Talk:Cantonese people/Archive 1

Cantonese with Hakka Ancestry
Some Cantonese people have Hakka ancestry. Hakka have been in Guangdong Province for a long time. Therefore some Hakka have mixed with the local Cantonese population and have lost their Hakka language. Some Hakka didn't intermingled with the Cantonese and lived in isolation. However some Hakka have assimilated, and this further increases more Cantonese-speaking chinese.KingL 04:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this is an long time ago comment. There was some intermarriage in past, and the population of hakka when they came to guangdong was not even half of the population, but now their population is about the same as cantonese population in guangdong. It could be that some cantonese assimilated into hakka because there are much more hakka people than cantonese today. Hakka has 80 million people worldwide, where cantonese has about 66 million worldwide (this figure includes the cantonese and hakka in guangdong of course). WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 9:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Corrections, some Hakka are assimilated Cantonese, which would explain their similar DNA. Majority have She aborigine DNA . Hakka are an mixture of Northern han and Southern aborigines who spoke the she language, DNA evidence can prove it. 82.35.202.156 (talk) 2:40,13 January (UTC)

The Hakkas in Guangdong are Cantonese (meaning the people of Guandong). The language people loosely refer to as Cantonese is in fact Guangzhouese. Canton is the (incorrect) English transliteration for Guangdong Province as well as Guangzhou (Canton City). The 'Canton' in Cantonese referred to Guangzhou and not Guangdong. There is no one single Guangdongese language. Some of the Cantopop stars in the article are in fact Hakkas. Hakkas, unlike the Punti Cantonese are generally multi-lingual, and speak fluent Punti Cantonese. Many Hakkas use Punti Cantonese amongst themselves as they fear discrimination by the Puntis. Immigrants from Guangdong to Europe and the Americas were not generally the Punti Cantonese, even though they almost all spoke some Punti Cantonese, as it was more convenient to do so since local officials spoke Guangzhouese. The emigrants to North America were generally Toishanese (Taishanese)and Hakka. The emigrants to the West Indies, Latin and South America were generally Hakkas, and no Toishanese. The emigrants to Europe were generally Hakkas. The Punti Cantonese had no inclination to travel overseas for work, as they were not as entrepreneurial, preferring to believe that as they were the aboriginals (pun-ti), the land owed them a living. Although Toishanese would refer to themselves as 'Punti' (as Punti means aboriginal) in Toishan, their spoken language is very different from Punti Cantonese (Guangzhouese). 81.159.86.60 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WRONG.....the majority of chinese migrants in latin america are cantonese, with the acception of jamaica and trinidad tobago who are mostly hakka.But In peru,cuba,mexico,guyana it was mostly cantonese, in fact the chinese in cuba and mexico was all cantonese. In north america it was almost all taishanese(another form cantonese type), hakka was to few to even compared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightcomical (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly, in fact the only carribean nation were Hakka predominate was Jamaica only, some were Cantonese. All the other nations where Chinese migrated were all the census recorded 90% were Cantonese from western Guangdong. The Chinese Cantonese in Latin america, Carribean, East africa, North america, Australia all came from Taishan, Shunde, Guangzhou, Dongguan, Zhongshan, and the Chinese were predominately Cantonese. not from eastern guangdong where Teochew and Hakka predominate. Hakka HAS NOT need to use Cantonese especially when they were outside of China. Even in China, Hakka don't speak Cantonese, they speak Hakka everytime. It's only today, where Hong Kong Cantones became so popular that many Hakka and Teochew start to speak

82.35.202.156 (talk) 2:40,13 January (UTC)
 * I must add that it was the famine in Guangdong which compelled many Cantonese to leave. This is why migrations came from western Guangdong. About 90% of latin american Chinese descendants are Cantonese.

82.35.202.156 (talk) 10:09,26 January (UTC)

