This is an archive of past discussions about Han Chinese. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"descendants of the Yan and/or Yellow Emperor"should be "descendants of the Yan and Huang Emperors". Huang is yellow as a simple word in Chinese, but emperor Huang does not mean the yellow emperor. And Chinese believe that they are the descendants of BOTH emperors, NOT ONE.___Anthony Li
Jay Chou
Intranetusa: I added a Jay Chou picture as an example of the Han Chinese living in Taiwan. More than 98% of Taiwan is Han-Chinese.
Nationalism
Could anyone come up with grounds for this statement:
However, another interpretation of Chinese nationalist theory takes the very opposite view and considers only the Han Chinese to be true Chinese and thus equates Chinese nationalism with Han nationalism.
Do we have any sources, names, or attributions? Bathrobe
Han Chinese (漢語) also refers to the ideographic language developed in China for nearly 4000 years. Chinese Hancharacters (漢字) are the basis for the Kanji writing system in Japanese, and the Hanja system in Korean.
I've never seen Hanyu represented in English as Han Chinese.
Vandalism
User:Wanli repeatedly insults Han Chinese with the term "Anangga ski Hanzular" which is Uighur language for "mother f***ing Han people". --Lorenzarius 14:57 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
ah ok, at first I didn't understand why the second paragraph about Uighur was there. KungFuMonkey
I don't think this is true (or at least it massively simplifies the situation).... For most of Chinese history, serious writing was done in Classical Chinese which eventually turned out to be different than any spoken form. Also, most speakers of southern dialects are very well aware that if you transcribe their speech into characters, you get something largely incomprehensible to outsiders.
Educated Chinese tend to regard the written ideographs as primary, and they regard the seven or eight spoken Han Chinese dialects as simply variant ways of pronouncing the same ideographs. This is linguistically inaccurate, but the attitude has significant political and social consequences.
In conceptual terms, the boundary between Han and non-Han is absolute and sharp, while boundaries between subsets of Han are subject to continual shifts, are dictated by local conditions, and do not produce the isolation inherent in relations between Han and minority groups.
Depends on local conditions. The difference between say Mainlander and Holo in Taiwan or registered resident versus inland migrant in Shanghai can be much sharper than say assimilated Zhuang and Han in Guangdong.
Major problems with this. The ruling imperial state was often non-Han, and I would strongly argue that
during the 19th century identification with the imperial state *decreased* Han identity rather than increasing
it.
The other major force contributing to Han ethnic unity has been the centralized imperial state. The ethnic group takes its name from the Han dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 220). Although the imperial government never directly controlled the villages, it did have a strong influence on popular values and culture. The average peasant could not read and was not familiar with the details of state administration or national geography, but he was aware of belonging to a group of subcontinental scope. Being Han, even for illiterate peasants, has meant conscious identification with a glorious history and a state of immense proportions. Peasant folklore and folk religion assumed that the imperial state, with an emperor and an administrative bureaucracy, was the normal order of society. In the imperial period, the highest prestige went to scholar-officials, and every schoolboy had the possibility, at least theoretically, of passing the civil service examinations and becoming an official.
Han Chinese originated from 4700 years ago, at the time of Huang Di(Yellow Emperor). Han Chinese got its name in Han Dynasty, called Han Ren(Han Person). Han Ren is also called Tang Ren(Tang Person), because Tang Dynasty was also a great Dynasty as Han Dynasty.
The reaon why Han Chinese is a majority ethnic group is not only because of its population, but also because its history is equel to Chinese History. In Chinese history, there are only two dynasty do not belong to Han Chinese, the Mongolian Dynasty and Manchulian Dynasty.
Manchulian Dynasty? Can you say Man Dynasty or Qing Dynasty?
also, why is it "Han Chinese"? Is "Han" taken by sth that cannot possibly be more important? "Chinese" should represent all peoples p0wned by the Communist Party of PRC and "Han" the race. --JinFX HuangDi 1698 02:53, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
I don't think that Han Chinese is a ethnic term today. It is more a cultural term than a ethnic term now. For example, modern DNA genetics shows there is a apparent difference between northern and southern han. And after the collapse of Han Dynasty for almost 2000 years, It is surely that today Han people is also not the same with ancient Han people during that time.
'ethnic' itself is a cultural term, just look it up in a dictionary, or read the article on ethnic group, particularly the paragraph starting with 'While ethnicity and race are related concepts, the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of societal groups...'. --Geckothesidhe21:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Han Chinese invaded Central and Northeast Asia. They can be considered barbarians, not those were invaded. There are only ethnic minority in China not around China. Edipedia15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Intranetusa: The Romans conquered Germany(Gaul) and Brittany. Who were the barbarians, the Gauls and Anglos or the civilized Romans?
Linguistics - Cantonese and Mandarin
1. "ethnic group" should not be in quotations. No one of note really disputes the existence of Han Chinese. We are not the People's Daily. We do not put everything that we know exists, but want to claim not to exist, in quotations.
2. A new section header entitled ==Ethnic Han unity== is perfectly reasonable. No explanation was given for its reversion. The lead section should not make up half the article.
3. Change from "Chinese is written with logographs (sometimes called Chinese characters) that represent meanings rather than sounds, and so written Chinese does not reflect the speech of its author. For thousands of years, Literary Chinese was used as the standard written format, which used vocabulary and grammar significantly different from the various forms of spoken Chinese. Since the 20th Century written Chinese has been usually based on Standard Mandarin and not the local dialect of the writer (with the exception of the use of Standard Cantonese in writing)." --> "Local Chinese languages, except for [[Cantonese]] are not written, and writing is almost in [[Mandarin]] Chinese."
First, please do not link disambiguation pages: [[Cantonese]] and [[Mandarin]] are disambiguation pages. We are interested in their standard variants, and not Cantonese (as in Yue) or Mandarin (as in beifanghua) in general. I see no reason for removing the reference to Literary Chinese being used as a common standard. That was not based on Mandarin... I can't comment on the logographs so i left that part out. --Jiang22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Ethnically speaking Han people is a fabrication. Chinese communist party adapt it because they needed it to justify their regime. Your insistence also shows your Han chauvinism. But on the other hand, Han chauvinism can help non-Han peoples realize their unique identities and rise to protect their own cultures, languages and homelands, which I think is not a bad thing.
beifanghua? so like, there is one North and a very diverse South? lol i dont have constructive to say...1698 2005 October 31 20:32 (PST)
"Ethnically speaking Han people is a fabrication." -- then what do you call the Chinese-speaking people living in China?
Aside from that, as to standard Mandarin and standard Cantonese - the written language is exactly the same. And it is wrong to say that all other dialects "write in Mandarin". All dialects (officially) write in written Chinese, whether Cantonese or not.
However, all dialects can be written down using their distinctive expressions and sounds - the equivalent of written "nah" instead of "no" in English - intended to reflect the way the word was said. This is the kind of written "dialect" found in the gossip section of HK newspapers, and the equivalent were to be found in publications in the rest of China up until the Communist Revolution. The Communist government promoted a uniform language policy, and outlawed the use of dialectical expressions in newspapers etc. --Sumple05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
When standard Cantonese or any other dialect speakers use standard written Chinese they are using a written language largely based on Mandarin dialects (spoken), it is correct to say all speakers of whatever dialect "write in Mandarin". Written Cantonese is Cantonese as it is actually spoken written down, therefore it is different to standard written Chinese in grammar and vocabulary, it's not just a matter of "nah" instead of "no", Chinese people who don't speak Cantonese find written Cantonese to be unreadable. LDHan00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking from personal experience, standard modern written Chinese (the formal written Chinese used by all Chinese speakers) when read aloud in Cantonese sounds strange and is certainly very different to normal spoken Cantonese. LDHan13:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Written Cantonese is different from other dialects- I grew up speaking Cantonese, then I went to a Mandarin school, and I got criticised to no end for my "strange" grammar which was just my Cantonese grammar showing through. =) Robin Chen04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Genetic differences
The article mentioned genetic differences between the north and the south. Is there any research showing that Han Chinese from the north are carrying some genes of the Húrén, and those from the south Báiyuè? — Instantnood18:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The emerging synthesis of the genetic, historical, ethnological, and linguistic evidence seems to support the hypothesis that Northern "Han" Chinese basically are "Húrén" (胡人), while the "original" Han Chinese were rather similar to the "Bǎiyuè" (百越), and whose descendants are found in a purer form in modern East China and South China. The Bǎiyuè appear to have been the direct ancestors of the modern Zhuang, Lakkia, Thai peoples, etc. and were closely related to the ancestors of the Gāoshān-zú (Taiwanese aborigines) and Filipinos. Modern "Han" Chinese in North China are genetically essentially identical to Manchus and Koreans, and they are speaking a radically altered (mostly simplified) form of the Chinese language, perhaps reflecting their ancestors' language shift. All the genetic and linguistic diversity of the ancient Han Chinese is preserved only in the south. So, for all you Chinese people who have been thinking of bashing Korean nationalists as being "Han Chinese pretending to be Manchus (or Mongols)," please stop yourselves before you make a terrible blunder; the reality of the situation appears to be that it is actually you, if you are a Northern Han person, who is the fake one. Ebizur20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
What the heck is that all about? Who exactly said that "Korean nationalists" are "Han Chinese pretending to be Manchus"? Also, you do know that Chinese is a very very different language from the Manchu and Korean languages, right? There're about zero similarities. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
"not a truly coherent, single ethnic group"
I removed the statement referring to Han as being "not a truly coherent, single ethnic group", what did that suppose to mean?
