Talk:Han Chinese/Archive 3

==Proposal to add new information pertaining to the evolutionary ancestry of Han Chinese people in a prehistory section of "Han Chinese" due to new scientific evidence that proves the Chinese evolved separately from Homo Pekinensis and NOT from African Homo Sapiens like the rest of humanity as publicized in politically correct mainstream media==

I am a scientist who specializes in the fields of anthropology and paleoanthropology, I would like to introduce to you the peer reviewed scientific evidence supporting a separate independent evolution of the modern Chinese people from an archaic species of Homo Erectus, specifically the separate species known as Homo Pekinensis. Below I have provided the results of scientific DNA studies that provide strong irrefutable support for an independent origin of the Chinese from Homo Pekinensis. These scientific studies have all been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and are well received by the scientific community. Please take some time to read them and feel free to ask me any questions regarding human evolution.

1.) New Scientist Chinese Challenge to "Out of Africa"

2.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals, Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome by Daniel Garrigan, Zahra Mobasher, Tesa Severson, Jason A. Wilder and Michael F. Hammer

3.) Genetics Society of America's Genetics Journal, "Testing for Archaic Hominin Admixture on the X Chromosome: Model Likelihoods for the Modern Human RRM2P4 Region From Summaries of Genealogical Topology Under the Structured Coalescent" by Murray P. Cox, Fernando L. Mendez, Tatiana M. Karafet, Maya Metni Pilkington, Sarah B. Kingan, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Beverly I. Strassmann and Michael F. Hammer.

4.) Oxford University's Oxford Journals Global Patterns of Human DNA Sequence Variation in a 10-kb Region on Chromosome 1 by Ning Yu, Z. Zhao, Y.-X. Fu, N. Sambuughin, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins, E. Leskinen, L. Patthy, L. B. Jorde, T. Kuromori and W.-H. Li

5.) BMC Biology Journal of Biology "Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations" by Shi H, Zhong H, Peng Y, Dong YL, Qi XB, Zhang F, Liu LF, Tan SJ, Ma RZ, Xiao CJ, Wells RS, Jin L, Su B.

6.) National Geographic Society Peking Man (Homo Pekinensis) Lived in China 200,000 Years Earlier Than Previously Thought

It is tempting to simply dismiss the new peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts the previously accepted "out of Africa" theory of human evolution where, supposedly, all humans were descended from the same group of Homo Sapien ancestors and which subsequently gives "strong support" in favor of an independent East Asian origin of a separate archaic branch or separate species of humans, the modern day Chinese people. But unfortunately, the reality of human evolution during the past 4 billions of life on our planet Earth is not as clear cut as the "out of Africa" theory attempts to address it. The "out of Africa" theory tries to say that "ALL" humans are descended from the same group of anatomically modern "Cro Magnon" or Homo Sapien Sapiens and while some of the older previous studies did initially seem to support that theory, those studies were not all inclusive and did not test many aspects of human genetics and evolution. But within the last few years, new genetic evidence has been discovered as a result of numerous scientific studies that have been conducted which lend a strong support for the theory that the modern Chinese people, or conservatively, a subpopulation of the Chinese gene pool are descended NOT from anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens like other humans on Earth, but rather that they are the product of a separate evolutionary lineage going back at least 1.8 million - 2 million years ago to Homo Erectus in East Asia. And that the modern Chinese people today are not necessarily classified as "Homo Sapien," but more accurately they could be classified as a highly evolved anatomically modern form of Homo Pekinensis. You must remember that regardless of whether we are talking about Homo Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus that we are talking about human beings. And even though they are a classified as a separate species of human beings, nothing can take away their "humanity," for if one of them were dressed up in a modern day suit, they would still be recognized as "humans."

Please watch the evidence on these links:

1.) Scientific evidence from the Chinese Academy of Sciences 2.) All Non Africans Living Today Are Part Neanderthal 3.) New evidence that Neanderthals interbred with Humans

Adding further support to the Multi-regional theory of human evolution are the recent DNA discoveries that anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis or the Neanderthal man, in direct contradiction to the thesis of the "out of Africa" theory which specifically states that Homo Sapien did not interbred with Homo Neanderthalensis and that the Neanderthal simply "went extinct." Which has now been shown in peer reviewed scientific studies to be untrue, and that the Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis did indeed interbreed with each other. These studies are additionally supported by previous archaeological finds that show skeletons of humans who show hybrid morphological and anatomical traits of both species of humans, both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis.