The Hakka Cantonese have always interacted with the Punti Cantonese, and Punti genes have always gone into Hakka families. As the Puntis favoured sons to daughters, it was a Hakka tradition to buy the daughters Puntis want to discard when they were babies. These 'Punti Moys' then made wives for the sons of the Hakka families. There did not appear to be the flow of Hakka daughters to Punti families in this way. And you are talking of times when many men had more than one wife in their life-time. 77.44.49.36 12:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cantonese people and Hakka people are the same race. We are both originally from the Northern Proper. Sonic99 (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No offence but genetic has proven that both cantonese and hakka,fujianese are southern chinese. They have northern y-dna but southern mtdna, this is genetically proven. Teochew are most closest to northern chinese in terms of genetics but it still significantly mixed with southern genes.I'm from shanghai,and shanghainese people are northern chinese genetically,even though they idendify with being southern chinese. I'm born from hong kong, so I consider myself an hong kong cantonese speaker with shanghai ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightcomical (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Where's the reliable reference to this DNA evidence? 86.176.187.87 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Cantonese people's relationship with Han Chinese people
I think a section should be added to this page, explaining and clarifying whether the Cantonese people are a sub-group of the Han Chinese or whether they are a distinct ethnic group. As this is a point that I myself have often wondered about. 195.112.33.25 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cantonese are considered a subgroup of Han Chinese. --Yuje 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cantonese are now of the Han nationality, although the Yues (Viets) prior to becoming Sinicized were a different nationality. (Deleted content that amounts to little more than overgeneralisation). 81.159.86.60 19:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of ignorant, racist Northern Chinese regard the Cantonese people as southeast asians. The Cantonese people are not southeast asians! They are Han Chinese. Why do the Cantonese people have high IQ level? If the Cantonese were not Han Chinese, they wouldn't be so smart, right?!! Why do you think Cantonese are good at business and other fields?
 * The Cantonese came from Northern China when it was more prosperous than Southern China. Now, Southern China is more prosperous than Northern China. Could this mean all the smart Hans who were Cantonese and Hakka moved to Southern China and made it better!? Sonic99 (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you name any "Punti" Cantonese people with high IQs? The Cantonese people with high IQs have ancestors from Guangdong, but that does not necessarily mean they are "Puntis". In fact they are probably Hakkas. 86.176.187.87 (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not about who's smarter or not, but because the "Yues" population are a lot smaller than the Hans at ancient time. These "Yues" who were sparcely populated at southern land were either killed or pushed further away. There are high degree of assimilation of those who stays (which were limited too) but most of the marriage were conducted between a male Han and a female Yue members. Further more, there are waves after waves of Han people settling down in Southern China during and after Jin Dynasty because of countless wars in the north. Most Yue people were living with it's own small community away from the Hans, some of those "possibly" becomes today's Zhuang people and other southern Minorities. Also, due to the geographic isolations and mountainous region of southern China, Some would developed some different dialects. However, if you ever know how Middle Chinese sounds like (available on the web i believe), they sound pretty damn similar to Cantonese. Also FYI Cantonese language the closest to mandarin than any other Chinese subdivision dialects (ie Wu, Min, etc). --LLTimes (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is because a lot of so-called "Punti" Cantonese look very similar to SE Asians: They are darker-skinned, have thicker lips, protruding jaws and teeth, shorter in stature, smaller frame, smaller head, flatter noses and lacking a nose bridge. Some people may call these primitive features or even ape-like features. If you identify yourself as a "Punti" Cantonese but do not display these external characteristics, then the chances are that you have a significant number of ancestors who were Northern Chinese and Hakkas. 86.176.187.87 (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, is there any evidence to back up your source other than speculations? according to mtdna genetic study cantonese mtdna have mostly southern origin. That means there was an great deal of intermarriage and assimilation. Also cantonese,hakka,fujianese are all in the south chinese cluster. Most chinese linguist believe the closest language to mandarin than any other chinese is hakka dialect — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsPride6565 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, you're absolutely wrong about the majority of chinese latin americans being hakka, which has no source of evidence.Most latin american chinese were cantonese migrants from guangdong.Accept for jamaica and trinidad tobago which are mostly hakka but majority in peru,cuba,mexico,guyana was mostly cantonese.In fact the chinese in cuba and mexico was all cantonese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.201.252 (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Cantonese language is closer to the Hakka language than Mandarin. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightcomical (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Guangdongren/ Guangzhouren
InfernoXV, please stop your POV edits. It is clear that this article is about the Guangdongren and not Guangzhouren (see the Chinese written characters in the article). Both Guangdongren and Guangzhouren are translated as Cantonese in English, but the Chinese writing in the article clearly stated that the article refers to Guangdongren and not Guangzhouren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.49.36 (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It refers not to 'Guangzhouren', but those Cantonese-speaking peoples. By your definition, those who originate from outside Canton city are therefore not Cantonese (if 'Cantonese' refers to those of Canton city). Hakka and Teochew people do not identify themselves as 廣東人/Cantonese, so please stop trying to push badly written, unsourced POV material into this article. InfernoXV (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No InfernoXV, please do not talk out of your backside. Guangzhouese people are Guangdongren, as Guangzhou is in Guangdong.


 * 'Hakka and Teochew people do not identify themselves as 廣東人/Cantonese'- says who? InfernoXv have you talked to any Hakka or Teowchiu people in Guangdong and ask whether they consider themselves Guangdongren. You don't know what you are talking about. Please do not ruin and vandalise the article any further by displaying your lack of knowledge about Guangdongren (Cantonese People). 81.154.205.12 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And you aren't proving what you've been adding. Sources or stop adding it, and, no, "personal experience" is an illegitimate cite. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No Jeske, this is no 'personal experience', but is common knowledge among the Cantonese (Guangdongren) of China. Please note none of what was previously written was of reputable quality, but was still allowed, so according to you the article should be deleted. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Common knowledge amongst a people obviously has to have a source. However, you haven't been adding it.  Find a source before you add it again, or I will keep reverting it as unsourced. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are in no position to edit this article because of your ignorance of the Cantonese people. Revert it and I shall continue to add the true and correct information back to the article. The source is the common knowledge within all the Cantonese people, which you clearly have no respect for. 81.154.205.12 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a mediator, any unsourced and unverified materials will be removed without notice, given that you have been hostile in editing in the past.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And where are the sources for these racists and incorrect edits? 81.159.81.146 (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of this article in Chinese is 'Guangdongren', ie the People of Guangdong. The title in English is 'Cantonese People'. Canton is the English transliteration for both Guangzhou (the city) and Guangdong (the province). Some of the people here are taking the English meaning of 'Cantonese' to be limited to 'Guangzhouese',ie people or language of Guangzhou, which clearly does not correpond to the Chinese title of this article, which covers all peoples of Guangdong. There is nothing in the title to suggest that Guangdongren who do not speak Guangzhouhua are not Guangdongren. The definition of 'Guangdongren' include both speakers of Guangzhouhua (Guangzhouese) and speakers of other languages found in Guangdong. Please do not incorporate any racist views into this article. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seicer why are the unsourced material put back into the article. Are you going to remove them or not? 81.159.81.146 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Brown, Keith (2005). Encyclopedia of Language And Linguistics
This is claimed to be the the source in this article of the population of Cantonese people and number of Cantonese speakers, however the page numbers and author(s) are not given. I have reverted to the "fact" tags until such information is provided. LDHan (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a way that we can get official numbers for this? It's not as if there is a Cantonese country... enochlau (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Cantonese_%28linguistics%29.LDHan (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There may well be 110 million Guangzhouhua (Cantonese) speakers ,ie a number larger than the entire population of Guangdong, as many of them will speak Guangzhouhua as a joint first language or as a second or third language. This is tantamount to saying that there are more English speakers than the population of England. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Surprise, surprise. There *are* more English speakers than the population of England. Incidentally, 'Cantonese' is Guangdonghua, not Guangzhouhua. InfernoXV (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here is about whether or not this book states that the number of Cantonese speakers is 110 million. When a number is given for the number of speakers of any particular language, it means the number of first language and native language speakers. Please also note discussion/talk pages are for discussion on ways to improve an article, not for general discussions on the subject. LDHan (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Incidentally, 'Cantonese' is Guangdonghua, not Guangzhouhua." No InfernoXV, please do not display your ignorance any further. The 'Cantonese' you refer to is known officially in the PRC as 'Guangzhouhua'. Only outside mainland PRC, such as Hong Kong and Singapore is it (incorrectly) referred to as Guangdonghua. I am using the official nomenclature of the PRC. The Fujian people of SE Asia, including Singapore refer to their language as Hokkien, ie Fujian, which sounds as though it is the most important language or even the sole language of Fujian, when clearly this is not the case in terms of number of its speakers in the whole of Fujian. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, let's put it this way. In English-language contexts, 'Cantonese people' refers to those whose identity grouping centres around use of the Cantonese tongue, not merely all those who live in Canton province. 'Cantonese people' in English, excludes Teochews, Hakkas and Hainanese, and therefore is a narrower term than 'People of Canton Province' which would include them. If you think that's racist, tough. Words have different meanings in various languages. InfernoXV (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So InfernoXV, are you saying yo are a racist? Or even an auto-racist? 81.155.96.175 (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'Canton' in the English word 'Cantonese' refers to Canton City, ie Guangzhou, and not Guangdong province. When the term 'Cantonese' was coined, Europeans were not allowed anywhere outside of a small area in Guangzhou, so 'Cantonese' simply referred to the speech of Guangzhou. 81.155.96.175 (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cantonese people' in English, excludes Teochews, Hakkas and Hainanese, and therefore is a narrower term than 'People of Canton Province'". Says who? Where is an authoritative reference for your claim? Of course Hainanese are not Cantonese, Hainan is now not a part of Guangdong. The PRC Government says all peoples in Guangdong are Guangdongren. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Early history
The "History" section should discuss what languages the ancestors of the Cantonese people spoke before they were Sinicized. Badagnani (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Even vietnamese people have more chinese DNA than their own!