Merriam-Webster defines 'ethnic' as 'of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background', so how to add 'truly coherent' into the equation? Nihon-jin came from both Jomon and Yayoi origins, does this mean it is not a 'truly coherent' ethnic group? Unless someone can give a definition for what constitutes a 'truly coherent' ethnic group, phrases like "truly coherent, single ethnic group" has no place in an encyclopedia. --Geckothesidhe21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
yeah exactly. its a ethnic group, not a political party! there's no ethnic group on earth that is pure and homogeneous. except in the imagination of hitler. --Sumple05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding picture of prominent Han Chinese
Since when is your religion (being Muslim) disqualify you from being Han as with China's most well known explorer Zheng He? That seems ridiculous and archaic. If he's not Chinese then what is he? That aside, I like the inclusion of Confucius who is a better choice actually and is much better known. Also, Mao is a icon of China and most of the world relate him in some way to China's history. Is an encyclopedia supposed to only promote how people prefer to see themselves or reality? For example, Stalin is on the Georgians page, Dracula is on the Romanians page, and Khomeini is on the Persians page. Does a figure who is controversial mean that they are not suitable to be representative of said ethnic group? I like Yao Ming myself, but two entertainment figures seems a bit much and he shouldn't replace Mao of all people! I included Zhang just because it's good to have at least one woman since females make up half the population. Just my two cents on the subject. Tombseye19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, if he's a Muslim, then he's not Han, he's a member of the Hui ethnic minority. Han eat pork (according to BusinessWeek, half of all pork consumed in the world is eaten in China); Hui do not. --Coolcaesar20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
So ethnic groups are defined by diet variations? Can't say much for that logic. The Hui are apparently identical to the Han except for religion. Sounds like some flimsy criteria for ethnic division. Tombseye20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, religion is also what divides many other ethnic groups, such as the Jews and Palestinians. They're both Semitic groups from the exact same small part of the world, and have strong resemblances in terms of language, physical appearance, and culture. But it's the religious difference (and the concomitant exclusive territorial claims upon the same holy places) that creates such a high wall between them. --Coolcaesar20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Semitic is not the same as being identical ethnically and linguistically. Semitic Jews speak Hebrew and used to speak Aramaic and the Palestinians probably once spoke Aramaic and Cannanite as well but switched to Arabic following Arab invasions. The Jews also vary. Some are virtually identical to Pals such as Sephardic Jews, while those from Europe show varying degrees of genetic affinity with Europeans including Germans, Poles, etc. I realize that the Chinese divide themselves as they see fit, so it's all probably a moot point anyway. I still consider Zheng He to be Chinese and leave it to the Chinese as to what type of Chinese they want to consider him. Why they wouldn't want to include a guy who changed the world with his explorations I don't know though. Confucius is a better choice so case closed. Tombseye21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
from User talk:Jiang: Say, wouldn't it be good to have at least one historical figure rather than just a bunch of contemporary Han? I mean at least an emperor or Confucius whom I think is a great choice. I'm cool with Jiang Zemin though as that's at least one political figure and Yao's okay too, but Elaine's Chinese American and I'd rather see Confucius representing the history rather than an expat. Just my two cents. Tombseye01:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
perhaps. if that's the convention for other ethnic groups, then yes. but the image should be color (painting?) and realistic enough to show actual facial figures. the stone carving Han Wudi photo did not adequately portray the facial features and the Confucius drawing is too Western (reminds me of a depiction of Santa Claus that would go on a Christmas card). "Han Chinese" is an ethnicity and not a nationality so I don't see the problem of listing Chinese Americans. --Jiang01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This page seems to be catering to a feel good image rather than something for all users though. And what's color have to do with this? Black and white or paintings are used on lots of other peoples pages. And the photos are of really western appealing Chinese anyway. It's hardly an accurate overview and looks really nationalist. And not including Mao isn't going to erase him from the minds of most people in the world. He's there in encyclopedias on China so why not on the Han chinese page? Is this to be only the 'good' Han Chinese page and nothing controversial? Can't say much for the choices, but am glad to see at least on political figure, Zemin, but two entertainers seems a bit much. The other peoples pages have historical figures, political figures, entertainment/arts, and the infamous/famous, but also having at least one woman is good. It'd be somewhat in keeping with that if this page could also be more inclusive as this should not be a platform for feeling good about being Chinese, but an encyclopedia about various groups and there well known members regardless of what they've done. As for the comment from 222.248.80.158 saying Mao's inclusion is like Hitler on the Jews page is absurd. Hitler was not Jewish first off and secondly he is actually on the Germans page. Nor does this imply that Germans are all Hitlerian. Tombseye07:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with including controversial figures. Should this be extended to two lines? Any other pages doing this? The drawing of Confucious is not appropriate because 1) a full body image does not leave enough detail for us to analyze the facial features and 2) the picture is drawn by a Westerner and does not accurately represent Han Chinese. I don't see what is wrong with including a Chinese American on this page. Just because someone does not hold a PRC passport does not mean that the someone is not Han Chinese. Han Chinese is an ethnicity, obtained at birth through genetics. It is not a nationality. I put in a overseas Chinese on purpose. --Jiang07:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I just wanted this page to be more eclectic rather than show a photo op for acceptable Chinese figures while people are far more important such as Confucius, numerous emperors, and Mao are excluded. I've worked on various peoples pages and I was trying to put in a more expansive view. The picture section usually has 1 modern figure, hopefully 1 female if possible, 1 important political figure (usually the most famous), and 1 important historical figure or scientist/philosopher etc. Without that the Han Chinese page just looks like a collage from People magazine and greatly diminishes the many things that the Han Chinese have done throughout history. I see your reasons for including Chao, but she's not really a well known Chinese person and one woman is enough if the only addition is going to be Chao rather than someone of Confucius' stature surely. Also, I think it's just having Confucius in whatever form that is important. I mean we're not going to get an exact picture anyway so why not include something? Just my 2 cents. Tombseye09:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
the alternative is to use unknown commoner figures (peasant, shopkeeper, etc.) like the unknowns posted at Tibetan people. presenting the "high" end might not be all that representative. If we are to include a picture of Confucius, trying to find a Chinese painting of him shouldnt be too hard.--Jiang02:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
That's also a valid point actually that I hadn't considered. I was mainly going by what other pages have done and the idea of a 4 people collage collection seemed to work. Mostly I think any picture of Confucius would be great as I personally happen to think he represents a lot of the interesting philosophical output of China and replacing Chao with him would be cool. Yao's great and I'm neutral with keeping him but not really against him at all. I just wanted an emperor in there too since that represents a lot of China's past. If you want to include a commoner, perhaps someone who led a revolt or even a student protester? If you can find a Confucius picture by the way that would really help this page out in my opinion. Thanks. Tombseye03:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I know everyone agrees that Zheng He is a Hui Chinese. But I don't know that being a Muslim is necessarily a (or the only) criterion that separates the Hui from the Han. I have relatives who are Hui (and get preferential treatment when entering university) but who eat pork and have never been to a mosque...--Sumple03:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
These are just stereotypes based on origin. Significant Christian and Muslim minorities throughout China, not only among ethnic minorities, but also among the Han themselves. See the Han Chinese aricle for more.--Skyfiler19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Tombseye, Han do not think of Hui as Han, and Hui do not think of themselves as Han either. Han and Hui are ethnicities, not merely defined by religion. Also, being a Hui does not disqualify one from being Chinese. Zheng He was a Hui Chinese, not a Han Chinese. -- ran (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Zhang Ziyi fair use
As I understand Wikipedia's and USA's fair use rules, the Zhang Ziyi picture is not allowed. It is only allowed to illustrate the person/thing portrayed (i.e. Zhang Ziyi and not all Han Chinese.) --대조 | Talk17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought someone above already mentioned that homogenous populations only exist in Hitler's mind. What are you really trying to say? Hanfresco10:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It is fair or necessary to emphasize the diversity of Han chinese?
I mean that it is common for almost all the nations in the world have something like the diversity of han chinese.Evidence, the so-called 'pure'japanese people are genetically divided into three major sub-group,one closely relation to Korean people and other Altaic peoples, Chinese People , and Polynesians.
In fact all the japanese people donn't feel it or see it as a matter.
So what the fuss to write such a han diversity in this article?
I have seen almost all the different people pages in wiki, and i found the diversity of a nation can only be found in han chinese page.
I am very curious about the intention of such a section diversity.
I have examined all the page aboutjew,German people and turkic people, i found nothing more than 'ethnic division', while for chinese people,it becomes 'diversity'.Due to my limit in english, i just found the latter is more genetical, the former,more spacial.
I found on the webster online the definition of diversity
1 the quality or state of being composed of many different elements or types <a diversity of opinions on where the senior class should go for its end-of-the-year trip> -- see VARIETY 1
2 the quality or state of being different <there's considerable diversity in Jake's two choices for what he'd like to be someday: a clergyman or an acrobat>
and division
Entry Word: division
Function: noun
Text: 1 something that divides, separates, or marks off <we poked our heads over the division between the yards to see what the fuss was about>
Synonyms divider, partition
Related Words barrier, fence, wall; border, boundary, limit
2 a large unit of a governmental, business, or educational organization <the complaints division handled all of the calls from the angry townsfolk>
Synonyms bureau, department, desk, office
3 one of the units into which a whole is divided on the basis of a common characteristic <one of the major divisions of birds> -- see CLASS 2
4 the act or process of a whole separating into two or more parts or pieces <the assembly line was a major development in the division of labor among workers> -- see SEPARATION 1
5 the act or process of giving out something to each member of a group <the person in charge of the division of the profits among the business partners> -- see DISTRIBUTION 1
where we can find diversity to emphasize the inherent difference while division means the the subsequent seperation.
Ksyrie01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
... I didn't understand all of that "English", but internal diversity of Han Chinese is an obvious and well-documented phenomenon. --Sumple (Talk) 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute...I don't see any other country pages containing entries of "ethnic diversity" or "ethnic unity" as part of the country's descriptions. Why should there be a section for the Han people? It seems as if people are trying to find ways to disunite China and reduce its power by separating its people. I'm sure if I did a study regarding the genetic differences between people in the same "ethnic groups", i.e. Germans, Anglo-Saxon, Japanese, etc. I can find differences in mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome DNA. I think the fact that people put this section here is BS.
Han Chinese and possible ethnic relations with Koreans and Japanese
Sunghee Hong, Seong-Gene Lee, Yongsook Yoon, Kyuyoung Song
University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1 Poongnap-dong, Songpa-ku, Seoul, Korea
Population studies of genetic markers such as HLA variation and mitochondrial DNA have been used to understand human origins, demographic and migration history. Recently, diversity on the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY) has been applied to the study of human history. Since NRY is passed from father to son without recombination, polymorphisms in this region are valuable for investigating male-mediated gene flow and for complementing maternally based studies of mtDNA. Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of Korean. By using 38 Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphism markers, we analyzed the genetic structure of 195 Korean males. The Korean males were characterized by a diverse set of 4 haplogroups (Groups IV, V, VII, X) and 14 haplotypes that were also present in Chinese. The most frequent haplogroup in Korean was Group VII (82.6%). It was also the most frequent haplogroup in Chinese (95%) as well as in Japanese (45%). The frequencies of the haplogroups V, IV, and X were 15.4%, 1%, and 1%, respectively. The second most frequent haplogroup V in Korean was not present in Chinese, but its frequency was similar in Japanese. We have tried to correlate the Y variation with surname to determine how well the clan membership corresponds to Y variation. There were 37 surnames in our sample but genetic variation structure did not correlate with surnames.