Please read the following evidence:

1.) NewScientist Neanderthal genome reveals interbreeding with humans 2.) Archaic admixture in the human genome, Neanderthal genes in modern humans 3.) Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans 4.) Discovery News "Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves" 5.) USA Today Neanderthals and humans interbred, fossils indicate 6.) BBC "Neanderthals 'mated with modern humans'" 7.) Official report Neanderthal/Homo Sapien interbred 8.) Cosmos Humans and Neanderthals interbred, according to our anatomy 9.) Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

The previous "out of Africa" model is only partial correct, while evidence shows there was indeed an out of Africa migration of Homo Sapiens, it does NOT mean that all humans are descended from this small population of Homo Sapiens. In Europe, the archaic humans, Homo Neanderthalensis, existed independently and interbred with these African Homo Sapiens resulting in the 1%-4% genetic admixture of all non-Africans. And in the case of the Chinese, numerous scientific studies have been published showing both genetic and fossil evidence that the modern Chinese people possess a different nucleotide encoding in their DNA, which in simplest terms means the Chinese have genes and other DNA fragments which they inherited from their Homo Erectus Pekinensis ancestor. Additionally, fossil evidence unearthed at the Zhoukoudian archaeological site have shown Homo Pekinensis fossils to have a continuity of anatomical and morphological traits with many modern Chinese people. All of the archaic East Asian Homo Pekinensis and Homo Erectus fossils studied have shown a continuity of unique morphological and anatomical traits, such as flattened faces, small frontal sinuses, reduced posterior teeth, shovel-shaped incisors, and high frequencies of metopic sutures, which are virtually absent in modern day European, Middle Eastern, and African populations but widely present in the modern population of the Han Chinese.

Thank You Very Much! --72.215.67.253 (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I have made my position on this relatively clear. First off, see No original research. But since you won't listen to that... Regarding the scientific journals you've cited for this, not only is combining them together original research, the individual parts do not necessarily support your hypothesis.
 * 1) The first paper (Cox, et al.) actually supports a recent African origin of modern humans if you just read the abstract. It emphasizes the need to find out whether human populations interbred with existing Neanderthal and Homo erectus populations, NOT a separate origin of Chinese people. It's also a heavily statistical paper rather than an origins paper.
 * 2) Likewise, the second paper (Garrigan, et al.) also supports an African origins hypothesis (see the last sentence of the abstract). The "archaic Asian ancestry" mentioned is not referring to a separate origin of Chinese people but rather a gene that may have originated in East Asia.
 * 3) This paper (Yu, et al.), actually suggests that neither theory is adequate: "We suggest that both the "Out of Africa" and the multiregional models are too simple to explain the evolution of modern humans." Plus, it is using a statistical method to analyze differences in DNA sequences to estimate divergence.
 * 4) This paper (Shi, et al.) is actually discussing a more recent time frame (25,000-30,000 years ago) rather than a multiregional origins time frame (at 60,000+ years ago). It is following the phylogeography of a single gene through East Asia, hardly enough to draw any conclusions off of.
 * 5) This paper... doesn't even support anything. It just talks about Peking Man and when it lived in the Zhoukoudian region.


 * I'm not even going to go into Youtube "sources".
 * Even if there was interbreeding between modern human populations and existing Neanderthal and Homo erectus populations, that is one GIANT leap you are making which definitely falls into the realm of original research. -Multivariable (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC).


 * To Multivariable, you are trying to use clever debate tactics to spin this information and portray it as being illegitimate just because you simply don't like the scientific conclusions reached by the studies which show that the modern Chinese people have DNA from archaic humans such as Homo Pekinensis.


 * In "Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome" the authors Dr. Daniel Garrigan et al. specifically state: "The human RRM2P4 pseudogene has a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism that is unlike any locus published to date. A gene tree constructed from a 2.4-kb fragment of the RRM2P4 locus sequenced in a sample of 41 worldwide humans clearly roots in East Asia and has a most-recent common ancestor approximately 2 Myr before present. The presence of this basal lineage exclusively in Asia results in higher nucleotide diversity among non-Africans than among Africans. A global survey of a single-nucleotide polymorphism that is diagnostic for the basal, Asian lineage in 570 individuals shows that it occurs at frequencies up to 53% in south China, whereas only one of 177 surveyed Africans carries this archaic lineage."


 * Basically saying that some Asians in "South China" possess DNA fragments that are different and NOT found anywhere else in the world.


 * Dr. Daniel Garrigan et al. further states: "We suggest that this ancient lineage is a remnant of introgressive hybridization between expanding anatomically modern humans emerging from Africa and archaic populations in Eurasia."


 * Basically refuting your above false accusations by proposing that some Chinese or Asian archaic humans, which in this case refers to Homo Erectus Pekinensis, had interbred with some anatomically modern African Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which further refutes your personal opinion which I quote you saying: "Even if there was interbreeding between modern human populations and existing Neanderthal and Homo erectus populations, that is one GIANT leap you are making which definitely falls into the realm of original research."


