Talk:Han Chinese

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

The image should be changed

The people selection is really not understood. Where's Zhang Heng? One of the greatest inventors ever. Bruce Lee should be here. Confucius also fits. And if you want a woman, Xiao Hong fits perfectly.

Soong Ching-ling is a nice idea, so we could keep her.

Also Sun Yat-sen Was a great idea, since he is recognized by all chinese.

So i think an image should look like that:

• Row one: Zhang Heng, Sun Yat-sen, Confucius
• Row two: Xiao Hong, Bruce Lee, Soong Ching-ling

I think an image like that fits best. The image is suppose to be representetive. The current image might make people think the Chinese have nothing but political affairs, while it doesnt show nothing about their great contribution to science, it's literature, it's philisophy, it really misses alot of points. M.V.E.i. 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Three of the four are Republic of China-era people. We don't necessarily need someone from the PRC, but we need better representation. I like this article, though. 70.236.19.135 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that... or thrid that or whatever. These images are old and not really very representative. Also, a little political.Mike (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2008 (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 **

This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:

1.Falsely implies that most Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are of Han ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth. In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Han ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.

2.Implies that Taiwan is an integral part of China. The reality is that Taiwan has been and continues to be occupied by various foreigners. Over the past several millennia, the Taiwanese have maintained a distinct ethnic identity totally separate from the Han, Hokkien, Hakka and various other ethnicities. Therefore, to label people who came from Taiwan 'Han Chinese' is not merely wrong; it is downright offensive.

3.Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.

4.Gives no information whatsoever about the minority but increasingly held view that the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples remain distinct ethnic groups separate from the Han ethnicity despite the extreme damages inflicted upon the former peoples by Imperial Chinese armies.

The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).

It is obvious that many editors of this page are here only to censor the views of others and promote their own biased views. This is totally unacceptable as it constitutes vandalism under Wikipedia policies.

It is well worth noting that the scientific studies (unfortunately only accessible by subscription) referred to in the article do provide evidence that the said genocides have occurred.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Hui people are not considered to be a 'sub-group' of the Han ethnicity. Is it not right then to suggest that the Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples constitute separate ethnic groups and, therefore, should not be relegated to a 'sub-group' status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.150.133 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

REPLY I HAVE COMPLETED SEVERAL YEARS OF STUDY CONCERNING EAST ASIAN CULTURE AND HISTORY. I believe what you are saying is complete nonsense. Please inform me which genocide and which period of Chinese history did this "genocide" happen? In addition, you are confusing ethnicity with language and culture. The Hokkien and Cantonese people genetically fall under Han Chinese. Their spoken language has a considerably different tone than standard mandarin. However, they all share the same culture, written language, and history with the rest of China.

Your mention of extreme damages caused by Imperial China is again baseless and absolute nonsense. I would like to learn more about East Asian history and maybe I "forgot" some of it that I learned in college. So, please tell me the time period when this happened.

The Hui people are very closely related to the Han Chinese except for the fact that they practice Islam. They have had very close historical interaction with the rest of China.

Taiwanese History: Over 90% of the Taiwanese are Han Chinese and they are in the same ethnic group but different political group. Their culture is almost exactly the same except for their use of traditional Chinese writing.

I believe you are actually "vandalizing" this article. Please refrain from further "vandalizing" this article or I will have to notify an Admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historychaser4 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is within the ethnic groups recognized by the PRC. It is subjective but should stay.Mike (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For the convenience of anyone who is not aware of the series of genocides committed by the Chinese military against the Viet peoples during the period of Chinese imperial expansionism, I refer them to the Wikipedia article Nam Viet. One paragraph in that article is particularly striking.

The Yue, under the domination of the Han (Han Wudi) was forced, wiped, tortured and enslaved to repair and enhance the Great Wall of China.

In short, this paragraph states that there was indeed at least one genocide. Note that 'Viet' does NOT mean 'Vietnamese'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.211 (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Han" in Han Wudi is refering to the Han Dynasty not the Han people/ethnic group.Mike (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This section has just been reinstated. Someone who obviously has only limited respect for such values as free inquiry has attempted to stifle debate by blanking this section simply because this person believes that it is 'completely pointless'.

Many ideas put forward in this section have obviously caused varying levels of anger among some editors. Some that have proved particularly problematic for many are as follows (in summary):

1.The Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are distinct ethnic groups and are NOT Han Chinese.

2.Taiwan is NOT part of China.