Also, check the Japan Times article linking some members of Japanese Yayoi to the Yangtze Region of China. [2]
That study is terribly outdated and should no longer be considered as informative. Please refer to the discussion on this topic at the Chinese Culture Forum at Asiawind. The Group VII that that old study refers to is now known as Haplogroup NO, which is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup among the Finns, Munda, and Taiwanese aborigines as well as the Han Chinese and the Koreans. That haplogroup is estimated to be approximately 35,000 to 40,000 years old, or about the same as the age of the split between the most common haplogroups among Europeans and American Indians. So, if you want to say that Koreans are the same as Han Chinese, you will have to agree to saying that Taiwanese aborigines and Munda people are also the same as Han Chinese and that Dutch people are the same as Maya. Do you think there was any such thing as "Korean" or "Chinese" 35,000 to 40,000 years ago? Ebizur03:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute...I just read that article, and it doesn't disprove the fact that Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese are genetically related. Just because a genetic marker is 40,000 years old does not deter it from relating various groups of people. If there is genetic evidence to prove that Taiwanese aborigines are genetically related to Han Chinese, then that would be correct. I highlighted "genetic", because although populations of people can be genetically linked, their cultures can be different. No one is saying that Koreans are the "same" as Chinese; just that they have unique genetic similarities. And why does it matter if "Korea" and "China" did not exist 40,000 years ago? It still doesn't remove the fact that the Han Chinese and Koreans of today descended from the same people. The fact that Haplogroup NO is uniquely frequent in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese populations suggest that a strong genetic relationship occurs between these groups.
"The branch of Haplogroup NO that is most relevant to the formation of modern East Asian nations is Haplogroup O-M175. As you may read at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Haplogroup_O_%28Y-DNA%29, "this haplogroup appears in 80-90% of all human males in East and Southeast Asia, and it is almost exclusive to that region: M175 is almost nonexistent in Western and Northern Asia and is completely absent from Europe, Africa, and the Americas, although certain clades of Haplogroup O do achieve significant frequencies among some tribal populations of South Asia, Turkic-speaking populations of Central Asia, and Austronesian-speaking populations of Oceania." Thus, it is quite clear that, historically, East Asian males have not had any significant genetic influence on populations of Africa, Europe, or Native Americans, although men of East Asian origin have played a major role in Oceania. Most Northeast Indian tribal populations, such as the Naga and the Khasi, seem to be descended primarily from East Asian colonists. The frequency of Haplogroup O among Turkic populations of Central Asia is generally rather low, but it is certainly present."
The high frequency of this genetic marker among all East Asian males provides further evidence that East Asians share genetic similarities. It's funny that Koreans, Japanese, and other Asians want to be as closely genetically related with Europeans as possible, when the greatest number of genetic similarities can be found between each other. Also, genetic relationships are only one facet of the closeness in ethnicity of Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese. Our cultures share many similarities as well. Another thing I find funny is when Koreans and Japanese sell-outs try to use linguistics as a basis for trying to prove their genetic similarities with Europeans. Even IF Korean and Japanese are considered "altaic" (which I don't think they are), it means nothing genetically, because genetics =\= linguistics. --Yaofan1510:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters. What's needed is verifibility. There has never been any really clearly defined criteria for what constitutes "related ethnic groups", either. It's a subjective one, not an objective nor scientific one. Most of the time, similar language groups are used by Wikipedians as indication that groups are related, but that's not always a good criteria, since unrelated groups can and do change and adopt other languages (how many English speakers in the world are actually descended from Anglo-Saxon English)? And this ignores the genetics, as well as cultural traditions (for example, like Roman legend that claims descent from the Trojans via Aeneas). Until there's some real clear-cut criteria on what criteria should be used to judge whether two groups are related (and there isn't), marking two groups as "related" just isn't very useful.
Personally, though, I don't particularly feel that Han Chinese are necessarily very related to other ethnic groups. Han are in the same language family as other Sino-Tibetan groups like Tibetans and Burmese, but have different genetics and cultures. Other East Asian cultures like Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese, have similarities in culture not neccessarily because of genetic relations, common descent, or common ancestry, but because of cultural borrowing from China. They didn't split off from Chinese or share the same ancestors, they just saw things in Chinese culture that they liked and copied them. According to the Book of Yuan, the Khitans of Liao claimed descent from the Yellow Emperor (and thus claim to share a common ancestry with Han), but wouldn't be accepted by Wikipedians who believe relation to be based only only on language.--Yuje11:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
current picture of prominent Han Chinese people
Three out of the four people shown in this picture are affiliated with the KMT Nationalists (Soong was the wife of Sun Yat-sen). I suggest replacing it with something that is more representative and less politically-biased.
But ... Song Qingling was Vice-Chairwoman and Honorary President of the PRC. And Sun Yat-sen was the head of the KMT while it was still allied with the Communists, before the split. Both of them are considered national heroes on the Mainland. We just don't have access to useable pictures of a lot of nonpolitical Chinese people. - Nat Krause(Talk!)01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The term "Ethnic Chinese"
The article claimed "Han Chinese ... is commonly rendered in Western media as the ethnic Chinese". However, a quick Google News search shows this to be inaccurate. All of the top 10 articles were about Chinese descendants overseas, typically elsewhere in Asia. I have not seen any example of the term "ethnic Chinese" being used to contrast Han with other ethnic groups within China itself. This matches with other general uses of the pattern "Ethnic Xyzian", e.g. Ethnic German (though not with the typical Wikipedia usage, where many "Ethnic Xyzian" pages are just redirects to "Xyz people".) Also see Talk:Ethnic Chinese; I would suggest that Ethnic Chinese be made a redirect to Overseas Chinese and not this page, since that matches more closely with the real-world usage of the term. cab02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how "Han Chinese ... is commonly rendered in Western media as the ethnic Chinese" contradicts the Google search, whether or not a Google search proves anything. Both "Han Chinese" and "ethnic Chinese" can be used to describe the overseas Chinese. LDHan16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Vast majority of uses of "Han Chinese" in Western media are for the purpose of contrasting Hans with other ethnicities within China [3] (notice all the top results are about either Tibet or Xinjiang). Sure, "Han Chinese" could be used to describe overseas Chinese, but it's both too general (includes overseas and non-overseas Chinese) and too specific (excludes overseas non-Hans who identify as Chinese). Not to mention, I barely ever see it actually being used this way. Conversely, people going to the Ethnic Chinese page are likely expecting information corresponding to the way the concept is actually used out in the real world, where the adjective "ethnic" appending to any nationality is used to describe the overseas descendants of some nationality. It's weird to call Chinese within China "Ethnic Chinese", which is a usage that sentence I deleted implies, and which is a usage that a redirect from Ethnic Chinese to here also implies. cab23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think what the original author meant was that "ethnic Chinese" as used in the West usually actually means "Han Chinese". For example, a Tibetan-Chinese person would be called "ethnic Tibetan" in the Western media. If a newspaper article talks about someone being "ethnic Chinese", it is almost certain they mean that this person is a "Han Chinese". --Sumple (Talk) 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that's probably what the original author means. And in that case, he/she's incorrect. Most of the uses of "ethnic Chinese" in Western media are referring to people of Chinese origin living overseas, especially in Southeast Asia. (See Talk:Ethnic Chinese). Those people might be Han, Hui (e.g. Panthay), She people (many of whom speak Hakka), Korean Chinese, etc --- we can't say they're exclusively Han unless we've got a reliable source. Also, the use of "ethnic Chinese" to contrast with "Tibetan", "Uyghur", etc. is comparatively rare; and that use should also be discouraged within Wikipedia, since it is POV (implicitly takes a viewpoint on whether or not Tibetans are part of China, by not including them in the group "Chinese"). cab11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
In the west, Chinese is ethnic Asian. But ethnic Asian is not Chinese. Similarly, Han Chinese is ethnic Chinese. But ethnic Chinese doesn't only refer to Han Chinese. It also include Chinese minorities. Edipedia16:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
Hey, it'll be great if you use some contemporaries to represent Han Chinese (in the photo on the right of the article). I recommend using (or at least include) cultural stars like Yao Ming, Zhang Ziyi, Gong Li, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and Bruce Lee. This is better than just historical figures (by the way, who's the woman on the left?).