 * Again these scientific journals are ALL published in peer reviewed scientific publications. Please go read about them before you start posting uneducated statements or angry insults just because you don't like the information.


 * Please read this about your behavior: I just don't like it


 * Just because you don't like the scientific conclusions that the Han Chinese are separate species from everyone else does NOT give you the right to continually delete the information "you don't like" and editing in favor of a politically correct but scientfically incorrect "out of Africa" misinformation designed simply to make most people feel good. Your efforts amount to nothing more than internet censorship and suppression of information. If you disagree you must present scientific evidence refuting the scientific journals otherwise you have no legitamite case!

--72.215.69.43 (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Several anonymous users have pasted the same materials numerous times onto various articles such as Homo erectus pekinensis and Human Evolution in spite of being repeatedly warned and reverted by editors (and there were thorough discussions and activities on the Human Evolution talk page archive). Further, these information are quite badly-written, formatted and hastily formed.  And yes, we should not cite youtube links.  And please do not use content from published articles to support your original research.--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This "youtube" video which you guys keep attacking is actually from CCTV in China, the equivalent of BBC in England, they are presenting archaeological evidence from the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences Chinese Academy of Science --72.215.69.43 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * More importantly, these information about pre-historic paleoanthropology, recent single-origin hypothesis, or multiregional hypothesis, really have no business on this article at all. There is no reason why articles about ethnic groups living today should have a ridiculously large section solely devoted to materials about homo sapiens and homo erectus?  These kind of information are irrelevant for an article that's not specifically related to human evolution and its studies.  Did you actually read through the whole chunk of stuff that was added?  Did you not notice that it was full of badly composed sentences and it was barely readable?--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, this is NOT original research as you are trying to portray it! This information has the consensus of almost 2 billion people as well as the anthropological scientific community of China and Taiwan, in addition, it has both archaeological evidence in the form of fossils as well as genetic evidence showing that many modern Han Chinese retain genes from Homo Pekinensis and NOT African Homo Sapiens. Please read this article from New Scientist for yourself:

New Scientist Chinese Challenge to "Out of Africa" --72.215.69.43 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To Balthazarduju, This information pertains to the evolutionary history of the Han Chinese people, it talks about their ancestry and how they evolved. So this peer reviewed scientifically supported information is one of the most important pieces of info to be included in the article. --72.215.69.43 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad you've finally stopped edit warring and are willing to discuss this. I'm flattered you think I am using "clever debate tactics", but all I'm doing is pointing out flaws in your reasoning and arguments. There is no so-called "politically correct" version, and it's definitely not "censorship" or "suppression of information". If anything, you've been trying to shove it down our throats by repeatedly inserting it on multiple articles, article talk pages, and user talk pages.
 * The problem with using the Garrigan paper you mentioned is that it only supports a degree of interbreeding between the two populations. It says nothing about the claim you are making: that the Han Chinese evolved separately from other humans (and are a separate species?); you are making that jump yourself and forcing others to see your POV. Interbreeding also does not necessarily void the "out of Africa" hypothesis either, like you seem to think. My other arguments for your other sources still stand.
 * I'm disagreeing with you based purely on the evidence that you have proposed. As many editors have mentioned before, this is not the place for independent research. All your "peer reviewed scientific publications" do not support your overall claim either. You've just taken bits and pieces of each paper and drawn a conclusion that's unsubstantiated. I have no obligation to present competing scientific since this isn't what Wikipedia is anyway.
 * Oh, and like the editor above me mentioned, much of this information really has no place in this article anyway. -Multivariable (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To Multivariable, you are implementing a double standard by deleting the posts I put on your page and then you try to put false accusations on my talk page. All the readers of Wikipedia can take a look at your edit history and the comments that other objective editors have made against you...warning you against false accusations. Other editors clearly see that I have done nothing wrong while you engage in edit warring using these dirty tactics of false accusations posted on my talk page. You have been previously warned by other editors about your false accusations which you use as your tool to edit war.

Your twisting of scientific evidence, personal attacks and false accusations against me simply shows everyone that you have NO scientific evidence whatsoever to refute those scientific studies that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals such as Oxford Journals, BMC Biology, Genetics (Journals).

The indisputable fact, supported by genetic evidence and hybrid fossils, that both European Homo Neanderthalensis and Chinese Homo Pekinensis interbred with African Homo Sapiens shows conclusively that there were multiple separate evolutionary branches or species of archaic humans that coexist both simultaneously and independently of each other. Otherwise, if it was only one species of Homo Sapiens as you suggest, we would not call it "interbreeding."