3.The ancestors of today's Cantonese and Hokkien peoples were the victims of genocides at the hands of the Chinese military during various dynasties starting from the Qin dynasty.

Even though Wikipedia is not (repeat not) a democracy, freedom of inquiry is still an important foundation to its success. Despite the controversial nature of the ideas presented above, they are still legitimate, nevertheless, and should remain on this page.

Furthermore, it must be noted that removal of legitimate ideas on this talk page is considered VANDALISM.

(Suppressed comments as per WP:SOAP) (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User 207.237.195.54 needs to be ignored. This ip address has been the source of a substamtial number of unconstructive edits, some involving this article itself. Maybe some ip adresses simply need to be barred from editing this talk page or the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.114.10.83 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

this is MY RESPENSE TO THE FIRST STATETMENT TO THE ARTICLE, YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THE GENOCIDE, BUT TOTALLY WRONG ABOUT CANTONESE HOOKIEN AND TAIWNAESE OR WHAT EVER BEING NOT HAN CHINESE BECAUSE AFTER THE HAN GENOCIDED THOSE RACES, THE CHINESE SOLDIERS MIXED WITH THE NATIVES AND CREATED THE CANTONESE, TAIWANESE, ETC., AND THEIR CULTURE WAS SUPPRESED SO THEY ACTUALLY PRESERVED THE CHINESE LANGUAGE BETTER THAN THE NORTHERN CHINESE, CANTONESE IS VERY SIMILAR TO ANCEINT CHINESE, ITS ACTUALLY THE NORTHEN DIALECTS LIKE MANDARIN WHICH WERE INFLUENCED BY BARBARIAN LANGUAGES, AND ITS ACTUALL YTHE NORTHEN CHINESE WHO DID MORE RACE MIXING AND ARE LESS RELATED TO ANCEINT CHINESE THAN CANTONESE TAIWANESE ETC...

THIS TALK PAGE HAS BECOME A JOKE

It is unprofessional, vandalised by racists, and has become little more than an unproductive battleground.

It is obvious the problem is the section above this one. Recently, that section has disappeared and reappeared on a regular basis (sometimes under different names), only to disappear again within days. There is a conflict of interest here as the Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that talk pages (or part thereof) cannot be blanked unless obscene content has been placed. None of the content that has appeared on this talk page is obscene in any way. Perhaps, some people are simply hit hard whenever claims of genocides (or such like) turn up?

I now put forward the following question: On what grounds was the section 'THIS ARTICLE IS WOEFULLY MISLEADING' deleted? I (like many other people reading this, clearly concerned about the censorship of the said section) want straight answers, i.e. no spin doctoring.

Page Protection Needed

This talk page obviously needs to be protected from editing until the issues outlined in this and the previous sections are properly addressed. These issues are extremely serious and censorship will not make them go away. This means that page blanking is NOT the answer. Regrettably, some people seem to think that if a page is blanked, then the problem will somehow disappear.

A protection template has now been placed on the article page itself as well. The article itself is also riddled with errors and has been the target of vandals recently. The trouble now is to actually lock the page from editing until the mess is sorted out by the administrators.

It is very sad that this talk page has become little more than a racist joke. In particular, censorship seems to have severely compromised its integrity recently. The person responsible for compromising this talk page lately (who I do not need to name as it is obvious who is responsible) has sought to censor any material that he simply does not like (such as the idea that Hokkien peoples are not Han Chinese at all). This user has also made intimidating comments on the edit history and has even continued defacing this talk page after being warned (and removed the warning as well). So to any administrators reading this, I urge you to take strong action against this particular user so that this censorship nonsense does not happen again.

THIS ARTICLE AND THIS TALK PAGE ARE RACIST. CLEAN THEM UP OR DELETE THEM ALTOGETHER. And please, please, do NOT give the all too often heard response that '98% of the Taiwanese population are ethnic Han Chinese' (or variation thereof); it is nothing more than politically motivated propaganda that just marginalises local Taiwanese cultures and peoples.

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)

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

It is surprising that nowhere in the article is there a single mention of Cantonese, Hokkien or Taiwanese nationalist movements. Given the amount of heated debate recently on this talk page, surely someone would have provided some sources relating to the existence of such movements. After all, most Taiwanese and many Cantonese and Hokkien people are sick and tired of having to put up with the indignity of being labelled 'Han' or 'Chinese' by various public institutions around the world for centuries and there are no signs that this scandal will abate soon. Of course, such frustrations are certainly recipes for violent protests sometime in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.144.10 (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Actually, the scandal that I have described exists both inside and outside China. To give an example, some people outside China have been campaigning (with limited support) that the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples (and various other peoples) have the right to self-determination on the grounds that they constitute distinct ethnic groups that, in the past, have endured extreme suffering (including prolonged series of genocides) at the hands of the Han Chinese invaders. Another example is the denial by various public institutions around the world that the Taiwanese peoples constitute a distinct ethnic identity totally separate from the Han Chinese (alarmingly many Universities are among the offenders).