look at this

According to a research study done by the Hopital Saint-Louis in Paris, France: "the comparison of the Vietnamese with other East Asian populations showed a close genetic relationship of the population under investigation with other Orientals," with the exception of seven unique markers. These results, along with remnants of Thai enzyme morphs, indicate a dual ethnic origin of the Vietnamese population from Chinese and Thai-Indonesian populations. According to another research by the Mackay Memorial Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan, the Vietnamese people are classified in the same genetic cluster as the Miao, Southern Han (Southern Chinese), Buyi and Thai, with a divergent family consisting of Singaporean and Thai Chinese, Minnan (Hoklo) and Hakka. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What the above information (which seems to have been lifted from Vietnamese people) does not tell us though is the origins of the Cantonese people themselves. Also, people in this so-called "Southern Chinese population" do not necessarily have to be of Chinese ethnicity, ancestry, etc (just like how a lot of "Northern Chinese" are largely descended from Manchus, Mongols, etc etc). After all, the Vietnamese population itself shows high levels of intermixing and I believe the "Cantonese population" would show this as well. Thus, a claim that "vietnamese people have more chinese DNA than their own" is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation.


 * Its unfortunate that the term "Han" appears to have been misused as "Han" and "Chinese" are certainly not the same thing! For example, no one in their right mind would call the Manchus "Han Chinese"; however, calling them "Chinese" might be appropriate depending on the context. 122.105.147.127 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WRONG 122.105.147.127 AKA David873

"with the exception of seven unique markers." the source clearly indicates the chinese and thai markers in the vietnamese, the 7 unique markers are the oirginal viet DNA.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

what this ip 122.105.147.127 AKA David873 say's blatantly contradicts his earlier complaint about User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ being "racist" because he said nrothern chinese are a conglomerate of peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefbmn (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

122.105.147.127 AKA david873
122.105.147.127 aka David873 seems obbsessed with trying to get me blocked when ironically his David873 account has been blocked for harrasment and trolling. he keeps deleting the sourced material i added.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:BruceLeecard.jpg
The image File:BruceLeecard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rationale provided. - Cold Season (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Splitting this article?
I feel that this article is too general and should be split into three separate articles: Yue-speaking peoples, Cantonese people, and Kongfu people. (Are Yue-speakers in Guangxi 'Cantonese' by strict definition?) Bloodmerchant (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OR we can do it like this 1) Yue/Cantonese-speaking people a) Yuehai People (mainly situated in West GuangDong),b) Guinan People (Mainly East of Guangxi), c)Taishan People (middle). But I support you one this.--Lennlin (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

jackie chan
jackie chan is not cantonese! his ancestral homeland is shan dong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3423523423T898987987 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter where is he from? aren't we all chinese.I'm pretty sure he considers himself an hong kong person. People born and raised in hong kong all consider himself hong kongers, although the only reason they would idendify with being cantonese, is because of the language,culture,media,formal conversation used in everyday life in hong kong people.I'm from shanghai,though I must I admit I identity myself as hong konger, I don't even know much about what it means to be shanghainese.I just don't have an connection for it at all.

Like in taiwan, people are mostly fujianese and minority of mainlader,hakka.But the taiwanese no longer identify with chinese, instead they are racist to people from china. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightcomical (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Updating the Wiki page
The cantonese wiki page lacks too much informative historical details, and the setting on the history section it's boring to read, this is why I want to make it look better. I've also added sources and citations on it. 82.35.202.156 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Next time sign your post and why are you removing someone else posts from the talk page? Anyway, wikipedia is not a novel, so calling it "boring" is rather redundant. Also, none of what you stated is an arguement for your edits that have been reverted by several editors. Your main edits are uncited and what is cited is not about history of the people but the region. You are now pushing your edits for some time. Cold Season (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey sorry for the trouble about signing the post I'll try to sort that problem out. All I wanted to do is modernize the wiki page, and make it easier for the readers in history section. What's the point to have an wiki page if no one's going to read it? I've seen that same old wiki page for 2 years now and and the history section is just not appealing and I must add that the details is lacking aswell. I've seen other wiki pages of other ethnics, but compared to cantonese there setting is way more advance and comfortable for the readers. By the way, all my citations have completely relations with the regions and it's people. Nanyue history is part of cantonese people history too, because cantonese means "Yue" and it's capital was in Guangdong. And Nanyue included both the han and Yue, which the cantonese both have direct ancestry from, and this can supported by genetic studies on Y-dna and Mtdna. This is why it's important to include the history of Nanyue into the History section of cantonese people. Because, it's true Cantonese "Yue" is derived from kingdom of NanYue.