Read this for more evidence on a separate Chinese evolution: New Scientist Chinese Challenge to "Out of Africa"

And this "youtube" video which you guys keep attacking is actually from CCTV in China presenting scientific evidence from the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences

Aside from you trying to portray those papers in a negative way, most intelligent and educated readers would be able to understand the implications of what those scientific studies mean when they say that the Han Chinese retain genes from Homo Erectus Pekinensis and NOT African Homo Sapiens Sapiens providing indisputable genetic evidence that there was indeed a separate evolutionary lineage from Homo Pekinensis directly to modern day Han Chinese. Additionally, paleontologists and anthropologists have identified morphological similarities in both archaic Homo Pekinensis and modern Han Chinese people such as cranial skull shape, prominent cheek bones, shovel shaped 72.215.69.43 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about this theory, wouldn't this be an east asian issue rather than just an issue regarding chinese people, if you're referring to east asian populations? Drgreen19 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily, because East Asian is a broad category that does not describe the evolutionary differences that East Asians have. Most notably, the evolutionary differences exist between the Han Chinese and the south east Asians in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia as well as other countries in the region. India also is considered to be an Asian country, but there people, most notably the Dravidians still retain the dark skin pigmentation characteristic of their prehistoric African Homo Sapien ancestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.174.34 (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, allow me to clarify: Is your theory only about the Chinese? If so you should explain it more in-depth, or do you believe that mongoloids in general are descended from Homo Pekinensis. It is also worth noting if the your sources point to Homo Sapiens, and Homo Erectus interbreeding as they migrated from africa, rather than a purely isolated evolution.Drgreen19 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

So i think an image should look like that:


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

I think an image like that fits best. The image is suppose to be representetive. The current image might make people think the Chinese have nothing but political affairs, while it doesnt show nothing about their great contribution to science, it's literature, it's philisophy, it really misses alot of points. M.V.E.i. 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Three of the four are Republic of China-era people. We don't necessarily need someone from the PRC, but we need better representation. I like this article, though. 70.236.19.135 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, I agree. It would be good if someone were to add the pictures of Bruce Lee, Confucius, Zheng He, and Su Song who invented the astronomical hydromechanical clock over 900 years ago.--72.215.69.43 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable, representative, paiting or photo
The people selected should be very notable. So in female, Chien-Shiung Wu is a fit one. She's internationally notable and recognized for scientific achievements. -Linzongyanyong (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As for representative, we need have people in different times, including ancient time. Whether a image is painting or photo should not be a standard, just like other similar articles, for example, in English American there are people like George Washington who lived before camera was invented. For ancient time, Zhuge Liang is a model for Chinese culture in spirit, moral and intelligence. He is a very fit one. And by adding him Chinese traditional costume can also be illustrated. -Linzongyanyong (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Descendants of the Dragon
Such awkard term was invented by a Taiwanese singer Hou Dejian, in 1978. It was very new, not traditional saying.--刻意(Kèyì) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How can you say awkard? Are our ancestors including Fu Xi/伏羲, Nv Wa/女娲, Huang Di/黄帝, Yan Di/炎帝 admired as Dragon? In the past only capable people were honored as Dragon, on the contrary were worm. In modern time all Chinese were honored as descendants of the Dragon. Right? -Sufengweng (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Han Chinese is a racist term
Han is an ethnic group. Chinese is a nationality. If you are discussing members of the Han ethnic group who live in China, then why does this article cover the Han as a global ethnic group? This is the main Han page, and Chinese should have nothing to do with it. Media organizations are using this as basis for the term Han Chinese in news articles. They are not, however, affixing the term Chinese to any of the other 55 ethnic groups in China. Take a look at Chinese news sources. They say "Uighur ethnic group" and "Han ethnic group". Take a look at western media such as Reuters and they say "Uighur ethnic minority" and "Han Chinese". This fuels racism as it implies that only Han are rightful Chinese citizens, and all minorities are "guests" in the Han country. As a foreigner in China, I can tell you that most Han feel this way, subconsciously. This is what is fueling riots and protests from ethnic minorities in China. Please revise this article to be named "Han Ethnicity" or "Han Ethnic Group", or remove all mention of Han outside of the nation of China. As it stands, this entire article is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.108.177.53 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? Wait a minute. If you're saying that the "Han" ethnicity should not be synonymous with people of Chinese nationality and that the two concepts should be treated as separate, then why would you want to eliminate content that focuses on the Han ethnic group outside of China? That seems completely contradictory. Also, I don't think anyone here is trying to be racist. Please assume good faith.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 03:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing contradictory in what he is saying. He is saying "drop the 'Chinese', just call them 'Han'". His reasoning is simple. The word "Chinese" should be used to refer to citizens of China (ethnic groups of China), not just the Han. Using "Chinese" just for the Han is discrimination against the others. Moreover, given that "Chinese" should be a term referring to citizens of China (and not just the Han), use of "Han Chinese" for people who are not even Chinese citizens is doubling the insult.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, well in that case there is the term Zhonghua minzu.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