In fact, the scandal just described is extremely serious and has serious implications for this article. For example, the article would need to be revised substantially in order to include information about the controversy mentioned above. Another implication is that it may be no longer appropriate to mention certain people in the article. Ironically, this would suggest that even references to people like Sun Yat-sen will have to be removed!

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)

I am amused that the user above has suggested that most Taiwanese independece movements have nothing to do with a distinct non-Chinese identity. If that claim were true, then surely no one in their right mind would (even for a second) suggest that 'Republic of China' should be renamed as 'Republic of Taiwan'. Yes, it is true that modern-day Taiwanese nationalism is largely civic, but this does not preclude cultural and ethnic elements. Promoting a strong local identity is still a very important aspect and so is the idea that Taiwan needs to be removed from any concept of being part of China if it is to be identified as a fully fledged modern, soveregin nation-state. I also understand that it is extremely rare to find any credible information about Cantonese or Hokkien nationalism (in any form). A search on the internet in fact reveals nothing about the subject but rubbish. However, this is not an excuse to dismiss the idea as 'nonsense'. After all, the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples (in addition to hundreds of other ethnicities) were subjugated by the Han Chinese during various points in world history.

'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)

About restoring the table illustrating genetic differenes

I was just digging through older versions of the article and I noticed that in many of the old versions dated before mid-August 2006 that there was a table showing genetic information that illustrated the great diversity between the so-called 'Northern Han' people and so-called various 'Southern Han' peoples. Unfortunately, for unclear reasons this useful table has been deleted and there is no equivalent in the current revision. Given that the table spoke for itself some facts that many people would rather avoid, I propose that the table be put back on the article (possibly under some different heading to ensure NPOV). Any comments on this (such as copyright problems requiring the removal of the table)?

Also, parts of the research papers referneced have not been interpreted properly by some editors and the article needs to be corrected to be in line with the actual research results. For example, one could deduce from the research papers (and some other evidence) that the Cantonese peoples actually constitute distinct ethnic groups independent from the Han Chinese ethnicity. After all, the Hui people are not considered Han. However, the article as it stands does not mention this and other facts at all. Indeed the article simply says that 'there are slight genetic differences...' a very different interpretation to what would be considered logical had one been given the opportunity to see the research data.122.105.145.169 (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new section

A new section titled 'Controversies' needs to be added. There are many controversies over the issue of Han Chinese ethncity, one of them being whether peoples such as the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples should be recognised as distinct non Han-groups in the same way that the Hui people are not considered Han. I have started the new section and will add sources as they are found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.145.169 (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain

Would user Angelo De La Paz please explain why the 20 May 2008 10:37 UTC revision was reverted? The revision was intended to address some inconsistencies between the article and the referenced scientific research. As a side effect the revision also addressed one internal inconsistency where the article claims that there are both 'slight genetic differences' and 'substantial genetic differences', which is a blatant contradiction. Regrettably, the research papers can only be accessed by subscription but even then, one has to tread carefully. I have examined one of the papers and the wording of the abstract is actually quite shocking. It exposes, yet again, the propaganda that the CCP keeps pumping and I am sure quite a few people in the communist party would be proud of the fact that some of their ancestors were responsible for 'polluting' the genes of local peoples in the distant past. By the way, sorry about the typo in the revision that got reverted. 122.105.145.175 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

User 116.48.83.61 has clearly demonstrated his or her ignorance by deleting the text about how the Cantonese are genetically similar to ethnic Vietnamese. Any culturally minded person would be aware of the fact I have just mentioned. For thoese people who find this revelation surprising, I will now provide links to **some** evidence proving this fact. Firstly, read the scientific studies mentioned in the article. The genetics tables clearly show that by any measure, the Cantonese people are only distantly related to the historical ancestors of modern Han Chinese. Regrettably, access is restricited to suscribers only so many of you reading this will not be able to access it at all. Secondly, check out [[9]]. This arguably more reliable source reinforces the notion that most peoples in present-day southern China were actually victims of some of the most gruesome conquests in world history (which included genocides of barely imaginable proportions). 122.105.147.110 (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. the reason its more similar is because the VIETNAMESE, and cantonese are more closely related to the ancient chinese than northern chinese, because northerners have more mongol, manchu and turk blood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.248.199 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

also i should add that vietnaese claim to be descended from Shennong, whom chinese claim descent from as well, so this explains why, so you have no right to say cantonese are only DISTANTLY related to ancient chinese, its actually because the OTHER NORTHERN CHINESE, ARE THE ONES WHO ARE MORE DISTANTLY RELATED BECAUSE OF MIXTURE WITH THE ALTAIC RACES!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.248.199 (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 