The Han Chinese was formed in the Han Dynasty. It is more appropriate to use the Han Dynasty emperor's picture, like Liu Bang instead of Qin dyanasty emperor Qin Shihuangdi. In addition, Chiang Kai-shek is a figure that most Chinese people don't like. His picture should be replaced with someone else. Editor 116:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The numbers seem strange. PRoChina has 1.3 billion people, 92% of these are Han. Total Han population (excluding overseas Chinese) is also 1.3 billion. It could be a coincidence, or an error. References would be good.--Per Abrahamsen06:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"In and around China"
"In and around China" is absolutely correct. The term is a historical one, beginning in use since the Han dynasty. E.g. in the Song Dynasty, the Song referred to themselves as the "Han people" so as to distinguish themselves from the minority tribes around them, such as the Jurchens, the Mongols, the Tibetans, etc. Aranherunar04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Pay attention. The article is talking the present time. The term "Han Chinese" is used to distinguish the majority from the various minorities...Edipedia16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's because the term is still in use. "It was during the Qin Dynasty and the Han Dynasty that the various tribes of China began to feel that they belonged to the same ethnic group". Surely, this is about the past? Please do not edit the disputed part when the discussion is still going on.Aranherunar04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
In another case, the term can still be used in present to describe minorities around China. E.g. in Mongolia, where a number of Han Chinese resides, and where some Mongolians often consider themselves Chinese or directly connected to Chinese in culture. While you can say that Mongolians in the Republic of Mongolia do not consider themselves a minority of China (which is not exactly true, as some do), the Chinese in the Republic do use the term to distinguish themselves from Mongolians. The same case is in Russia, where a number of Han Chinese resides. Though the Russians do not consider themselves a minority of China, most Chinese still use the term to refer to themselves. Aranherunar04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That's very very stupid. First, the word "minority" used by Chinese is somehow different. Its translation is 少数民族 (direct translation: Ethnicity with a lesser number): note the 民族. If a russian come over to China we won't call them a minority. Incidentally if one of us went to Russia we won't call ourselves a minority, because we definitely are not a ethnicity with a lesser number. We still call ourself Han Chinese, so we definitely are not minorities. As for the minorities, I mean the 56 minor ethnicities that do live outside China, e.g. Mongolians in Russia. Aranherunar04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all there is an ethnic minoriy called Russian in China. Please see List of ethnic groups in China. And these people are basically Russian people with Chinese citizenship. This is an English encyclopedia. Not a Chinese one. And I'm 100% sure that the Chinese word (少数民族) and the English word (ethnic minority) have the same meaning. Ethnic minority should only refer to ethnic groups with smaller numbers within a country's boarder. Otherwise all ethnic groups around the world are minorities of Han Chinese, because Han Chinese has the largest number. Do you think this will bring any positive response from other non-Chinese readers? Han Chinese living in Mogolia and Russia number less than local people. They're considered minority there. Don't be ridiculous. Edipedia15:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
炎黄子孙
If you keep changing "Yan and Yellow Emperors" into "Yan or Yellow Emperor", well, it's quite apparent whose logic doesn't make sense. Aranherunar03:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Your translation is wrong. "炎黄子孙" should be translated as "descendents of Yan or Yellow Emperor". You can't claim to be descendents of two men. That's ridiculous. Also most han people in mainland China don't believe the Yellow emperor story, especially those who don't live in Henan. They are usually reluctant to claim themselves as "炎黄子孙". There is an alternative for that word --"沿黄(河)子孙".Edipedia15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Bring up some sources for that and maybe we'll include it. Actually, how is it impossible to be descendants of two men? I don't see how it's impossible, it's VERY possible. The fact is, if these two men do exist, we have a very, very large chance of being descendants/distinct relatives of both of them. It's simple maths - e.g Yan has two children, Huang has two children, the four children marry and have eight children, etc. etc. Few thousand years without accidents and there'll be a billion. Incidentally it spells "descendants". If they don't exist - well, that's another thing. It's just what some of us call ourselves. I see a lot of people doing it - more than they call themselves "Hanren" or something. Aranherunar04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
See Yan Emperor. "A close kin of the Yellow Emperor, he is said to be a patriarch of the Chinese. The Han Chinese regarded them both as their joint ancestors." (point emphasized). Aranherunar04:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think your reasoning holds some water. But to be more accurate, the phrase should be translated as "descendents of Yan and/or Yellow Emperor". As I pointed out before many Han Chinese are reluctant to claim themselves as "炎黄子孙". It should be more appropriate to replace the "many" in front of Han Chinese with "some". Edipedia15:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to doubt the accuracy of the story that Yan Emperor is a close kin of the Yellow Emperor. But it is truely a bad story, because if they are close kins then people can't help wondering who are these men's parents. In that case, it will be more accurate for Han Chinese to claim descendents of their parents. Don't you agree? Edipedia15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, that's original research. You can publish it into a newspaper or something and tell people to form into little groups like "WE ARE THE TRUE DESCENDANTS OF THE YAN EMPEROR, WE PWN THE YELLOW EMPEROR", whatever, but keep it off Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned the whole lot of your edit is original research, and very bad original research at that. Aran|heru|nar04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
唐人 & 华人
唐人 & 华人 simply refer to Chinese people. But this article is about Han Chinese, not Chinese people in general. These two words shouldn't be used in the "Name" section. It is actually pretty weird that some Southern Han Chinese refer themselves as Tang people instead of Han people. Edipedia16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That's because the Tang dynasty was the most prosperous one in China's history. It was also a dynasty ruled by Han emperors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.194.228 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-18 21:33:06
I must disagree. I think the information about the different names Han Chinese call themselves (such as 唐人 and 華人) are useful. The fact that Edipedia thinks these terms are "weird" is no reason to remove the information at all. --- Hong Qi Gong02:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You will see that fewer and fewer are actually using the term "Han Chinese". In the past, "Han Chinese" in fact equals to "Chinese". It came to a broader definition after the Song dynasty, but the "minorities" have largely been sinicized in the three preceding dynasties. The line between "Han Chinese" and "Hua people/Tang people" is ambiguous at best - you will rarely see a Mongolian calling himself a "Tang person", while in technical definition a Mongolian in China should be treated as a Chinese.
I agree with Hong Qi Gong. Sounding weird is no reason for a removal. I would suggest again you NOT TO EDIT WHILE DISPUTION IS GOING ON, and NOT TO EDIT AGAINST CONSENSUS. Your edit changing "Yan and Yellow Emperors" into "Yan or Yellow Emperor" is absurdly incorrect, as I have told you. I have reverted __all__ your edits into mine for the moment. Please discuss before you make changes. Aranherunar04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, You may say that the Tang emperor is han chinese. But it is wrong to use Tang people to refer to only han chinese because Tang dynasty is a large diversified state. (probably much more diversified than the present day China). As for "華", it doesn't refer to only han chinese either. There are "華" in 中华人民共和国, 中华民族. These words include all ethnic groups. "唐人" and "華人" are just alternative names for Chinese people. Also people living in guangxi, yunnan, guizhou and maybe fujian are all southern Chinese. But these regions are China's most ethnicly diversified regions. It is really hard to understand what you are talking about when you use southern Chinese. Edipedia15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The matter at hand is not what people in the Tang dynasty called themselves, but the fact that sub-ethnic groups like the Cantonese or the Hakka refer to themselves as 唐人. This is fact. At any rate, the article does not say that 唐人 or 華人 refer only to Han Chinese, so your concern is not even applicable. --- Hong Qi Gong15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is getting humorous. Edipedia, the Tang emperor is NOT Han Chinese. The first Tang emperor had, I believe, 1/2 Han Chinese blood. Then he married another minority tribe's princess and the second Tang emperor had about 1/4 Han Chinese blood. Take some time studying, will you? Aranherunar03:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally your translation of Chinatown is hilarious, "中國城". How many such "walled cities" are there in San Francisco? I hardly saw any the last time I went there. Aranherunar04:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You're correct Tang dynasty is a large diversified state. The different minorities eventually sinicized, though, to form the "Chinese" today, so I must say "Tang people" is in fact more accurate than "Han people". Aranherunar04:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is very interesting. Please excuse my ignorance. You see the "Name" section of this article should deal with different names people use for Han Chinese. Not those names that include not only Han Chinese, but also others. Since Tang people and Hua people are not only Han Chinese. These two words should be moved to Chinese people article instead.
A lot of people translate Chinatown into "中國城". Cities and towns in modern time don't have city walls. There ain't anything funny.Edipedia16:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Aranherunar, to say that the first Tang emperor is not Han Chinese because he was 1/2 Han Chinese, you're essentially playing identity politics for a guy back in ancient China. I'm not sure we want to venture so far. Besides, I've read that his paternal side is Han Chinese, which, in a patriarchal society, would identify him as Han Chinese.
Anyway, a discussion actually about the Tang dynasty is out of scope, in my opinion. That Cantonese people and Hakka people call themselves 唐人 is a simple matter of fact. They also consider themselves 漢人 and 華人.
Edipedia, I have absolutely no idea why you want to push for the removal of terms referring to Han Chinese just because those terms may also be used for other ethnicities. It makes no sense whatsoever. --- Hong Qi Gong00:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not identity politics, because he is well known for his non-Han Chinese identity. In fact, some Han Chinese opposed him because of that. You'll also see that a whole lot of "Tang" are actually half-cast with minority tribes around China at that time, which eventually formed the more accurate "Han Chinese" in modern times. Han Chinese in the modern is very, very different from Han Chinese in the Han Dynasty because of that.
I don't actually believe Tang people can be used for other ethnicities. When do you ever see a Mongol or a Russian in China claiming to be "Tang people"? Yet they're considered Chinese. Aran|heru|nar04:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It is identity politics because the issue calls into question whether or not they themselves identified as Han Chinese, and whether others, today or back in ancient China, identify them as Han Chinese.
I'm getting lost. What did Edipedia actually claim? It seems like he thought 唐人 or 華人 can be used for all Chinese. In that case I disagree. There's no problem with putting those names here - and even if they can mean other things they don't have to be removed because some Han Chinese do call themselves so. Aran|heru|nar15:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how the last paragraph in the terms section fits into this article. "Another term used commonly to refer to overseas Chinese is Huaren ". A paragraph beginning like this should show up in the overseas Chinese article to make sense. Han Chinese represent the majority group of Chinese people. But they can't be used as an equivalent to Chinese people. There are non-Han Chinese living overseas anyway.Edipedia16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted these edits because insufficient reason is given as to why the new version is better than the old.
"In and Around" China, as has been pointed out previously, is designed to include both ethnic minorities within the territory of the Chinese state today or in the past, as well as those outside. For example, "Han Chinese" would certainly differentiate the Han from the Göktürks in the Tang dynasty, right? Yet the Göktürks don't exist in China anymore, and if anywhere they're more likely to be found in Uzbekistan or perhaps Turkey. I agree with you that "minorities in and around China" is inaccurate. I've refactored that sentence, hopefully you will be okay with it.
"Barbarians", placed in quotes, reflects the attitude of the Chinese regime, or perhaps, people, at the time, who definitely viewed those not under the rule of their own regime as barbarians. For example, during the southern Song dynasty, the Song, Jin, and Liao each viewed themselves as legitimate and referred to the other(s) as barbarians.
"Project [its] power" is a term that has different connotations to "extend its influence". For example, Australia is able to "extend its influence" over Nauru, but it wouldn't be aboe to "project its power" over the country. Here, we are talking about tributary states, who were not only influenced by the central Chinese government, but were under its power.
Han Chinese invaded Central and Northeast Asia. They can be considered barbarians, not those were invaded. Tributary states are not ruled by the Han Chinese emperor directly. I think it is more appropriate to say "extend power" instead. Edipedia16:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the paragraph on huaren 華人 was deleted.
Finally, "炎黃子孫" should, imo, be the descendents of both the Yan and Huang emperors, because the term originates from the merger of their respective tribes. --Sumple (Talk) 00:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 炎黃子孫 is the "Descendants of the Yan and Yellow emperors" - that's obviously correct. I don't quite understand his change. Aranherunar04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Why do we have to emphasize Han diversity and Han "Chinese"?
