere indicating that for some reason wikipedia uses pinyin on articles like this. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 05:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a youngling and I've always referred to the place as Canton. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. No-one calls it ding dong or would have the faintest idea where such a place was. Just another example of the politically correct at work on Wikipedia. David Lauder 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No-one calls it "ding dong" because that is not its name. "Guangdong" is now the most widely used and most widely accepted name (in Roman letters) of the province. To use "Canton" to mean both the city and the province is confusing. LDHan 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More on History Please

This article is rather superficial in its treatment of the history of Guangdong. Much more detail is required, particularly information about the conquest of the province and the subsequent genocides (including cultural) against its local peoples by the Chinese military.

Lack of Information on Cantonese Separatist (or Independence?) Movement

I am very surprised that only one sentence in the entire article is devoted to the notion of Cantonese separatism (or independence). Could someone actually expand on this please? I say this because, historically, the Cantonese peoples were totally unrelated to the Chinese and there is a growing perception among some groups that the ancestors of today's Cantonese peoples were actually victims of genocide at the hands of the imperial Chinese military. Today, this perception frequently leads to calls for independence for the Cantonese peoples. In fact, there is a movement that is just beginning now at one of Australia's major Universities that actually calls for the Cantonese peoples (among others) to be recognised as a distinct collection of ethnic groups independent from the Han Chinese ethnicity and claims that they are entitled to a sovereign nation-state that is free from Chinese rule of any kind.

You cannot be serious, most of Cantonese people consider they are Han Chinese.

You should notice that most of ancestors of Chinese Malaysian caomes from South China (mostly in Guangdong and Fujian), they must consider they are ethnic Chinese NOT ethnic Vietnamese!

218.188.90.194 (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, user 218.188.90.194 has completely missed the point. Since when has anyone suggested anything about the relationship between the Cantonese and Vietnamese peoples in this section? I thought this section was supposed to be about the notion of Cantonese independence, not the concept of the Cantonese identity being closely related to the Vietnamese identity. Besides, why is the user talking about Malaysian Chinese here anyway?

Why talking about Malaysian Chinese, because half of Malaysian Chinese are Cantonese people's root, does they consider themselves as Malaysian Vietnamese? Answer is NO.

Perhaps user 218.188.90.194's comments should be deleted altogether as they seem totally out of place and contravene WP:SOAP. David873 (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention any ridiculous relationship between Cantonese people and Vietnamese. Vietnamese should claim history of Thailand, Burma and Laos, maybe Malaysia. 203.218.20.63 (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User 203.218.20.63 seems to be a sockpuppet of 218.188.90.194. User 218.188.90.194 has made comments that echo those of user 203.218.20.63 (see Talk:Nanyue and you will see what I mean). Perhaps he should explain the coincidence promptly or he might face a sockpuppetry accusation soon. David873 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, this thread is hilarious! If the above users are talking about something called "Cantonese Separatist/Independence", shouldn't you provide some kind of legitimate news article or reference to support that there is something like this? Otherwise, I find it hard to believe anyone would take this (no name) user's opinion seriously. And please, sign your name after making a comment!--TheLeopard (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How is the thread 'hilarious'? Parts of it actually contain very serious allegations (especially those pertaining to the supposed genocides). We definitely need to find some hard evidence though. David873 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We are Cantonese, we are Chinese, that's all! No place for Vietnamese ultra-nationalists to do mental masturbation. 218.102.133.110 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you start off a section in the talk page, you need to make clear points and claims that are back by concrete references. I don't even know who is this anonymous user that started this section (this user didn't bother to sign a name, clearly shows how much this user wants his/her view to be taken seriously)? This section was started out as a written commentary/rant, that is why it doesn't look like this user is looking for serious discussion.--TheLeopard (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Map request

The article could use a good map showing internal features and the names of neighboring provinces and other entities. -- Beland (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)