GUYS! Here is the solution: If the people who are called Han Chinese by others consider themselves Han Chinese, then they are Han Chinese. If not, then they are not. The problem is that I dont think 90% of the 1.3 billion chinese consider themselves as Han as the Communist Party and ultranationalist chinese claim they are. The only way is to go ask them, which will not happen until china becomes a democratic and open society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The intentions of the above users are well and I assume its good-faith edit by the editor who moved this article and several related articles and templates. However, personal opinion shouldn't be inserted onto this article and no original research please!  Naming conventions indicates that the most common name should be used (Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize).  Regardless if you think this is the correct name, that shouldn't factor in this article.--Balthazarduju (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that I agreed with his proposal; I merely pointed out that it was logically coherent. I deleted a comment that I made, that the use of "Chinese" for the Han and not for the others actually reflects the lack of proportion in people's perceptions, thus the racism pointed out. That is, most people unconsciously equate "Han" with "Chinese". That is the historical usage. When people talk of the immense variety in "Chinese" cuisine, they don't have in mind of the monotonous meat-based diet of the Mongols. When people speak of the Chinese as an "agricultural people" (and yes, Chinese people do say things like this), they don't have in mind the nomadic origins of the Mongols, either. When people make any kind of generalisation about the "Chinese", they are usually referring the Han Chinese, unless they are making an effort to be politically correct. In other words, in actual usage in both China and the West, "Chinese" is casually used in an interchangeable way with "Han".


 * In fact, the use of words like "minority nationalities" in China effectively relegates what would be major ethnic groups anywhere else in the world to the status of "exceptions" not representing the mainstream. Adding "Chinese" to their names may make it clearer that these people live in the Chinese state, but as long as they are called "minority nationalities", and as long as people automatically assume that "Chinese" is pretty much synonymous with "Han majority", the problem is not going to change.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are lot of Han overseas that does not call themselves Chinese...are they still Han given the article name?
 * China has 55 other ethinicities, are they considered Chinese?
 * The article name just screams POV issues. Jim101 (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese has several meanings. Like many other terms. For example, when we say Americans, generally we think they speak English, but there are many of them speak Spanish in U.S.A, or some may think it means native American, but the land of native Americans - the so called Indians has been occupied by new Americans and most native Americans were kill out by new Americans from Europe. Another example, when we say Japanese, we generally mean WA, not include Yamato, Ainu, ect. People generally use a term to mean a typical one, mean majority, not minority. When we say German or French, we generally mean the majority of German or French not mean the minority Sorbs in Germany, Corsican in France, etc. Those are not typical ones. But as another meaning, minority is also a part of it. -Sufengweng (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Chinese had no racism ideology in the past (Not include Mongol in Yuan and Manchu in Qing with ethnic privileges). Just like the idea and policy of Zhu Yuanzhang, the emperor of Ming Dynasty who overthrowed Yuan Dynasty: Mongol and various colored people are all my baby (people) ("元運既終，天命歸我中華，凡其遺民，皆吾赤子"，"蒙古諸色人等，皆吾赤子"). -Sufengweng (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to Han (ethnicity)
I would propose a move over redirect to Han (ethnicity), as being less WP:NPOV. We are talking about the ethnic group here, after all, not just the Chinese in China. The term 'Han Chinese' unhelpfully conflates two notions of ethnicity and nationality. We have been discussing the issue as to which term to use at July 2009 Ürümqi riots‎, and have come to the conclusion that using simply 'Han' is more neutral. It is true certainly in that context, but what is more, I feel there is usually little or no ambiguity when the word 'Han' comes up. There's the Han dynasty and the state of Han in history, but these are never likely to confuse except used in those very articles – and we can easily be more precise in such cases. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will add to the argument by stating the term "Han Chinese" give people the wrong impresson that only Han can (and must) be Chinese, while all other 55 ethnicity groups in China can not be considered Chinese. It's like trying to make a big deal out of the difference between the term Chinese citizen and Chinese.
 * I bet nobody in the States like it that having the status of "US citizens" is not automaticly "American". Jim101 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should just point out that there is already Han (North American people) and the fact that Koreans' endonym is Han (although I don't know of any English speakers calling them that). It's nothing a dablink couldn't fix, but just thought I should throw that out there before we arbitrarily select this Han as the "default" Han&mdash;sure, it's the biggest population and the one people are most likely to search for, but still. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just adding my two cents here. This name change will likely conform to WP:NPOV but will likely not conform entirely to WP:COMMONNAME. While I support the change I do believe this would make Wikipedia shy away from common English usage in most existing journalism and literature of the term "Han Chinese". I am not opposed to this, and I see the transformative ability for Wikipedia to better educate people about the complex reality of China's ethnic make-up through a name-change. Colipon+(T) 04:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reminder that this would mean systematically changing the use of "Han Chinese" to "Han" in all current articles that use that string. Colipon+(T) 05:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the most common way to this group of people in English is simply "Chinese" or sometimes perhaps "ethnic Chinese". Since these terms are ambiguous, "Han" can be added for clarity. I think that removing the "Chinese" and just using "Han" creates serious common name issues, so I oppose this move.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 05:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also oppose the move. Contrary to what Jim101 says ("There are lot of Han overseas that does not call themselves Chinese"), I would suggest that most (Han) Chinese overseas call themselves "Chinese", not "Han". Then again, once you start talking about second and third-generation overseas Chinese, what exactly is "Han" about them, except their ancestry? Given that "Han" is a culturally defined group, once you lose the language and the culture, what differentiates the descendant of a "Han" Chinese from other people? In fact, the ethnicity of people who have emigrated overseas is likely to be a product of the ethnic perceptions of their ancestors and the ethnic perceptions of the local community. When Chinese went overseas in the 19th century, although they may have identified themselves in the larger picture as "Tang people", or more usually "Chinese" in English (thus 唐人街 were known as "Chinatowns"), they identified even more strongly with their local region. That's why there were Congregation Halls for Cantonese, Hokkienese, Hainanese, etc. So what happens to a person of Chinese descent in Singapore, who identifies him/herself as "Chinese" (as opposed to Malay or Indian) and "Hainanese" (as opposed to Teo chiew or Cantonese)? Are we going to reclassify this person as "Han" merely to fit in with the classification and terminology of Mainland China?