I don't see evidence of this (using genetic markers to show differences between Han people) in any other country's descriptions. I can probably go to England, Italy, Spain, Korea, Japan, Germany, etc., put genetic markers on their Y chromosomes, and differentiate people based on polymorphisms. It's ludicrous why it's on this page (unless you people want to try and disunite Han Chinese). If we talk about "Han diversity," we should also include the study listed above of how Han people are genetically similar to Koreans and Japanese based on the use of genetic markers. We should replace this section with a more useful section about Han people, i.e. more about accomplishments, overseas Han people. Also, Why is this page labeled Han Chinese? Shouldn't it be "Han People"? It's like making a page labeled "Anglo-Saxon Americans" and giving information about Anglo-Saxons oversease. Anyone else agree? --Yaofan1506:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added the tone template. Do you find it appropriate? Or do you think the section should be removed instead, in accordance with other ethnicity-related articles, like Russian people? Aranherunar13:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is named "Han Chinese" instead of "Han people" because "Han Chinese" is much more common than "Han people". The English word "Chinese" itself is ambiguous. --- Hong Qi Gong14:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I would not object to either term, actually. Han people is a more "accurate" translation from Chinese, while Han Chinese is a more descriptive and widely used term. Aranherunar15:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should include a direct translation. And we shouldn't exclude it from the labeling because it is "less common." It was also common to call black people niggers in pre Martin Luther King America. Should we start calling them that too? And also, Han is an ethnicity, not a country, unfortunately. It'd be easier if we were ethnically Chinese, but there's no such thing. If you call us Han Chinese, you can also call most white Americans: Anglo-Saxon Americans, and seperate other whites by their ethnicities instead of clumping them together. It's rather a shame our people aren't named after the country we founded, and I think this labeling should change. And by the way, Han people aren't only in China. There are plenty of Han people in the US, Australia, and other countries. To make a page called "Han Chinese" is like making a page labeld "French France" or something.
And about the ethnic diversity thing, I'm postive Russians are more ethnically diverse than Han people. But do they have a section devoted to genetic studies on their "diversity?" No! Russian people are more united than Chinese people b/c they downplay their genetic differences and focus on ethnic similarities (culture, religion, language, etc.). So yeah, does anyone else want to change this page to "Han People", and replace the "diversity" section with other, more prevalent things about Han people (culture, religion, accomplishments, etc.)? How do you make formal poll? --Yaofan1515:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you forgot the "Han dynasty", hmm? Being labelled as "Han" is not a shame. We're proud of it. Han Chinese simply means Chinese (which included every minority in China), which are from the Han majority. An illogical description, perhaps, but there's a lot of things named "Han": It seems much easier to distinguish.
I agree on removing the quite pointless genetical difference table on this page because it doesn't really prove anything (actually, it comes from a website about Han chinese migrations).
I couldn't wholeheartedly agree on changing it to "Han people", though. If you search from Google or Yahoo most websites use "Han Chinese" - I admit it's not exactly correct, but most people likes to stick with the term "Chinese" so they know what they're talking about - oversea Chinese simply say "I'm Chinese", or if they're more politically knowledgeable, they might say "Han Chinese", but never "I'm Han!" We have a redirect from Han people to Han Chinese already, anyway.
Incidentally, it would be "French French", not "French France" - and, impossible n'est pas francais, it's quite possible given the diversity of culture in France.Aranherunar15:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with most of your points. But again, Han Chinese refers to Han people in China. Unfortunately, not many people have heard about the Han race, so we should either start using it to get people acquainted with it, or we can change the "Han" label to "Chinese," which I think would be better. Yes, the Han and Tang dynasties were great, but should we start calling Koreans the Silla people or the Japanese the Edo people? I don't think so. Anyway, I think this should be changed.
But more importantly, yes, the genetic info. should be taken down. It's bs. Can one of us do it now, or do we have to wait for more people? --Yaofan1516:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yaofan, with all due respect, your comparison with the word "nigger" in pre-civil rights era is moot. We're not in the pre-civil rights era right now, and the term is now more commonly regarded a racial slur. And I disagree that the "Chinese" in "Han Chinese" is to denote Chinese citizenship. To the best of my knowledge, "Han Chinese" is used to disambiguate the English term "Chinese", which is often used for Han people, regardless of citizenship.
And Koreans are sometimes called "Choson people" in other languages, named after the longest-lasting dynasty in East Asia. The term "Korean" is used instead of "Choson people" or "Hanguk people" because that is the most common English term for them, just like "Han Chinese" is used because it's the most common term to refer to Han people. --- Hong Qi Gong18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with including information about cultural, linguistic, and genetic differences within the Han Chinese/people, after all China covers a vast area and the people who are "Han" have changed throughtout the history of China. LDHan20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there should maybe be one or two sentences devoted to some minor differences in customs or culture between Han people, even though these differences are very minor. The genetic study is not only unnecessary, but it seems biased. I see NO evidence of this study anywhere else on wikipedia. If you search for ethnicities, there is never talk about genetic differences and a table that displays genetic similarity between people in the ethnic group. So yeah, there are two people strongly for removing the sections described above (Aranherunar and me). Anyone else agree on removing these unnecessary sections and puting in more relevant information about Han culture, customs, etc.?
And although it's OK to leave it "Han Chinese," I just feel it's a little off. Hanguk & Choson still means Korea in Korean. --Yaofan1503:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that some people feel that the "Chinese" in "Han Chinese" means citizenship and not ethnicity. The same ambiguity arises in "Korean". Does the word mean citizenship or ethnicity? The answer is that it's interchangeable, it can mean either or both. The same with "Chinese". --- Hong Qi Gong03:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, a lot of people uses "Han Chinese" as a cultural and ethnic term for Chinese, while "Chinese" became a political term including all citizens in China/minorities. E.g. The culture section of this article related to Han Chinese actually links to the Culture of China.
It's a doubtful topic, though. Perhaps we should just put down all the "possible" definitions in a section - but the genetic section is definitely not needed. There's two sections about it - "Ethnic Han Unity or Disunity?" and "Internal diversity". We should summarize both of them into a few sentences and then merge them - agreed? Aranherunar04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I think we should summarize these two sections into a maximum of two sentences total. And the genetic study I think should be left out completely. --Yaofan1504:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I do. I was a cell biology major in college, but I don't want to leave the genetic study section there at all. I think it should be done away with completely, because it doesn't mean anything. --Yaofan1504:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are people who, for nationalistic and political reasons, want to present the “Han” as a homogenised group of people. With modern communications, the differences between people living in different parts of China have become less noticable. Of course an “ethnic” group is a cultural definition and not a genetic definition, but genetic information is useful as it relates to migratory patterns in the past. LDHan11:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you definitely think it is needed, put it into a few lines and sum up what's related to the topic, though I don't see genetic information in any other article about ethnicity. Aran|heru|nar11:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I got lost with who's advocating what while reading this discussion, but I think it's important not to politicise the issue as, I dunno, a "splittist" conspiracy OR some pan-Chinese hegemonic fantacy.
The genetic evidence and historical evidence of Han Chinese diversity is there because it's interesting. That's all it is. --Sumple (Talk) 12:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting, but not notable. Just because some scientists are bored enough to do these research, doesn't mean they have to be put on Wikipedia. The Russia is much more diverse than China (and has a lot of massive migrations too), but they don't have a genetic table in their article. Aran|heru|nar12:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it? But we're talking about the ethnic group here, not the country. Does the Russian ethnic group (by which I mean, I dunno what they're called, Russ? Russkyi?, rather than citizens of Russia) have as much internal diversity as the Han ethnic group? I don't know. Does anyone know?
I'm not quite sure, but logically they should be diverse since most of the Russians actually live near Moscow before the rapid expansion in Imperial Russia - they eventually spread across the continent into Alaska. Obviously that causes them to be diverse. There also should be some close cultural interactions between the Russ and other ethnicities (e.g. Ukrainians) in the Soviet Union, making Russians at different parts of Russia diverse in culture. This is OR though. Aran|heru|nar13:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no one here is advocating that the Han group is racially homogenous. But then again, you can argue that every single ethnic group in the world is heterogeneous. I can put genetic markers on Y chromosomes of Russians, Germans, Japanese, and I'm sure I can find differences in the % of people who have which markers (which supposedly denotes genetic variation). I'm for talking about migratory patterns, but emphasizing genetics is really biased. Why doesn't the Russian ethnic group have genetic studies? It's just unneccesary. If we include a genetic studies here, we should have one for Koreans, Japanese, Germans, etc., but I don't see ANY for them. The Russian ethnic group DEFINITELY has more genetic diversity than the Han Chinese. But do they do genetic studies on it and post it on Wikipedia? NO. Russians, Italians, and many other ethnicities are more genetically AND culturally diverse than the Han Chinese. So yeah, I am going to shorten it now. --Yaofan1519:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How do you know they haven't been done? Maybe the results just haven't been notable. Anyway, the thing with the Han ethnicity is that there is a historical aspect to the assimilation etc which is a part of the "racial story" if you like. That's pretty notable, I believe. There are corresponding sections to these (assimilation, growth, expansion) in the other racial articles, too. --Sumple (Talk) 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why we would remove this information from the article. What difference does it make whether other similar articles have similar information? Why not add information there rather than removing information here?—Nat Krause(Talk!)02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is a lot cleaner and makes a lot more sense after I summarized the genetic studies part. It simply doesn't need the table and other stuff that was written. I think my summary was more than enough to talk about how the genetic studies have proven Northern Han migration to the South through China's history. Yes, the genetic studies are notable, in that it proves China's Han migration, and I talked about it in depth. However, it shouldn't be labeled "Han diversity or Unity" and "what China says about it." From my point of view, the genetic studies part was very biased and does not merit a place in this article. The way it was written seems to attempt to divide the Han people and emphasize its differences, when an ethnicity page should be about similarities. And yes, Han is an ethnicity because of its cultural, linguistic, and even genetic commonalities (if you read the page on ethnicity, you would understand). Other ethnicity articles also emphasize similarities in people within that ethnic group. --Yaofan1503:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't really need the table. Maybe we can mention few sentences about it - the table is unnecessary because I don't think anyone really needs to know the exact amount of what type of genes we have. We can probably write a few sentences about genetic diversity, and use this website [4] which also appears on the External links to reference it.
We can't include every sort of information here, Nat Krause. This genetic study is not really notable, and we have (had) two long sections about it. Aran|heru|nar08:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, I didn't read this discussion carefully enough >.< It seems that Yaofan is basing his/her objection on the Han Chinese being "disunited" and that the "diversity" section is a manifestation of this "disunity"...
Anyway, don't want to say more lest I be labelled a "traitor to the Han". If you still have nationalist fervour leftover, why not help me fight the Japanese domination of the Senkaku Islands article? And yes, in case you are wondering, that's Diaoyu Islands to us. --Sumple (Talk) 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Please say more, lest you be labelled a "traitor to Wikipedia" :). We need more opinions on this - and I'm ashamed to say that I don't really know enough about Han Chinese to solve this problem. Aran|heru|nar12:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Protection
I have requested the page for protection until a conclusion and understanding can come between Edipedia and other contributors about the article (apparently Edipedia does not understand or is not willing to comply with some basic discussion procedures). Thanks.Aran|heru|nar15:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is a total nonsense by stupid Taiwanese. "The term "Han Chinese" is used to distinguish the majority ethnic group in China from various other ethnic groups in and around China." Only Mongolian Chinese and Russian Chinese who are Chinese citizens and live within China are ethnic minorities. Citizens of Mongolia and Russia are not Chinese minorities. It is just a common sense. File:&-20013;&-33775;&-27665;&-22283;&-20840;&-22294;.jpgmap of ROCTaiwanese are just stupid. They use a map similar to Manchu Qing's map and claim that Mongolia is their territory, while in the mean time stage Anti-Manchuism. Have a look at ROC's map.