 * -82.35.202.156 (talk) 3:11 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I could just put a giant [citation needed] tag on what you just wrote here and in the article. Also, "all [your] citations" is just two added citations unrelated to your claims, which was annoying to search for due to the sudden excessive spacing between paragraphs. Don't be suprised to see it removed. Cold Season (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yet again, why do they keep sticking to that old setting (properly 3 years old). At least have someone updated it and add more details, and not just randomly add some text to it. Exactly why add ethnic Zhuangs in page ( shouldn't they be UNRELATED according to your logic )
 * and it's not like they've bothered to added any citations in history section for all these years anyway. I've seen many wiki pages with excessive spacing on some parts and even if I close the paragraphs would that mean anything? Everything I wrote before have citations related to history guangdong region and related with the ancestors of cantonese people. The only last thing I want to include is the history of Nanyue into cantonese section.


 * (You can read chinese.. can't you?)
 * Nanyue Kingdom -http://ctext.org/shiji/li-sheng-lu-jia-lie-zhuan#n8359


 * Opium War ( It's related to incident to hong kong and Macau in everyway)
 * http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/opiumwars/opiumwars1.html


 * WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 2:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You have introduced substantial new material to the article and most of it was not verifiable with reliable sources. It appears that other editors have not agreed to your edit, then you should get the consensus from other editors first before inputing your edit again. STSC (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The source I cited has mentioned about the history of guangdong and cantonese ancestors. Can you please explain to be how they don't have relations? even if they don't have relations why have the editors removed my genetic study regarding cantonese people? I don't see how my edits have nothing to do with cantonese when in fact it's even more accurate history.It has both to do with history of guangdong and ancestors of cantonese. And I don't see how mentioning the zhuangs or the history migration of han chinese to southern china at different chinese dynasties periods (and funny is there's not even citations for it) has more do with cantonese people than what I cited? Some cantonese editors properbly have anti-bias with relations with Yue. And I'm not generalizing, It's easy to notice this, if you read the whole cantonese talk page, you'll find people like Sonic99 and -LLTimes who obviously want to claim to be 100% north han chinese. The closest language to mandarin are the hakka not cantonese anyway. So therefore it wouldn't surprised me some of editors find it sensitive and removed it.


 * WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You can adress the issue, but I see is you bringing up things unrelated to this issue instead of supporting your edits. None of the two references provided even mention Cantonese people, you are doing original research. Cold Season (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The reference I posted mentions the FIRST HISTORY OF GUANGDONG (Nanyue) who are the first ancient ancestors of cantonese. What's wrong with mentioning that? Even the word cantonese itself even means "Yue" which was derived from Nanyue...no one can deny it. Yet the history section of cantonese people mentions absolutely nothing about the connection with the yue people, instead mentions like cantonese are 100% direct descendants of north han chinese, which is implausible and completely denied by modern genetic studies, you can't say they have nothing to do with cantonese people because like I said before cantonese means Yue..EXACTLY HOW DOES MENTIONING THE ETHNIC ZHUANG OR THE HAN CHINESE MIGRATIONS TO THE SOUTH CHINA HAVE MORE TO DO WITH CANTONESE PEOPLE ??? if you ask me there even more completely unrelated. And I know I said this before but I strongly believe the reason some editors who removed my citations is properly because of their anti-bias feelings towards the Yue. I know you're going to think I generalizing but it's easy to tell once you read the whole page, for example look at users like sonic99, LLtimes and other chinese who claim to be 100% northern han chinese, obviously this means somebody is not happy about it. Even if like you said they don't mention cantonese people, why remove an proven genetic study (which has reliable source confirm by chinese scientist) about cantonese people?


 * WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The mention of Zhuang ethnic is in connection to "native tribes" as an example, but I've removed it. The claimed corrolation between one thing with another is original research. Also, you are not making some trivial claim, a broken and bare link between ref tags is not verifiable. Please don't comment on editors. Cold Season (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cold season, how come the history section the editor doesn't wants to mention anything about the connection of Yue people with cantonese people? I didn't wanted to comment on the editors until I read the whole talk page, it's undeniable some of these editors have anti-bias opinions. I used to read the same thing about cantonese people denying relations with yue almost in every forum, but I didn't know the same thing could happened to wikipedia. Some of the wiki users may have even be the same people I know who have anti-bias views on the Yue and vietnamese people. So even if I added correct information, it would be refused. WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstable, I really don't understand why some cantonese keep making up fake stories of being 100% north han, when north han always said cantonese people look different. Not to mentioned the fact north han have been conquered non-stop since history, by altaic barbarians or other ethnicity, they properbly have a lot of  nomadic blood. So there's no such thing as pure north han ancestry and there's nothing proud to be north han.

Secondable, Cantonese means Yue, cantonese are part of han now but they WERE NEVER pure han chinese, in fact they have signicant aboriginal dna and is more related to other southern chinese, so cantonese people should really stop denying relations with yue. The closest language to mandarin is hakka not cantonese. Genetic study clearly proven this ( cantonese mtdna has mostly southern origin so NO the yue didn't just massacre or disappear) and the word cantonese (yue) didn't just came out of nowhere.

http://eng.hi138.com/?i278537_Chaoshan_and_Cantonese_Hakka_difference_in_the_genetic_background_of_maternal

