Talk:Chinese people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Define "China" in lead section[edit]

My rewritten text included the following sentence, which was removed by User:Beardfrun:

While China most typically refers to the People's Republic of China in contemporary usage, the name can also refer to Taiwan, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, or other areas in East Asia currently or historically considered Chinese.

Since that sentence was removed, there are no links to Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau on the page (nor to East Asia or Mainland China, but those are less central to the notion of "Chinese people"). Notwithstanding Beardfrun's edit summary, "Most of these are explained in the three sections below," there is no explanation of the somewhat controversial relationships among these places on the page. It's my personal opinion that nuanced explanations are not really necessary on this page, but there should be links to pages where the details are explained. Cnilep (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It refers, doesn't it?[edit]

Recently User:Bhny edited the lead section with the somewhat elliptical edit summary "WP:REFERS". According to the essay "Writing better articles", leads should avoid the wording "Foo refers to..." in favor of "Foo is...". However, according to the same section of the same page, "Disambiguation pages mention the term, so in such cases it is correct to write "The term Great Schism refers to" etc.

This page is a WP:DABCONCEPT, which might be thought of as an article with disambiguation page-like function. One of the canonical examples of a broad concept article, Football, begins, "Football refers to a number of sports" etc. However, another canonical example, Particle begins, "In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object" etc.

So, is this page about the label Chinese people and the various things that refers to, or is it about the concept of Chinese people? Cnilep (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to dabconcept. I still think my edit was correct as the whole lead is just one sentence with one meaning. If there were a few distinct meanings, "refers to" would make sense, otherwise it is redundant. Most of the examples on dabconcept don't say "refers to". The lead to this article actually needs expanding and if this results in multiple meanings, "refers" might be appropriate. Bhny (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Qing Opening to the Ocean[edit]

Another editor added The Qing Opening to the Ocean: Chinese Maritime Policies, 1684–1757 to the References section. Since it was not cited as a reference for material in the article, I moved it to Further reading.

I'm not sure whether the book is relevant to the topic of Chinese people. I've not read the book, but a review in the International Journal of Maritime History calls it a useful history of "the Chinese state's attitudes toward maritime trade in the seventeenth and eighteenth century". This does not sound specifically relevant the topic of Chinese people. Cnilep (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chinese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"Greater China" again[edit]

I undid these edits "per cited source". Whether to refer to "China", "Greater China", or a specific set of nation-states has been a point of contention on this page, as is common in articles touching on history and politics. In the past another editor placed a "citation needed" tag on the claim that Chinese people refers to Greater China. Harry Harding's article, "The concept of 'greater China'", specifically addresses that claim. Harding suggests that the term Greater China emerged in the 1980s, primarily to refer to "rapidly increasing interaction among Chinese societies around the world". He notes that the reference of the term varies, with some people using it to refer to "commercial ties among ethnic Chinese", others to "overseas Chinese", and still others to a set of places: Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and China, sometimes also including Singapore.

The definition of Chinese people might be said to encompass people from "any regions or countries historically associated with 'China'", but the currently cited source makes no such claim. Cnilep (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

The Infobox listing numbers of Chinese people in various countries seems inappropriate for this page. The point this page makes is that the phrase Chinese people can refer to various things (nationality, ethnicity, ancestry, etc.). Therefore a list of thirty-odd countries with citations to twenty-six different sources almost certainly mixes different meanings. @Lysimachi: added the box, and @Lemongirl942: once removed it then later modified its contents. I'd like to hear their opinions and work out a consensus with other editors before making any more changes. Cnilep (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cnilep:: I don't have very strong preference as to whether those numbers must be put here, but as far as I know all those references mention "Chinese" (in English or other languages), so this is definitely the page where they fit the best. Note that similar numbers can be found in pages such as Vietnamese people, Taiwanese people and Japanese people. I don't see why those numbers cannot be listed here. Lysimachi (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the reference for Taiwan doesn't say there are "22,287,000" "Chinese" in Taiwan. I doubt its verifiability. Lysimachi (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent page move, redirect, etc.[edit]

Patience is appreciated for this somewhat complicated history:

On 30 November 2016 User:Prisencolin changed this article, replacing all content with a redirect to Han Chinese. The edit summary read, "WP:POVFORK of several better written articles, 'Chinese people' is probably WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT into Han Chinese, links won't really be broken due to overlapping meaning". That same day I reversed the change, leaving the edit summary, "Undid revision 752245025 by Prisencolin (talk) de facto article deletion".
I also left a comment at User talk:Prisencolin#Chinese people. In addition to noting my 'undo', I expressed my opinion that the term "Chinese people" refers not only to Han Chinese but also to other ethnic groups and nationalities. I then added Category:Broad-concept articles to the article to reflect the fact that the article treats many related meanings of its title. See Wikipedia:Broad-concept article.
My comment at the User talk page received no reply between 30 November and today (4 January). There was also no discussion on the article talk page, or anywhere else as far as I know.
On 3 January Prisencolin moved 'Chinese people' first to 'Chinese people (including minorities)' and then to Chinese people (in general) several hours later. The edit summary of the first move stated, "WP:BOLD, this is sort of a pov fork, WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT into han"; the second noted "sounds pov". Chinese people is currently a redirect to Han Chinese, as it was briefly on 30 November.

It is my opinion that the disambiguator "(in general)" suggests, contra Prisencolin's edit summaries, that this page treats the primary, albeit vague meaning. As I have suggested, Han is a synonym of one common meaning of Chinese people, but the phrase has other equally common meanings, including "citizens of China", "Chinese ethnic groups", and "overseas Chinese" among others.

It would be helpful to hear from users such as User:Beardfrun, User:Lysimachi, User:Lemongirl942, or others who have opinions about the content of this article. Cnilep (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Han Chinese is the subset of Chinese people that are most likely to be associated with the term, thus can be considered a form of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Yes the distinctions between ethnicity, ancestry, and nationality are hazy, but the plain fact is that the Han make up a supermajority of "citizens of China", "Chinese ethnic groups", and "overseas Chinese" and other contexts about "Chinese" and "people". The second paragraph of the WP:BCA says: "However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, ..., the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page." Idea that Chinese primarily means Han is controversial, but as far as the numbers game goes it's not meant to be chauvinist, neo-colonialist or anything else negative. Additionally, considering the current quality of this article, it's probably better to point our readers towards a more complete article that is mostly overlapping with with one. It's either that or perhaps the Han article itself should just be re-titled "Chinese people".--Prisencolin (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I personally think this kind of a move requires an RFC. Technically speaking Han Chinese is a subset of Chinese people. And the term Chinese people is an ambiguous term applying to both ethnicity (in this case referring to Han Chinese) and nationality (in this case referring to citizens of PRC). I have asked to revert the move as it needs a discussion. Personally, I think an encyclopaedia should help readers understand the differences and nuances in the terms. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)