 * And that is the biggest objection to this change. The desire to remould ethnic identities to fit in with the ethnic categories of the PRC is understandable, but is really an effort at forced conformity. The term "Chinese", racist as it may seem, does actually represent a historical reality. That is, the term "Chinese" when used as an ethnic signifier historically refers to the Han, and not necessarily to just any inhabitant of China. You can't simply "abolish away" historical usages merely because they don't fit in with your idea of what the new reality should be. Prescribing that all those people generally called "Chinese" in the wider community and "Han Chinese" by people who want to be more exact should now, by fiat of a group of Wikipedians, be changed to "Han ethnicity" is an attempt at rewriting the world, not describing it.


 * There are no easy answers to any of this, because the issue is much more complex than the PRC ethnic categorisations make out. But forcing the name "Han (ethnicity)" onto Wikipedia is not as attractive as those who like tidy classifications make out.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am almost convinced of Bathrobe's argument after reading all of that. This really is quite a difficult issue. Colipon+(T) 04:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New Point
If Bathrobe has presented the argument that Han Chinese should remain as "Han Chinese" simply because they are inherently Chinese and considered "indigenous" to the area, then that generally excludes groups such as Uyghur, Kazakh, Tatar (who are Turkic), Tibetan (who are Tibetan) and Russian, Tajik (who are Indo-European). However. This begs some important questions about "ethnicities" who have been essentially assimilated into local Chinese culture and are de facto Chinese - such as Tujia, Miao, Dong, Buyei, Zhuang, Manchu, and even Mongols in Inner Mongolia. When we apply a term such as "locals revolt against Chinese rule", we implicitly include leaders who are of minority ethnicities who also serve as "Chinese rulers". The city of Ningbo, for example, is ruled by a Mongol (as party secretary) by the name of Bayuntsuru, a fact widely acknolwedged by locals, but clearly the people of Ningbo will not revolt against "Mongol rule".

In this sense, it is not accurate to portray "Han" as "Han Chinese" as there are many other ethnic groups around China who are essentially Chinese but do not have "Chinese" attached to them. For example, CCP foreign affairs guru Dai Bingguo is Tujia, but clearly he is also Chinese. Xinjiang Chairman Nur Bekri is Uyghur... but is he "Chinese"? Is he Uyghur-Chinese? Even if we argue Nur Bekri is not the legitimate ruler of Xinjiang, there are many Uyghurs, Tibetans, Mongols etc. that have made it up the CPC hierarchy purely based on merit. Bayuntsuru is the best contemporary example. Colipon+(T) 03:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the idea that the term "Han Chinese" implies that other people are not Chinese. I think that the implicit structure is that "Han" modifies "Chinese", meaning that "Han Chinese" is a type of Chinese person. Dai Bingguo and Bayuntsuru are also Chinese, just not Han Chinese.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If Bathrobe has presented the argument that Han Chinese should remain as "Han Chinese" simply because they are inherently Chinese and considered "indigenous" to the area, then that generally excludes groups such as Uyghur, Kazakh, Tatar (who are Turkic), Tibetan (who are Tibetan) and Russian, Tajik (who are Indo-European)


 * I certainly didn't say that and I certainly didn't exclude those groups. The point of this debate is:


 * 1) An anonymous editor argued that "Chinese" should be exclusively used for citizenship, not for the Han ethnic group, as this is discriminatory (other ethnic groups are also Chinese citizens; overseas Han Chinese are not even Chinese citizens).