Han Chinese invaded Central and Northeast Asia in Han dynasty. They can be considered barbarians, not those who were invaded. "Barbarian" should be replaced with "other eithnic groups". The worlding of "project its power far into Central and Northeast Asia " is very disgusting. It should be replaced with "extend its territory to Central and Northeast Asia". Besides Han dynasty only reached part of Inner Mongolia, Liaodong penisular and a corner of Korean Pennisular. There regions are just the edges of Central and Northeast Asia. It is far fetched to say "far" into Central and Northeast Asia. Edipedia17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"华人" is simply a word for Chinese people in general. What's the point in the name section of Han Chinese article to say that some overseas Chinese call them Chinese people. If there are editors think that only overseas Han Chinese people call themselves "华人", then there should be a "Han" in front of overseas Chinese. Edipedia17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That does not matter. Han Chinese use the term, so it should be mentioned. The article doesn't say the term is only used by Han Chinese either. --- Hong Qi Gong17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you need put "Han" in front of overseas Chinese, becasue this article is about Han Chinese not Chinese people in general. Edipedia17:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, because the common term is 華人, not 漢華人. The article says Han Chinese sometimes refer to themselves as 華人. It does not say anything about other Chinese people. There is no confusion. --- Hong Qi Gong18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't know what you're talking about. This is how it is said in the article. "Another term used commonly to refer to overseas Chinese is Huaren ". There is no "Han" in front of overseas Chinese. Edipedia18:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Edipedia, you have not responded to my questions about your edits above. In particular, could you please take a look at my version of the sentence concerning "in and around China" and respond appropriately, thanks.
Currently it says "The term "Han Chinese" is used to distinguish the majority ethnic group in China from various other ethnic groups in and around China."
Please read it more carefully. It says the "majority ethnic group in China" versus "other ethnic groups in and around China". --Sumple (Talk) 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Aye, I agree with Sumple. As for the barbarians matter, please note the quotations. Chinese historical records do consider the Central Asians "barbarians". The fact can be disputed - Indeed, Central Asia was less civilized than China at that time, and most of the Central Asians that the Tang invaded do not have a specific language system for themselves. You can argue that the invader was the barbarian - but then I can argue the USA invaded Iraq and the Americans weren't barbarians. To put it into quotations is perfectly neutral, as various authors have told you. Please take some time reading what others are saying. Aran|heru|nar03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thing is, I find the sentence "in and around China" to be acceptable even though I'm not a "stupid Taiwanese" - and never did I claim I was. Please leave your OR elsewhere: see WP:NOT a soapbox.
As for "project its power far into Central and Northeast Asia", it does not have any problem either. Territory and power is different - power can mean influence. You argued that the Han did not project its power far into Central and Northeast Asia, and yet you changed it to "extend their territory", which signifies, in my opinion, that the Han had even more power. To project its power far into Central and Northeast Asia is accurate - the Han under Wudi sent a few diplomats far into Central Asia, hoping to ally them against the Xiongnu in the north. Some tribes eventually agreed to pay tribute to the Han Dynasty, and after a few expeditions the Xiongnu finally surrendered to the Han Dynasty. These tributaries are not shown in the map Image:Han_Civilisation.png, which may have caused the misunderstanding, but having Xiongnu and various tribes in Central Asia as tributaries is a sign of power and dominance in Central and North/North-east Asia. Aran|heru|nar04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
See Xiongnu#Tributary_relations_with_the_Han. I must also argue that the image depicting the location of Xiongnu is inaccurate in describing the height of Han power. When Xiongnu became a tributary its territory included the "Xianbi", "Fuyu" and "Wuhuan" marked in the map. The Xiongnu also included territory further north than the map tells. Aran|heru|nar04:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Han Chinese and other Chinese people living in Russia are all referred as Chinese there. There is no Chinese majority or minority. Your sentence is just wrong and gramatically awkward. Second, "barbarians","project its power" are very hostile words. "other ethnic groups" and "extend its territory and influence into Central and Norhteast Asia" are better. This is an editable encylcopedia. You can't prevent other people from editing. Edipedia15:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your obsession with Russia. If you are Russian and I have just offended you, I apologise.
I will give you a very simple example of how "Han Chinese" is used to distinguish the majority in China with other ethnic groups outside of China.
Until 1997, Hong Kong Island was not a part of China, correct? It was British sovereign territory. Now when the Hong Kong press before 1997 talked about, say, Hui people in Hong Kong, do you think that was in contrast to the Han people, or "Chinese people"?
I suggest that you carefully read what other editors have said regarding those edits above before reverting again. True it is that anyone can edit, but if you repeatedly insert an edit that everone else has a problem with, without properly reading what others have taken the effort to write, that's an uncooperative attitude and could get you banned. --Sumple (Talk) 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Edipedia. It appears you haven't read my discussion again...hmm..can you pay more attention next time? Maybe my words are too complicated or confusing. Anyway, Sumple gave a nice example. Please read that.
"Project its power" is not a hostile word, because it's perfectly accurate. If "Project its power" is hostile, well, "the USA invaded Iraq" is quite hostile too, don't you think?
The fifth time I have to remind you that "barbarians" is quoted. Note the two " around it? That means its a quotation - and it well is one.
Lastly, the issue about Wikipedia. Yes, it's editable, you're right, I can't stop you from editing - nor can you stop me from editing. So instead of changing it to and fro how about having some nice discussion? Aran|heru|nar10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what's this HK thing is about. When people talk about Hui people, that's definitely used to distinguish from Han Chinese not British. As you said youself your English is offensive and need to make an apologize.You can't refer Russians, Mongolians, Koreans etc as ethnic groups. They have their own country. Respect others. Otherwise, nobody respects you. I don't know what this cat fight is all about. There is nothing wrong with the words I use, while you are quite aware that the words you use are offensive but refuse to change. Edipedia15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"Ethnic group" does not mean "doesn't have its own country". Russians, Mongolians, Koreans, etc. are ethnic groups that have their own nation-states.—Nat Krause(Talk!)16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Like the Chinese people, Russians, Mongolians and Koreans are citizen based. There are many ethnic groups with Russia, Mongolia and Korea. Edipedia16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I do see a lot of Stuff and nonsense here. These are the sentence from the Russian people article: "The English term Russians is also used to refer to citizens of Russia, regardless of their ethnicity (see demographics of Russia for information on other nationalities inhabiting Russia)". The same thing is true for Mongolians and Koreans. At least there are Chinese Mongolians and Chinese Koreans. Edipedia16:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, "Russian", "Korean", and "Mongolian" are citizenship types in addition to being ethnic groups. They are both (although "Mongol" is usually used for the ethnic group and "Mongolian" is usually used for the citizenship). The distinction is not all that clear, actually, because most states require some kid of assimilation with the majority ethnic group in order to attain citizenship, and they often encourage members of native minority ethnic groups to assimilate as well. The same is true of China, by the way.—Nat Krause(Talk!)18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not right. Most ethnic minorities in these countries are local peoples. They are not naturalized citizens. This is a world that cherish diversity. They don't need to be assimilated. At least, there is no such policy in China. (For example, there are at least 23 ethnic minorities in the island of Taiwan. )Edipedia19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
You have misread. I said, "most states require some kid of assimilation with the majority ethnic group in order to attain citizenship, and they often encourage members of native minority ethnic groups to assimilate as well". I agree that China's de jure policies are not very aggressive in favour of assimilation for indigenous minorities, but they do require schools to teach Hànyǔ (the same way that the U.S. requires schools to teach English), and they do make street signs in Chinese characters, etc.—Nat Krause(Talk!)19:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
As you said youself your English is offensive and need to make an apologize. I'm sorry, but I am coming to the inevitable conclusion (as no doubt other participants in this discussion are), that what you really need is to look up the meaning of the terms "ethnicity" and "ethnic group" in an English dictionary, and perhaps "Han Chinese" in a Chinese dictionary.
I hate to be rude, but your basic premise is wrong (or "Stuff and nonsense" as you prefer). Let's look at the sentence you keep on objecting to. The sentence preferred by other editors says that Han Chinese is used to distinguish the Chinese majority from other ethnic groups, both in and out of China. You think that the term Han Chinese is only used to distinguish the Chinese majority from Chinese minorities. So what you are objecting to, then, is the term "Han Chinese" being used to distinguish between the Chinese majority as against ethnic groups from other countries.
That makes no sense. Consider three people: Mao Zedong, a Han Chinese person; Puyi, a Manchu Chinese person; Bill Clinton], an Anglo-Celtic American person. Your argument implies that Mao is different to Puyi, because they are both Chinese but Mao is a Han, but Mao is not different from Clinton, because apparently you can't use "Han Chinese" to compare with someone from outside of China??
Alternatively, what you are arguing is that, in comparing the ethnicities of Mao Zedong against Puyi, we can say "one is Han and the other is Manchu", but in comparing Mao Zedong against Bill Clinton, we can say that Clinton is Anglo-Celtic but can't say Mao is Han Chinese??