Lastly, to those editors who keep removing my edits claiming it has nothing with cantonese, that's just an excuse to deny relations with the yue people. My edits mentions everything about the ancestors of cantonese and history of guangdong. The fact the part it says han migrations when to south and displaced the local population is very misleading to be honest, because genetic study clearly shows that was not the case at all more like there was an great deal of intermarriage and assimilation. Most of cantonese mtdna have southern origin, you don't believe go read any genetic study about cantonese. -- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * *sigh* Listen, look back on your own edits and see what other editors has been asking you to provide. After that come back here and look at your writing. Secondly, please don't point fingers, no one here is claiming that Cantonese are pure Northern Han or Han Chinese being a pure race. Thirdly, you kept removing random words in articles while putting your own broken sentences in, like "time periods, many native groups, like the ,". This article is already broken as indicated by various tags on the top and you shouldn't make any contribution that are without credible sources and "relevant" information. I'll try to give more input when i have time. --LLTimes (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the source that stated han chinese migrated to south during different chinese dynasty? and is that suppose to have anything to with cantonese people. You say that I'm making contribution without credible source? I admit I'm not an expert in english yet and I'm sorry about it, If there's any mistake on my sentence on grammar please help me out but I strongly believe the sources that have I cited have everything to with the history of guangdong and cantonese ancestors. The sources about Nanyue, I got from the Nanyue wikipedia from "record of historian". The source about opium wars I got it from the opium wars wikipedia. Everything related with ancient ancestors of cantonese and history of guangdong I've already cited with an credible source before. I still don't understand why you make claims that my source aren't credible? you said this so many times, but can you please be more specific and tell me why they aren't credible?? you keep saying it has nothing to do with cantonese people, that just doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying Nanyue has nothing to do with cantonese people?

Your second point really contradicts with the comment you and sonic99 has made few years ago on the section on " The Cantonese people's relationship with Han Chinese people ". The comment you made is obvious to anyone that you're trying to minimize the yue ancestry in cantonese, by saying that the yue population was too small, but according to mtdna genetic studies, the maternal origin of cantonese are mainly of southern origin, anyone with some understanding of genetics haplogroups would know this. This means an great deal of assimilation and intermarriage has taken place, not just migration and replacing the natives, like the wiki have stated.

Comment from Sonic99 " Cantonese people are 100% Han Chinese "  December 2008

Commen from LLTimes " Yues"population are a lot smaller than the Hans at ancient time. These "Yues" who were sparcely populated at southern land were either killed or pushed further away " November 2009

-- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 2:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Still a lot of pointing fingers and fallacies playing here. Please go back to your edits and see for yourself. What happened two to three years ago are irreverent when discussing about you. Basically you are here screaming innocent and playing the red herring game while ignoring your recent erroneous edits. --LLTimes (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers, I backed up everything I said. I already posted the comments you and other chinese have made on the page that itself is evidence already. You still haven't pointed out my errors, why not be an teacher and correct me already? If I knew I really wouldn't be asking you. I'm not screaming innocent, just making an point from my honest point of view. I used to think that wikipedia was edited by people with high qualification or by scholars. But it would seem that the wikipedia users is really no different from the other topic or forum users. This means that is very possible that information can be manipulated by the wiki editors regardless of whether is correct or not.

-- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 5:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum, it is operated under consensus with other editors. Everything you say should be verifiable by reliable sources, otherwise, other editors would challenge the credibility of your edit. Usually before you input large amount of new information, you need to discuss on the talk page first. If you keep repeating your edit without consensus, it is seen as disruptive. STSC (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You could cease to push your edit while the dispute is ongoing, I can safely say that the issues have been pointed out so many times above that I'm rather baffled to see that reply. Cold Season (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's very important that we mention the annexation of Oulou by Zhao Tuo
There's a lot of confusion by non-cantonese, with the name Yue, because it's actually translated as Viet in english, Nanyue also means Nam-Viet ( A.K.A Vietnam in reverse) and included territories of modern north vietnam. Ironically cantonese also broadly means yue (which would also be translated as viet), however the truth is Zhou Tuo conquered Âu Lạc (Hán tự:甌雒/甌駱) an kingdom that originated in northern vietnam, the Au Lac are the ancestors of vietnamese not the Yue or cantonese. They only took the name from Nanyue when their territories were incorporated, this is why it's important to mention the annexation and how it happened to prevent any further confusion. -- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 2:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But what's that got to do with Cantonese people? STSC (talk)

It has to do with our ethnic identity, many people like vietnamese and north chinese keep confusing cantonese people as being related with vietnamese since we both use the name Yue to refer to ourselves. But the fact is north vietnam was Au Lac in past not Yue at all, they became yue because they were conquered and incorporated into Nanyue by Zhao Tuo, and because of this they later adopted the name Yue. -- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 3:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you insist on adding this irrelevant event: "when Zhao Tuo sacked the han territory of and  an han invasion." and randomly delete some words? STSC (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I added that part because it just doesn't make sense to just say neighboring kingdoms declaring the allegiance to Nanyue without an reason. The reason should be included, Zhao Tuo attacked an han territory and defended an invasion from han dynasty against nanyue. It was strictly because of this, that he earned the respect of neighboring kingdoms and even started to expand their territories.( You can read this on Nanyue wikipedia).-- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 7:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is not about Zhao Tuo and too much details of him would be unnecessary. And how do you "sack" a territory? STSC (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I got the sack information from this Zhao Tuo wiki link (On the section of " empress lu raising tention"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_Tuo

Yeah, I'm also aware of that, I'll definitely stop after this. I just wanted to make it clear to everyone why other kingdoms would want to declared their alliance to nanyue, and from here leading to annexation of north vietnam by nanyue. -- WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 7:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have an New source here; go to page 22 and map 6. It shows Au Lac kingdom and Namviet being under Chao To (Zhao Tuo). And it clearly shows Guangdong, Guangxi and north Vietnam being under Nanyue territories. This should be an good citation for the history section.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Jskyi00bspcC&pg=PA13&dq=%22au+viet%22+%22xi+ou%22&sig=ACfU3U27CLo28r4xTtw6Fn2QigI86SngQg#v=onepage&q=%22au%20viet%22%20%22xi%20ou%22&f=false

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 9:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Zhao Tuo attack the han territory first than annex oulou
I know this isn't about Zhao Tou, this is about cantonese history, and what happened in Guangdong. 1. Zhao Tuo sacked the han territory of hunan first, than repelled an invasion 2. From here he than started annexing territory, oulou 3. Later gained the respect and allegiance of neighboring kingdoms. Everything I mentioned is already from the other wiki page ever since. Why is that it's okay for other wiki pages like the british people ,spanish people ect to mention some details detailed of military history. I don't think it's an big deal to add an few more sentence, since cantonese are at least partially related to zhao Tuo and Nanyue. WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As you said the thing you mentioned is already in other articles, there's no need to include the irrelevant warring details in this article. Also, we cannot treat you as a serious editor because you keep writing names as "han", "chinese", "cantonese", without capital letter for the first letter. STSC (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about that. That is why I'm always editing because of my lack of english skills but I'll really stop editing this wiki, after the info is added. I just want the world to know that cantonese are not related to vietnamese. And to make people to understand that north vietnam territories was incorporated into Nanyue, just after zhao Tuo defeated an han invasion. And it was because of this that other kingdoms declared the allegiance, and this how au lac became part of nam-viet territories.