 * 2) Other editors responded by suggesting that the word "Chinese" should be dropped from "Han Chinese".


 * 3) I argued that:


 * a) Restricting "Chinese" to refer to citizenship looks attractive but is at odds with actual usage. Using "Chinese" as loosely synonymous with the Han is the historical usage, is common de facto usage in China, and is widespread usage abroad. Messy though this may seem, Wikipedia editors should not try to enforce the ethnic terminology of the PRC; they should reflect English usage as it actually exists in many different countries.


 * b) Contrary to what the anonymous editor said, dropping "Chinese" from "Han Chinese" will not remove the roots of perceived discrimination. Making a change in terminology on Wikipedia because someone vaguely feels that will rectify racial discrimination in China is inappropriate.


 * I have never said that the "少数民族" are not Chinese citizens, but this article about ethnic groups is not an article about "Chinese citizenship"; it is an article about one ethnic group that transcends the boundaries of one country but is overwhelmingly and universally identified as the dominant, indeed, the defining ethnic group of China. Many other Chinese "少数民族" are found in more than one country. The Miao (Hmong), the Koreans, the Mongols, the Khazaks, the Uyghurs, the Jing, and the Eluosi-zu to name a few.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bathrobe is absolutely right on this one. He is simply arguing for Wikipedia's accepted policy of WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of the term "Han Chinese" being exclusionary and perhaps unfair to ethnic minorities who are also Chinese. However, if Colipon has a reliable source which says that "Han Chinese" is a discriminatory term, then it can be used in the article as a (brief) counterpoint to the perhaps misguided but nonetheless very common name for this ethnic group. That being said, I don't think this is an issue which calls for the renaming this article's title.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not advocate for a move if the established consensus is to keep it where it is. I think the wider issue is just usage of the term "Chinese". The discussion isn't limited here. "Chinese" is just a completely ambiguous excuse-of-a-term that is used in the English language so it doesn't have to deal with political peculiarities associated with the term. We see disputes like - are Taiwanese people "Chinese"? Are Hong-kongers "Chinese"? Are ethnic minorities living in China "Chinese"? Is a foreigner living in China "Chinese"? What about a third-generation Chinese-American? Is she "Chinese" or just "Asian"? Can the Cantonese language be called "Chinese"? Is Jackie Chan "Chinese"? Is Ang Lee "Chinese"? Who defines what is "Chinese"? What exactly is "Chinese food"? Within the Chinese language there are no less than thirty different ways of saying "Chinese", but in English we are stuck with one expression. And a war over semantics will always be there. Colipon+(T) 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This Guy speaks the truth :) It's really unfair to other ethnic groups. --LLTimes (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, Han/漢 is another name of Chinese/中華. If there is no Han, there will be no China. But if there are no any of other minorities, there will still be China. On the other hand, all Chinese minorities are parts of Chinese. Actually, only in modern era Han/漢 is frequently used to mean Chinese ethnic group, although in the past we also use this term. Similarly, before people found there were other civilizations in the world, Han character/Chinese character/漢字 was called 文字/character, in both China and other places such as Japan. Since Han Dynasty was very prosperous for long period, so Chinese was later called Han Ren/漢人; Since Tang Dynasty was very prosperous for long period, so Chinese was later called Tang Ren/唐人. So if ROC or PRC is prosperous for long period, and very influential, then later Chinese may be called ROCers or PRCers. In Chinese Culure, ethnic group is not an important concept. As for different group of people, ther is a traditional proverbs: "十裡不同風，百里不同俗" (There are no same customs in as near as ten miles and there are no same mores within a hundred. It means that we should respect customs of different groups of people). Even CCP use western communism ideology to divide Chinese into different ethnic groups intently, many majority Chinese (Han Chinese, mainly in the places there are few minorities such as in the middle and eastern China) still do not know that they are Han ethnic group/漢族 and they only know they are Chinese/中國人 when they are teenagers (for example, my son know that there are 56 ethnic groups (as divided by CCP), but when I ask what's his ethnic group, he do not know he is a Han People/漢族人). The most important concept in Chinese culture is 天下國家 (World, Country, Home). As Mencius said: "人有恆言，皆曰"天下國家". 天下之本在國，國之本在家，家之本在身. " (People always say "World, Country(or nation, state), Home". The root (or fundamental) of world is country, the root of country is home, the root of home is individual(or person)). -Sufengweng (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