Finally, if you didn't understand the Hong Kong example, then I fear perhaps that it's showing us the root cause of this argument. If you refuse to read other editors' posts carefully enough to even understand it, then I don't see how we can make progress here. --Sumple (Talk) 22:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Sumple. It looks like Edipedia is not experienced enough with English to follow the well-reasoned arguments raised by Sumple and Aranherunar, or to rebut them in any intelligent fashion. Sumple and Aranherunar are simply trying to explain the Han Chinese ethnicity concept, which has been exhaustively analyzed by famous China experts like John King Fairbank (of Harvard), Jonathan Spence (of Yale), and many others. If Edipedia is unable to read Fairbank and Spence's well-known works (in English) and to concede the point, then he or she may need to be blocked. Both Fairbank's and Spence's books are widely available at libraries and bookstores throughout the world. --Coolcaesar07:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
All in all this user needs some improvement in English before he makes his egoistical claims - and I am assuming good faith here. There seems to be a large misunderstanding that Edipedia has related to the policies and usage of Wikipedia, things related to Han Chinese, and of course, civility. User Edipedia has been blocked thrice for 3RR violations with Chinese related articles - one yesterday. It seems that Edipedia is not willing to listen to the advice of others - not counting the many times we warned him in this article, he has also been warned plenty of times for the articles he is blocked for. I see no conclusion for this type of Egoism - Sumple, Hong Qi Gong and I have all made several attempts at solving the civility and POV problem - and yes, civility first, content second, that's Wikipedia policies - to no avail. Edipedia is not willing to listen to ANYthing that doesn't sound nice to him, whether its a disagreement or simply a friendly tip. I see no further purpose of this discussion - all the problems about Edipedia's edits are addressed and very, detailedly explained, Wikipedia policies regarding both content and conduct have been thoroughly repeated, and Edipedia is showing no sign of change. I am giving the following as a most faithful suggestion, and the honestly best suggestion I can think of: Edipedia, please edit some other articles that you are experienced in (which, I believe, is a lot - everybody has his/her expertise), please listen to what other users are trying to say (all our users here are, in fact, far more experienced than you in Wikipedia, and we can help), and lastly, remain civil. An alternative suggestion, Edipedia, is that you spend some time improving your English (it's not bad, to speak the truth, but it's not "near-native" as you claimed), take some time studying what ethnicities are about (Wikipedia has a nice article of it, take a look) and try to acquire some basic knowledge of both ancient and modern Han Chinese ethnicity, which you definitely lack and which you definitely need. And thanks everybody for making it, I hope, clear to this user. If he can truly take in what we're saying here, it's worth the effort. If not, and if he continues to behave in such a way both about the content and about his conduct, good luck. Aran|heru|nar11:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the sentence "The term "Han Chinese" is used to distinguish the majority ethnic group in China from various other ethnic groups in and around China." is badly written and is ambiguous. I think what is meant is: "The term "Han Chinese" is used in China and other countries to distinguish the Han (who are the majority ethnic group in China) from other ethnic groups." LDHan12:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)LDHan
That was my compromise version as a response to Edipedia's objections :s anyway the basic idea is that you have 1. the Han Chinese on the one hand who are the majority ethnic group in China, and 2. on the other hand other ethnic groups in China and elsewhere. Your suggestion sounds okay as well, but I don't like the brackets. --Sumple (Talk) 13:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Heres a 2nd version: "The term "Han Chinese" is used in China and other countries to distinguish the Han, who are the majority ethnic group in China, from other ethnic groups. Chinese in "Han Chinese" does not necessarily mean a citizen of China." LDHan13:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sumple's version sounds better. I think your version is even more ambiguous - for examples, "the majority ethnic group in China, from other ethnic groups." It will sound to a reader that other countries would use the term to talk distinguish Han Chinese from other Chinese inside China only.
I would suggest first stating that Han Chinese is the majority ethnic group in China, then say that there are various other ethnic groups in China, such as etc. etc., then saying that in China and other countries where Chinese may be present, the term Han Chinese is used to distinguish itself from other Chinese ethnic groups. Anyone can summarize this up into a nice paragraph? Aran|heru|nar14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. The second version seems to make a distinctionb between "the term 'Han Chinese'" and "the Han", a distinction not currently present in the article. Can we first reach concensus on this:
My opinion is that "Han Chinese" is just the English translation of "汉族" with the "Chinese" part added for clarification. It's the same as, say, "Wu Chinese", which is simply a translations of "吴语", with the "Chinese" added to clarify that this is a Chinese language. If you say the same words in Chinese (汉族,吴语) people will know the context immediately. But in English, this may not be apparent and that's why ppl usually add the "Chinese" to the end.
Thus, "the term 'Han Chinese'" doesn't distinguish a separate concept "the Han" from other concepts. It's the same concept as "the Han".
I agree with LDHan. People are talking Mao Zedong, a Han Chinese person; Puyi, a Manchu Chinese person; Bill Clinton, an Anglo-Celtic person. So why just around China. Wouldn't it be necessary somtimes to distinguish Han Chinese from other ethnic groups in the US? I think there is no need to rephrase the sentense. The only thing we need to do is to delete "around". If people can distinguish Han Chinese from other minorities in China, they naturally can distinguish Han Chinese from other ethnic groups in the world, of course not just around China. Edipedia18:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Edipedia's comment about Han Chinese. If you use the term: "African American", it denotes citizenship of America. If you say "Han Chinese," isn't it referring to the Han people only in China? So yes, I agree with the "around" part being taken out, because "Han Chinese" should only be referring to the Han people in China. So how would you differentiate a Han person living in China from Han people living abroad? If the "Chinese" in "Han Chinese" doesn't denote citizenship, then wouldn't you have to say: "Han Chinese in China" compared to "Han Chinese in America"? That sounds a little ridiculous. And I don't really undestand Sumple's argument with Mao, Puyi, and Clinton. Obviously, Mao is different from Clinton because one is "Han Chinese" (or just Han), and the other is "Anglo-Celtic American". One is a Han person from China and the other is an Anglo-Celtic in America. Not only are they different ethnically, but location-wise also. If you were to make an equivalent of "Anglo-Celtic American" for Han people. it would be "Han Chinese Chinese"? Ridiculous. --Yaofan1507:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"African American" and "Han Chinese" are not exactly a good direct comparison. "Chinese" is often used in English to denote ethnicity, as it is often used to refer to the Han. There is an ambiguity to the term "Chinese people", and it doesn't always denote citizenship. In fact, in common English usage, it is usually not used to denote citizenship. Note - "Chinese American". "American", on the other hand, strictly refers to citizenship. --- Hong Qi Gong16:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hong Qi Gong and Sumple are correct: "Han Chinese" is one concept; it doesn't mean "Han and Chinese". "Han Chinese in China" is exactly what I would say if that was what I meant; compare to "ethnic Koreans in Korea", "Mongols in Mongolia", "Native Americans in America", etc.—Nat Krause(Talk!)18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Man, someone has to ban Godardesque, because he changed the "possibly related ethnic groups" section to disclude Koreans and Japanese. There is clear evidence (in fact, from somewhere in this talk section) that Koreans & Japanese are strongly genetically related to Han Chinese. I mean, scientific evidence aside, it's very difficult to differentiate between Japanese, Koreans, and Northern Han Chinese. It's not even an argument. --Yaofan1507:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
A ban is not necessary, but I agree with you on the content. A relationship is obvious, the question is how large it is, not whether it exists.
Edipedia, this is your last warning. Do not edit against consensus while discussion is still going on, and do not edit war. I would not comment on your foolish edits, because others can do that themselves, but if you go on to edit war the case will have to go to ArbCom.
I am requesting the page for full protection again - the person who unprotected it doesn't seem to understand the situation. Discussion is not going on here, and Edipedia has broken the 3RR. Aran|heru|nar13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Han/Han Chinese
It is Wikipedia policy to use the common English version, even if it doesn't make sense, for example, "the Great Wall", which will translate to something like "伟大的墙". For this reason I think "Han Chinese" should be used instead of "Han", though I understand there's also a reason for "Han" to be used.
The article name is "Han Chinese", and it doesn't seem right to use a different term in the article. Either change it back, or move the page to something like "Han (Chinese)" or "Han (Ethnicity)"? These would sound better and cause less confusion. Comments? Aran|heru|nar13:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. It's the English Wikipedia. It's what people say in English. Everyone says "Han Chinese". If you say "I'm Han", people will think you are saying "I'm Hun", or "I'm Ham", or, for those more immersed within Asian culture, "I'm Korean".
Some of the other editors should understand that what is "proper" or "common" English should be understood in terms of experiences (in the bullshitty post-modern perspectivist sense) of the language in the community in which it is used. --Sumple (Talk) 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not quite agree. In ordinary conversation in English few people would actually know and be aware of the term Han. Neither would people know and be aware of Han Chinese. — Instantnood13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Me neither. But more importantly and actually relevant to this discussion here, what do you think of the difference in degree of common usage between "Han" and "Han Chinese". --- Hong Qi Gong18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Since neither is common, it's hard to compare. I'd say common is not a criteria in this case. As a title Han Chinese is less ambiguous, but within the title article don't think it's logical and necessary to use Han Chinese. Han is good enough. — Instantnood18:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (modified 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
Well yes, neither is common, but "Han" is ambiguous if not placed in context. I agree that, depending on the place, "Han" could be preferred in the article. Also, by convention, shouldn't it be "the Han" in the opening sentence, since it is a collective noun and not a plural? cf "the British" vs "Russians". --Sumple (Talk) 23:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"Unprotection"
I am putting this here because Edipedia deletes everything that gets into his talk page.