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsPride6565 (talk • contribs)

Experiencing Technical difficulties
Every time I check on the wiki page, there are always an few words missing. Is anyone else experiencing this? for example the word guangdong always seem to dissapear for some reason.

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cited studies and their deletion
I've deleted several of the sources used to back the claim of "most Cantonese have a mixture of DNA ancestry from Han Chinese from the North and Yue from the South" (a completely uncontroversial claim) because of a number of problems. There are too many saying the same thing (see WP:CITEKILL), and several of the links given in fact reference the same studies - "Genetic distances...", "Genetic Structure...", "Analysis of matrilineal...", with this last being also referenced through the blatantly unreliable source of a term paper download site, and apparently badly paraphrased/sent through an online translator. Also, one of the remaining cites is about a population mainly found in Guangxi, and the source is merely an absteract, so says nothing about how well the findings might translate to Cantonese people as a whole. Ergative rlt (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of those links is prove that Cantonese as an Yue Chinese speaking group are an mixture of Han Chinese and Southern aborigine like all other Southern Chinese, and not the result of sinicized.


 * I'LL EXPLAIN TO YOU THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE LINKS THAT YOU REMOVED


 * The link here that you removed is evidence that the maternal lineage of Cantonese (like other southern Chinese) are of southern aborigine Baiyue origin. http://eng.hi138.com/?i278537_Chaoshan_and_Cantonese_Hakka_difference_in_the_genetic_background_of_maternal


 * The link here that you removed, http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v53/n4/abs/jhg200837a.html is important evidence that proves other Southern Chinese are not sinicized southern aborigine especially Cantonese. Just like it says here " Pinghua population as an exception of Han Chinese's coherent genetic structure " Adding this fact on the wikipedia strengthens the fact Cantonese are not sinicized Baiyue. This proves that that the paternal lineage like other Cantonese (like other southern Chinese) are of Han Chinese descent.


 * Also, let me explain to you at why it's important for people to know that Cantonese people are known as "Tang people", Cantonese food is called "Tang food", Cantonese clothes are called " Tang clothes", and language has preserved many features of the Tang Chinese. Every Cantonese knows that their identity was formed during the Tang period so I really don't understand why you would remove something that's an important fact of their history.


 * -(User talk:94.175.118.39)(talk) 07:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Genetics
There are a number of claims being made in the article which, while given cites, don't appear to be actually backed by them. The claim of Persian admixture/intermarriage goes to "Phylogeographic Differentiation of Mitochondrial DNA in Han Chinese", which says nothing about any Persian or Middle Eastern contribution, just the raw mtDNA frequencies - and the marker in question only appeared in one sample. The claim is not supported by that source, and appears to be original research. Also, the claim about European admixture is not in the available portion of its source("Mitochondrial DNA control region variation in a population sample from Hong Kong, China") - which is itself an abstract, with no reference made to the specific pages etc. of the full paper - and no claims similar to the one made in the article appear anywhere else other than Wikipedia mirrors and some messageboard discussions. These latter discussions are themselves not quoting specific portions of the paper for European contributions, but look to be creating these claims by their own analysis of the data. Really, if these sorts of claims are going to be in the article, they need to be backed by sources which can support the specific claims made, and these sources need to be properly cited. Ergative rlt (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any understanding of haplogroup genetics you would know that mtDNA Haplogroup W has the highest frequencies in the Iranic population of Georgia, North Parkistan, Kurdistan, Iran, Tajikistan. So it's only natural to assumed that mtDNA W in Cantonese is due to Persian or middle eastern admixture because mtDNA W is definately not an Asian marker it's highest frequencies are in the Indo-European people of Iranic origin.


 * " The claim is not supported by that source, and appears to be original research. Also, the claim about European admixture is not in the available portion of its source("Mitochondrial DNA control region variation in a population sample from Hong Kong, China") YES IT IS AVAILABLE, I'LL SHOW YOU. The genetic paper from this study found 2 haplogroup U. http://www.mendeley.com/research/mitochondrial-dna-control-region-variation-in-a-population-sample-from-hong-kong-china/#page-1  -(User talk:94.175.118.39)(talk) 02:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The source you provide says nothing about "European female admixture from migrant women" or about European admixture at all - that appears to be your interpretation of the result. Unless you can provide a reliable source making that claim, it falls under WP:OR. Also, while your modification of the claim about Middle Eastern admixture is appreciated, the article text is still making one clear claim and one implied one about Caucasian mtDNA and Persian intermarriage that aren't supported by the source. For both of these, your assumptions on what is "only natural" aren't important - what is important are what the sources actually say. Ergative rlt (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that there was historical evidence of Persian women who migrated to Guangzhou and genetic evidence of marker mtDNA W in Guangzhou supports this theory enormously so it's absolutely natural to assumpt this because nothing else can explain this presense. Also Scientists don't always write down everything they think in genetic paper, others do but many don't. European female admixture is evidence from that mtDNA H11 is common in central Europe and mtDNA J1 is most common among the Scottish. And you know what? Nancy Kwan was born in Hong Kong and she used to be an sex symbol of hollywood, she is an Eurasian was the result of Cantonese father an mother of Scottish origin. Is it coincidence that Scottish mtDNA happens to be in Hong Kong? if this not the result of migrant women than what else could it be? -(User talk:94.175.118.39)(talk) 4:07 06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are advocating here is deliberate misrepresentation of sources. You cannot use a source to back a claim which you yourself admit is not in the paper. I see from Talk discussions that people have been trying for months to get you to understand WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and other relevant policies, and I suggest you pay attention to the text of those policies and the explanations given by other editors. Ergative rlt (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it misrepresentation but rather an very possible scenario that was not mentioned in the genetic paper, not because they didn't want to but because they didn't need too. In fact, there is nothing else that can disprove this scenario, the fact that there was historical and genetic evidence supports these scenario 100%, all you need is basic commonsense to know it's true. Anyone who goes and check mtDNA W, U, J, H to know their of indo-european origin and not asiatic origin. It's not like people need an source to know that 10+15 = 25 or that the capital of Spain is in Madrid. -(User talk:94.175.118.39)(talk) 06:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