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

Over 22 million Han Chinese live in the Republic of China (Taiwan), where they constitute 98% of the population. Within Taiwan, Han Chinese also constitute the majority in all counties and municipalities.

I strongly object to this paragraph being part of the article on the grounds that it is not factually accurate. Yes, there are plenty of sources that 'prove' the truthfulness of the above paragraph but guess what? The claim that 'Han Chinese constitute 98 % of Taiwan's population' is being repeated ad nauseam only because the officials in Taiwan and abroad are either pressured into doing so, fearing strong action if they don't (it is clear where the pressure comes from), which could include military action with respect to the Taiwanese government or they simply don't want to say anything along the lines of 'We are Taiwanese and Taiwanese only. We don't want to be associated with Chinese identity in any form...' So this means that we should be careful not to rely too heavily on official sources even when the sources come from a democratic regime. Perhaps adding qualifying words to the paragraph in question is in order. Any ideas about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.121.187 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Indeed, it is true that a pro-Taiwan independence web site will have its own biases. However, I find it hard to believe that the integrity of the image in question may have been compromised. Indeed, the image appears to have been selectively placed on the web site in order to promote the cause of Taiwanese independence. So, as long as we ignore the assertion on the image regarding the Taiwanese peoples, there should not be a problem regarding the genetic relationships between ethnic Vietnamese and the Cantonese peoples as depicted on the image. After all, the image was used as a source at Vietnamese people without objection (or maybe the editors there simply failed to notice the propagandist statement on the image).

Furthermore, is the widespread practice of associating Taiwanese culture, society, politics, etc with Chinese culture, society, politics, etc (particularly at Universities) simply an unfortunate reality that we will simply have to put up with? Or is this actually a case of identity politics that has gone horribly wrong? It seems that many Taiwanese are very annoyed about it.

By the way, which coalition does the website in question belong to? It would be noteworthy to see what agendas are being advanced by this group. 122.105.148.86 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Doesn't this rather beg the question of how the Han should be defined? Is it all about "descent"? What about "Han Chinese" who are aren't in fact blood descendants of the Han? Just a question.

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

Which brings us back to the question of why we have Taiwanese nationalism, Hokkien nationalism and even Cantonese nationalism in the first place. There is one simple fact that too many people are unwilling to accept: that the Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are actually distinct non Han Chinese ethnic groups that have suffered greatly under various Chinese regimes to this day (and yes, even the native Taiwanese themselves are still being marginalised in their own land, now that their country is once again being ruled by the KMT). 122.105.147.208 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I need to clear something up here. When I say "Han," I refer to the ethnic group, not the dynasty, if that is what you are asking. If you are referring to the people who are not Han Chinese, I believe it is quite obvious that they should not be referred to as Han Chinese. However, the people of Taiwan are descended from mainland Han Chinese, due to the immigration of the Chinese Nationalists to the island when the Chinese Communists took over the country.

I do understand, however, that the Cantonese peoples are, in fact, not Han Chinese, and I deeply apologize for any misunderstandings. I recognize that the Cantonese people existed in the south before the Han Chinese migrated from the north.

I would also like to point out that I never stated that the Vietnamese or other outlying ethnic groups were Han Chinese.

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)

I was indeed talking about the ethnic group. What I meant was, can the Han ethnic group be defined in terms of "blood descent" and "ancestry"? It seems that the current definition of Han is a kind of mixture of blood descent and cultural assimilation. In actuality, it may be an artificial category. There is nothing wrong, strange, or illogical about artificial categories, but in the argument you presented above, it seemed that you were arguing from the point of view of "descent" when this is not necessarily a satisfactory criterion for defining the Han ethnic group.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:34, 27 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)

Do you have the faintest idea what you are talking about? "The influx of Chinese immigrants during the displacement of the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party)"? You realise, of course, that the Chinese immigrants who came to Taiwan in 1949 only make up a minority of the population of Taiwan. So how can you say that "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"?