Edipedia, please do not request the article for unprotection. You have requested it twice since I requested it for protection, both times claiming that edit wars have died down, a "promise" which you broke immediately by editing (and being reverted) four times in less than forty minutes. Requesting it for unprotection and then immediately edit warring is very unfaithful behavior, and the problem has definitely not been solved. Aran|heru|nar13:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Capitalisation of "____ Dynasty"
All the pages seem to have Dynasty capitalised in the page title and beyond. Is there really any need to change that around? I made a minor edit to make capitalise it. Sasquatcht|c05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong sentence
I seriously doubt the accuracy of the following sentence in the first paragraph of this article. "It (Han) is often known in English and other languages as "Chinese", although "Chinese" would includes many Chinese peoples other than Han." Traditionally, people in the West consider those in China proper as Chinese, which include both the Han people and other non-Han Chinese peopel within China proper. Chinese doesn't mean Han in English.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Inose (talk • contribs) 2006-09-02 12:47:01
I disagree (although the sentence is currently worded badly and cannot be clearly parsed). The concept of "China proper" is quite vague, but it seems to be generally associated with the areas that are inhabited by Han people. Because of this basic connection, it's plausible that, if are using "Chinese" with China proper in mind, they might be using it to mean the Han specifically. It's difficult to tell exactly what people mean, because most people outside of China—especially in countries that aren't even close to China—know about only a few—if any—of the approximately 56 ethnic groups in China.—Nat Krause(Talk!)01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that there is an ambiguity in the English word "Chinese". Most of the editors here seem to know that "Chinese" does not directly mean "Han Chinese", but a lot of Westerners do not know that. Unfortunately, "Chinese" does not always mean "中國人". "Chinese" is used a lot to refer to the Han ethnicity, as in 華人, 漢人, 唐人, etc etc. --- Hong Qi Gong04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, hey, take a look at his contributions first, guys. It's Sockpuppet No.4 of Mr. Troll, A.K.A. Edipedia. There's no need to discuss with a sockpuppet made to edit war. He can discuss with his main account when the block expires. Start reverting. Aran|heru|nar14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to argue with you about the sockpuppet thing. But your arguments are just too farfetched. The English word "Chinese" comes from "China". It doesn't mean "Han people" at all. There are a lot things called "Chinese" but not related with "Han People". For example, Chinese address is Manchu style. Chinese history is not Han people's history. There are Yuan, Qing, Jin and many. A lot of Chinese emperors are not Han people. Chinese language is not Han people's language, which is called "Mandarin Chinese". Southern Chinese people actually speak various different languages. They only use the Han Chinese characters. Above all, they are not Han people anyway, for example the Cantonese people are the result of mixture of some southern indigenous people with Han migrants hundreds of years ago. So to speak. Inose15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
And "China", in turn, comes from a sanskirt word referring to Qin, a Han Chinese dynasty. Westerners have used the word "China" long before Chinese society took its current shape. Like I've said before, most of the editors here seem to know that "Chinese" doesn't necessarily mean "Han Chinese", but common English usage is that "Chinese" does refers to "Han Chinese". There is an ambiguity to the word. Please understand, "Chinese" doesn't translate directly to "中國人". There are a lot of people living outside of China that would call themselves "Chinese", but would not call themselves "中國人", because the latter term denotes citizenship. --- Hong Qi Gong15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
China in English means porcelain. I'm afraid that "China" comes from Tang dyansty, which nobody considers a Han Chinese dynasty. By the way, nobody says here that overseas Chinese is "中國人". And "華人", "唐人" don't mean Han Chinese anyway. In addition, nobody calls himself/herself 漢人, both in China and outside China. Inose16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
There were no China wares in Qin and Qin didn't even begin to interact with foreign countries. China become to be known to the outside world during Tang, a dynasty famous for its porcelin. And The first two Tang emperos -Li Yuan, Taizong were half Han and half xianbei. Inose16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You say "China wares"? Do you mean "china wares"? Let's just call it porcelain to be clear. Anyway, China, the country, was certainly known to the outside world before the Tang. But, what I believe Hong Qigong is saying is that the word "China" comes from the word 秦. The point is that the word "Chinese" is not necessarily exactly the same as 中国 or 中华民族.—Nat Krause(Talk!)16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You should read up on the etymology of the English word "China". Everything I've read so far says that it came from the Sanskrit word cina. That word was also Latinised into "Sina", as in "Sinologist", "Sinophile", "Sino-European relations", etc etc. And no, the Qin dynasty doesn't have to have foreign contact for cina to come from "Qin". There are plenty of historical records written about the Qin dynasty. --- Hong Qi Gong17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Bah, this is so ridiculous. Inose (i.e. Edipedia) doesn't even know what he is arguing about. China comes from Chin (Qin, 秦), that is common sense. Now quit your crap and study your own country's history. Aran|heru|nar06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Gee, Aranherunar is having a mouth diarrhea. I think, the word at issue -"China" is an English word not the Arab one. The English world began to know China from Marco Polo's journey to the East. It's quite reasonably that the English world knew chinawars first and China later. Besides, it doesn't matter where the English word "China" came from. The thing is that Chinese adress is Manchu's address. Chinese hitory of a mixture of various ethnic groups history....etc. The English word "Chinese" is not related with "han" at all. Editor 115:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The English word China comes from Marco Polo, who calls it Chin. This is a Persian word derived from Sankrit Cin (चीन). The ultimate source may be the ancient state of Qin (秦), the westernmost Chinese state and thus the one Indians would have been most familiar with. The prefix "Sino-" is from Latin and Greek Sinæ, both derived from Arabic Sin (صين). "China" meaning porcelain dates from the 17th century.Kauffner15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Descendant of the Dragon
There are a number of references to Chinese people often referring to themselves as "descendants of the dragon", which seems nonsense to me. If someone asked for your ethnicity, do you (supposing you are Chinese) say, "descendant of the dragon, mate"? I doubt it. --Sumple (Talk) 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
乾隆也是龍
Dragon is the symbol of Chinese emperor. The true meaning of "龍的傳人" is subjects of the Dragon (Emperor). More elegantly, we use "Descendant of the Dragon". Genghis Khan, Kangxi, Qianlong and many other Chinese emperors are considered to be "真龙天子". But they are not Han people. All the ethnic groups in China are subjects of verious Chinese emperors (Han Chinese emperor or other ethnic emperors). So they all are considered to be "Descendants of the Dragon". It is just stupid to say that "漢族是龍的傳人。". At least, nobody say so in China. People only say “中国人是龍的傳人。
There are historic reasons to say that Chinese people are the "Descendants of the Dragon", not just Han people. These are indicated in the zh: 华夏族
公元前2700年夏族领袖黄帝东进，战胜华族领袖炎帝，两族达成联盟并将蚩尤灭掉，占据整个中原，华夏二族逐渐融合成华夏族。后来华夏族融合了藏缅族、吐火罗人、东夷、通古斯族、西戎、祝融氏、蚩尤后代、匈奴、鲜卑等。西汉时期，一个以华夏族为基础的新民族：汉族产生了。汉代汉族是由华夏族与东夷族、楚族融合而成的，也有部分羌族的血液。乾隆也是龍17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Edipedia, you should wait till your main account is not blocked anymore instead of creating yet another sockpuppet. And it turns my stomach that you took Zhou Enlai's name and made a sockpuppet out of it. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think large population is something to be proud of. What's this (outnumbering all other officially recognised ethnic groups there) for? Wang Xin15:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, Edipedia, you should wait till the block on your main account is finished instead of making socks to avoid the block. Regarding the statement in question - it's not a statement of pride, it's just a statement of fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Han related ethnic groups
There seems to have been some controversy over just exactly what ethnic groups should be defined as related to the Han Chinese, and the Wikiproject ethnic groups doesn't define it clearly what criteria should be considered for ethnic relationships. Many people seem to consider linguistics alone, while others disagree. I'd like to propose listing relations in the following way: so as to be clearer and less controversial:
I agree that this is a serious problem. Lately, some people have tried to add groups like Mongols and Japanese to the list of ethnic groups related to the Han Chinese, which is very misleading and inaccurate. If there are any East Asian ethnic groups that are not related to the Han Chinese, those would certainly be the Mongols and the Japanese. I think we should limit the indication of "related ethnic groups" to the uncontroversial Sinitic-speaking ethnic groups (Hui, Dungan, etc.), and possibly allow the inclusion of "other Sino-Tibetan peoples" as ethnic groups that may potentially be related to the Han Chinese, at least in a linguistic sense. Ebizur03:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles
Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corected text: --Ling.Nut22:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't be alarmed if this article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.
-->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
"The traditional Chinese clothing worn by many Chinese females in important occasions such as wedding banquets and Chinese New Year is called the qipao. Ironically, this attire comes not from the Han Chinese but from a modified dress-code of the Manchus, the ethnic group that ruled China between the 17th (1644) and the early 20th Century."
There is a traditional style of Chinese clothing for men as well, which also comes from the Manchus. Many Chinese men wear it for important occasions too. I think this information should be added to the main article.
Han Chinese identity
About this sentence in the "Terms" section:
It was during the Qin Dynasty and the Han Dynasty that the various tribes of China began to feel that they belonged to the same ethnic group, compared with other ethnic groups around them.
Isn't there a better way to phrase this? It's a little vague to say that they "began to feel that they belonged to the same ethnic group". Both "began to feel" and "ethnic group" are very vague phrases in this context. "漢人" could have been used just to refer to people who lived under the rule of the Han Dynasty government, and not specifically as a term of "ethnicity". And also, is there even evidence of this? Could the term 漢人 be a term whose common usage arose after the Han Dynasty, in order for people in later dynasties to give a name to themselves and their ancestors? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Chinese
Saying the Han Chinese "may be" referred to as simply "Chinese" is inaccurate, in English, the word "Chinese" usually refers to the Han. Tibetans are Tibetans, Uyghurs are Uyghurs, and they are only Chinese by nationality. They are not usually refered to as "Chinese"—they have identities of their own. The current state of the article is insulting to minority groups. Khoikhoi05:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There has to be some other word that is more accurate than "may be". The current state of the article basically says most English-speakers say "Han Chinese" to refer to this group, but they don't, they just say "Chinese". Khoikhoi05:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
And using "may be" covers the fact that English-speakers say "Chinese" to refer to the Han Chinese. The article doesn't actually refer to English speakers. It only refers to the English word "Chinese". Do we know how people in China use the English word "Chinese"?
And to add, given what you've written, using "usually" really borders on POV pushing. I don't really see what's wrong with "may be". Plus, the sentence in question is that Han Chinese "may be" referred to as "Chinese" - that doesn't make any statement about what ethnic minorities in China may be referred to, and is actually irrelevant to them.
Also, the dictionary reference that you found actually never state that "Chinese" is often used to refer to the Han Chinese. It only gives alternative meanings without eluding to how often each meaning is used. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A member of the principal ethnic group of China, constituting about 93 percent of the population, especially as distinguished from Manchus, Mongols, Huis, and other minority nationalities. Also called Chinese, Han Chinese.
In English, the Han Chinese are also referred to as simply "Chinese"[1], although the term "Chinese people" itself is not specific to the Han Chinese and may refer to people of Chinese nationality.
to this:
In English, the Han Chinese are also referred to as simply "Chinese".[1] The term "Chinese people" itself is not specific to the Han Chinese and may refer to people of Chinese nationality.
So then in this case, if being Chinese can also be a nationality, then if you're an Indian, ethnic Arab, Jew, Iranian or European with Chinese citizenship - you can be considered as Chinese then? Then, people will be wondering why you don't look Chinese but call yourself a Chinese. --Fantastic4boy00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Examples exist. Narsieh was a Persian/Iranian who lived most his life in China, and served in Chinese armies, eventually rising to become a general. Cui Jian is well-known Chinese musician who's of Korean descent. So were generals Li Rusong and Li Chengliang. Zheng He is a famous Chinese admiral who's not considered Han Chinese because of his Muslim religion. Amoghavajra was a Indian Buddhist who lived almost his entire life in China. Many Hui are descended from ethnic Arabs and Iranians, and the Kaifeng Jews seem to be descended from actual Jews as well.--Yuje02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
that is, for non-commercial use, and by Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses, can only be used by fair use; their use here is not fair use because this article doesn't explicitly talk about Zhang Ziyi nor about wax sculptures of Liu Xiang, and also free alternatives for general depiction of "Han Chinese" are readily available (public domain pictures of people of said ethnicity). cab13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Han Chinese/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article has a good structure and enough information to be rated B class, but expansion is still needed. --Danaman522:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've looked all the GA-Class Ethnic groups articles and it seems the best one to follow in terms of format and structure is Talk:Jew. Siome98017:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Last edited at 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