IP is continuing to put claims not made by source into the article, specifically the "Indo_European mtDNA" and "1.45% Caucasian admixture" (this latter is particularly troublesome). The source doesn't say anything about "Indo_European mtDNA" or the significance of haplogroup W, and to generalize from a single datapont - a single subject in fact - to claims about an admixture in a population are unfounded, especially when the source says nothing at all in terms of population, or even origin of that particular haplotype (they do suggest a Eurasian origin for some haplotypes found in samples from other parts of China, but merely "note" the W). Coming up with a percentage in this case is not justifiable until a reliable source presents it. As this editor has been told many times about original research, here and in other articles, and has admitted that they are making claims not found in the source but continuing to make them anyway, these edits are now crossing the line into being disruptive. Ergative rlt (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source does say mtDNA W and percentage of West Eurasian admixture. But I admit I was too confident in my source that I didn't bother presenting with the frequency table. But the problem with you is that you do not understand how haplogroup studies work nor do you understand the correlation of samples sizes and frequencies (%). It's NOT disruptive editing is because you and I clearly din't bother looking at frequencies table The only difference is I understand how sample size and frequencies correlate. Generalize from an single datapont? this is the one and only data. Judging from your logic I guess 50% of the data on haplogroup wikipedia with data on ethnic group that are based on one single datata point should all be removed.

'MAKING CLAIMS NOT FOUNDED IN THE SOURCE?

1. The genetic study pointed out 1 out 69 samples has W mtDNA haplotype.

First please look at this genetic tanle. In the section of GD-GZ(n=69). In this study " Other ' " is considered west Eurasian haplotypes but is not included in the PC coordinate row since this study is suppose to be Phylogeographic Differentiation of Mitochondrial DNA in Han Chinese. Anyway please click on the marker that says " Other ' "( < click on the part that has '  ) it shows GZ = which stand s for Guangzhou has 1.4% in other.

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC384943?table=TB4/

Aside from Guangzhou which has 1.4% W, Yunnan have 2.3 HV and Liaonning 2.0 T1

PLEASE READ ON THIS DATA

" Two mtDNAs, one sampled in Yunnan and the other in Liaoning, are regarded as resulting from admixture from western Eurasia (via central Asia), as they belong to the west Eurasian haplogroups HV and T1 (Macaulay et al. 1999). Note that the sample from Guangzhou contains one W haplotype"

2. If you are still unconvinced than please look at this genetic which is specifically 1 out 69 study on Guangzhou. "The Emerging Limbs and Twigs of the East Asian mtDNA Tree" by Toomas Kivisild*, Helle-Viivi Tolk*, Jüri Parik*, Yiming Wang†, Surinder S. Papiha‡, Hans-Jürgen Bandelt§ and Richard Villems*. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/10/1737.full

In this study Toomas Kivisild tested and others tested 1 W out 69 in Southern China Guangzhou

Table 1 mtDNA W Variation in 69 Han Chinese from Southern China. (PART 2 of table detected haplogroup W) http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/10/1737/T2.expansion.html

3. If you don't believe that 1 out 69 sample = 1.45% than I suggest you use percentage calculator. http://www.percentagecalculator.net/ to make sure. You also mentioned origin of the Haplotype? like I said if you had even the slightest understand of genetic haplogroup  would know Haplogroup W mtDNA is Indo-European marker because it's highest frequencies are in Caucasus and middle east, even an minor would know that. -94.175.118.39 (talk) 7:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We have a lot of bad stuff on genetics in Wikipedia articles. One of the main reasons is that people try to interpret sources. We should not be using raw data, eg "Two mtDNAs, one sampled in Yunnan and the other in Liaoning, are regarded as resulting from admixture from western Eurasia" to make an argument. We can report on the discussion/conclusion appropriately (which usually means not as fact but as the results of a study). We can't add " Genetic evidence shows an Indo-European mtDNA in Guangzhou.etc" to "Some scholars did not differentiate between Persian and Arab, and some say that the Chinese called all women coming from the Persian Gulf "Persian Women" as that is what we call original research (unless of course the paper on the genetic evidence applies this to the Chinese calling all women from the PG "Persian Women". You've been warned a number of times about original research. As WarriorsPride6565 you were blocked three times in March for edit-warring and personal attacks. Your last block was for a month. The next will be longer, although a ban from genetic related articles might be better. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dougweller, I've mentioned I'm WarriorsPride6565 months ago in this talk page along ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

Do not ban me, I want to continue to use wikipedia to continue edit the truth to everyone. It makes no sense to claim that my research is not original only because I speak the truth. I already have both historical and genetic information of Persian history in Guangzhou and Haplogroup W is evidence of foreign migration and admixture in Guangzhou did in fact happened though I can't be certain if it came from Persian women it's presence should not be denied, to deny this is to prevent any truth. 94.175.118.39 (talk) 7:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DNA studies on y chromosomnal dna and mitochondrial dna of guangdong han chinese (cantonese)
68% of cantonese y chromosomnal DNA is from northern chinese origins, while only 15% mitochondrial are from north china. The author of this dissertation uses that evidence to indicate that most southern chinese, including cantonese are descended from han from northern china marrying native women in southern china.