Bathrobe (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

So now you are saying that because the Chinese immigrants during the displacement of the KMT mixed with the "native Taiwanese" (if they are later immigrants, they are not "native Taiwanese", by the way), it means that the majority of the population is made up of Chinese? I'm having more and more trouble making sense of what you are saying.

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

Here is further evidence affirming that the label of 'Han Chinese' ethnicity was brutally imposed on various local peoples in what is now southern China. The source is [[10]]
The following page, which debunks some popularly held myths regarding the origins of the Han Chinese is also worth reading: [[11]]. Apart from the fact that the sources tie in perfectly well with the cuase for Taiwanese independece (and, by extension, Hokkien and even Cantonese independence) does anyone see any problems with the said web pages being used as sources in the article? 122.105.150.183 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone also explain to user: Angelo De La Paz that it is not acceptable for anyone to censor material simply because he or she does not like the content being presented? Within minutes of the controversies section being restored (with a supporting source added), it was deleted under the name of 'there is no room for hatefulness'. Seriously, we should be trying to respond rationally, not make snide remarks against controversial material.
Perhaps user: Angelo De La Paz can also explain what is so offensive about the deleted 'controversies' section. 122.105.150.183 (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section on "Controversy" should be retained in some form. The information is relevant and supported. While we may question the motivation of Special:Contributions/122.105.150.183 (as shown by statements like "the label of 'Han Chinese' ethnicity was brutally imposed on various local peoples"), the paragraph itself is, by and large, acceptable. The Han Chinese themselves are quite aware that they are a racially mixed ethnic group and most would agree that "descent by blood" is not its defining characteristic. As the paragraph notes, "Han" is more a culturally defined ethnic group. Including this information is not "hatefulness" at all and is a useful addition.

Moreover, the cited material quite clearly debunks some enduring myths that still circulate, about the descent of the modern Chinese from Peking Man, the development of Chinese homo sapiens separately from other races of homo sapiens, etc. Chinese themselves have come to accept that there were several civilisations in ancient China, including those of Sichuan, and not just the Central Plain. The fact that, despite this, the Chinese state tries to demonstrate that all Chinese are descended from the Yellow Emperor should not mean that this is accepted as gospel truth. Many of the accepted "facts" are simply politically expedient myths designed to tie the "Han" people together.

I move that the deleted section should be reinstated (with some possible improvements or modifications), possibly under a different heading from "Controversy".

Bathrobe (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

122.105.150.183, go ahead and restore the paragraph, perhaps with a different title. If Angelo de la Paz is serious about doing anything other than obstructing, he should have responded before this. The ball is now in his court to defend his removal of that paragraph. He doesn't have the right of veto over Wikipedia and has to justify his actions like everyone else.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph has been restored. I have also added a paragraph about the various myths that are still circulating. Furthermore, I am going to put up the neutrality and factual accuracy warning tag as the article clearly shows systematic bias. 122.109.121.12 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Is DerechoReguerraz trying to suggest that the genetics analysis as provided in one of the sources that he has challenged has been somehow compromised? Also, how is that not academic? There seems to be nothing obviously wrong with the research itself; in particular, there are no obvious signs of pseudo-science or blatant lies in the research (or rather sneaky propaganda perhaps?) in question.

In any case, the two sources provided do challenge some of the commonly held myths and were orginally inserted to correct some of the biases in the article. Yes, we all know that WUFI is a biased website. However, I do not believe that the sources provided have been compromised to the point that they are rendered useless.

So does anyone else out there have an opinion? David873 (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we take WUFI's word as long as there is some credible evidence to back up its claims, e.g. another source. As long as both views are represented, then I think it would be fine. 67.42.220.5 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

This article does not attempt to address the differences in which the term 'Han Chinese' may be used. This is the result of the fact that, depending on the context, the term can refer to the nationality, the ethnicity or the cultural identity. There are major differences between the three usages. Most importantly, the first usage only applies within the PRC and is an official designation. Another notable difference is that the ethnic definition is far narrower than the cultural identity definition; indeed it can easily be shown (with certainty) that peoples such as Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are not ethnic Han Chinese at all. However, the claim that they are not Han Chinese in a cultural sense is much harder to prove.
I also feel that this article may soon need the attention of neutral experts as it is clear the article is suffering from serial systematic bias, e.g. editors here seem to keep pushing the notion that Taiwan is somehow part of China. 122.109.121.9 (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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)