http://books.google.com/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cantonese Cultural hub
man, what a joke. hong kong and macau are the Cantonese Cultural hub? no way. these two cities are the most westernised cities in China and do not qualify as a Cantonese Cultural hub. sell out hub is more like it. if you want to find real Cantonese Cultural hub, you better look to some suburbs of guangzhou for that, because you aint going to find it in hk, or macau. only thing you will find in hk or macau are cantonese guys who wishes they were white. and if they cant be white, then they'll settle for being japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fd32434 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Issues over sources for the new DNA section
See WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Historical figures
Why are there so many clearly non-historical people in this list? An indirect reference to the lead singer of a K-pop band? Does anyone agree that it should undergo some serious culling? Philg88 ♦talk 07:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Chow
I've never heard of any Chinese (honger or otherwise) following the ancestry of their mother. In this case, Chows mother is Cantonese, and his father is from Jiangsu, which makes him a Jiangsu person rather than Cantonese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A32423423423 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it "Cantonese people"?
If you scroll down to the bottom, you see most Chinese groups are referred to as "Speaker of" Wu, Xiang, Gan. So that means Speakers of Wu(, a dialect group which has more speakers than Cantonese,) don't have their own culture which would classify them as "Wu people"? But this article's name is only called "Cantonese people" as if they are a different ethnicity, which is wrong. I think only because Cantonese speaking people were the first to make contact with the West, ignoring the fact that China is much bigger. --2.245.110.225 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Jackie Chan
Is Jackie Chan considered Cantonese? He was born in Hong Kong and he speaks Cantonese.  Mister   Hungry   04:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

HIstorical figures
Something needs to be done about the article's list of "Historical figures", which contains a large assortment of living individuals who are hardly "historic". My suggestion would be that anyone who isn't dead be split out to a new article titled List of notable Cantonese people. Of those who remain, individuals who are not noted for anything "historic" should be removed. Philg88 ♦talk 06:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wong Fei-Hung
I noticed Wong Fei-Hung is one of the featured Cantonese in the infobox, but the "photo" of him is apparently a photo of his son, according to the article Wong Fei-Hung. Not sure if he should be replaced by someone who has a known correct photo? Sn1per (t)(c) 04:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable figures
I have merged the two sections "Historical figures" and "Academics" into the section "Notable figures", and split that up into the following sections: Historical, Entertainers, Musicians, Politicians, Sportspeople, Businesspeople, Martial artists, Academics, and Other notable figures. The list is not complete and other categories can be added if the need arises. However, I think that the list should only include people who have their own pages, otherwise they are not notable; and they accompanying line should be short and not contain much more than their profession and perhaps what they are most known for, because any other info can be found on their individual page; this page is about Cantonese people in general, otherwise the list becomes unnecessarily long. I also think that the History section and the Origins section can be merged, but they might need attention from an expert too. Yannaynay (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Need a clean up
I think this article need a clean-up. Guangdong-ren means any people of Guangdong, and not just people who speak "Cantonese". Chaozhou (Teochiu) is a city in Guangdong, whose people speak Teochiu and not "Cantonese"- they are also Guangdong-ren. Cantonese people are not just the Puntis (which should be in fact pronounced Boon-day). "Cantonese" speakers are from a small section of south-western Guangdong, who migrated to other parts of Guangdong, where the original people (who are also Guangdong-ren)spoke different tongues from them. Also the notable people section needs a bit of checking and clean-up. 2A00:23C5:C101:5800:9DE2:10D5:3E2C:D8F (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * All the people I listed can also be found in the list of Cantonese people Baidu people list and The Global Conference of the Cantonese and all their ancestral origin being in Yue-Chinese speaking Cantonese descent. The list of Cantonese people in the wiki far from complete, roughly only 1/3 are included, I still haven't included the majority of the Cantonese people from the Baidu list.
 * https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%B9%BF%E5%BA%9C%E6%B0%91%E7%B3%BB/11019927?fromtitle=%E5%B9%BF%E5%BA%9C%E4%BA%BA&fromid=10349216


 * The Cantonese people list it's 100% fine because they all come from a Cantonese-Yue Chinese origin provinces of Guangdong and other provinces and with paternal ancestral from it with no mention of other ancestry. 广府人 Guangfu people specifically refers to actual Cantonese of Yue Chinese origin not the Hakka speakers, Teochew speakers, Hoklo speakers that inhabits Guangdong and provinces except with the Taishanese people. Like the Taishanese people page, the wiki page of both Cantonese people and doesn't include people only 1/4 Cantonese, 1/8 Cantonese. It include 1/2 Cantonese only from paternal side but doesn't include 1/2 Cantonese from maternal side with exception of a very few extremely famous Chinese such as Stephen Chow and Sun Yat Sen who are both considered either extremely famous or very important.  Stephen Chow is included since only his grandfather is of Ningbo/Shanghai Chinese origin, the rest is Cantonese. There are some rich Shanghai entrepreneurs from Shanghai who are 1/4 Cantonese from the paternal side since the early 1920's and they speak some good Cantonese and claim to trace they can traces their roots from modern day Taishan, Guangzhou and other cantonese speaking cities however I will not list them given that the Cantonese ancestry is not predominant enough and with obvious mention of other non-cantonese ancestry included. I will remove them since there's really no point in including them in a list where almost everyone is pure Cantonese,  If I were to include the mix ones it will not only make the list of Cantonese people 3x the size but confusing people not knowing who is pure and who is mixed to what degrees so I shortened it by adding only some of the the relevant ones or the celebrities from the Baidu that I consider relevant enough.


 * The Global Conference of the Cantonese(广府人) is a conference that selects " top 10 outstanding cantonese adults"  and " top 10 outstanding cantonese youths " in every two years. They come from variety of people from billionaires, athletes, or people who contributed to China. They also encourage Cantonese nationalism. I have videos of them, if you don't mind I will include them for source.


 * https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E5%B9%BF%E5%BA%9C%E4%BA%BA%E6%81%B3%E4%BA%B2%E5%A4%A7%E4%BC%9A


 * -KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 02:05 10 August 2017 (UTC)