High birth rate
Shouldn't something be said about the Han's abnormally high birth rate? It's one of the highest in the world. How else do you think they got a 20% share of the population? Brutannica (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Han Chinese no longer have an abnormally high birthrate. At this point it is, if any thing, somewhat below average. I would have to see some citations to come to the conclusion that the Han had an unusually high birth rate (compared to Africans,other Asians, and things like that) during their imperial era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.134.131.252 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-17T04:40:59

China pretty much keep a population level of between 50 to 150 million people until Qing the last imperial dynasty when the population explosion began, but they grow at a rate that i think is proportional to european growth at around the same time. (greater europe has about 800+ million people and of comparable area). China during roman times have comparable population to the roman empire. Then again it might just have been more farmland/food and also china has historically been a agricultural nation which is something that requires alot of manpower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Yiin (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

strange vague claims
which chinese person in their right mind calls themselves children of the dragon/emperor, saying that "many" people do just labels chinese people with a dragon reference, similar to the way restaurants like pf chang's does, and it sounds like there is a feeling of superiority. i have never heard any chinese person say this anywhere. who wrote this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

de Lacouperie
Why is so much attention given to this discredited theory? Dlabtot (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Genetics
That O3 appeared in China approximately 10,000 years ago is a sweeping statement with much room for debate, so I believe it is best left out. Even on Wikipedia's Haplogroup O3 article, various views on its origins are pointed out, and with this new landmark research, there may very well be a major shift on theories of O3's temporal/spatial point of origin and expansion. The bias and distortion being obvious, I'll delete this part, so if you wish to add it, please have the courtesy of giving a balanced and thorough view as layed out on the O3 article, which is as follows:


 * Haplogroup O3 is a descendant haplogroup of haplogroup O. Some researchers believe that it first appeared in China approximately 10,000 years ago.  However, others believe that the high internal diversity of Haplogroup O3 indicates a Late Pleistocene (Upper Paleolithic) origin in South China or Southeast Asia of the M122 mutation that defines the entire O3 clade, while the common presence among a wide variety of modern East and Southeast Asian nations of closely related haplotypes belonging to certain subclades of Haplogroup O3 is considered to point to a recent (e.g., Holocene) geographic dispersion of a certain subset of the ancient variation within Haplogroup O3.  The spread of these particular subsets of Haplogroup O3 is conjectured to be closely associated with the sudden agricultural boom associated with rice farming.


 * The prehistoric peopling of East Asia by modern humans remains controversial with respect to early population migrations. In a systematic sampling and genetic screening of an East Asian–specific Y-chromosome haplogroup (O3-M122) in 2,332 individuals from diverse East Asian populations. Results indicate that the O3-M122 lineage is dominant in East Asian populations, with an average frequency of 44.3%. The microsatellite data show that the O3-M122 haplotypes in southern East Asia are more diverse than those in northern East Asia, suggesting a southern origin of the O3-M122 mutation. It was estimated that the early northward migration of the O3-M122 lineages in East Asia occurred ~25,000–30,000 years ago, consistent with the fossil records of modern humans in East Asia.

Also, that all Han populations share a clear common lineage based on Y-chromosome studies is questionable to say the least, and I'd like to see some solid backing from the source material that has been cited. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are sources cited there, you can't dubious every thing you think it's irrevelant to your own "bias" view, then comes in with a korean source that we can't even track or read.And to O3, you can rephrase it but it's just pointing out that it appeared in China 10,000 yrs and does NOT claim it's orgin. I will be happy to hear what others would like to say but in the meantime, you can find some "creditable and accessable sources" to prove it wrong, I got nothing against it, just your attitude towards certain article.--LLTimes (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That itself is a contested view. I'll just change it to "prehistoric times", since at least that is something that could be agreed with different contesting views on how or when O3 reached China. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cydevil AKA Santaklaws from Asiafinest is known to be an ardent China hater. He's here to troll and spread his Korean bias, no need to worry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Prehistory
I have removed the following paragraph about old, erroneous European theories about the origins of the Han. This information is interesting, but it's taking up a bit too much space in an already long history section. Maybe if there were a way to get this down to a sentence...?


 * "In the 19th century Europe, there were numerous conjectures and speculations published as to where Chinese people came from, ranging anywhere from Ancient Egypt to India to Mongolia. Around the turn of the 20th century, a French author, Terrien de Lacouperie, proposed a theory tracing them to a tribe supposedly found in Elamite inscriptions as "Bak-sing" or "Bak" being southeast of the Caspian Sea. Although most specific elements of this theory were soon discredited as being based upon several outright misreadings and other less-than-compelling evidence (such as equating the Yellow Emperor, Hwang-ti with the Mesopotamian god Nahhunte), several scholars continued to maintain into the 1920s that an Akkadian origin for the Han Chinese was still likely. Lacouperie's erroneous books were also translated into Japanese as well as widely promoted in China, often by Japanese interests, with the result that such "Western Origins" theories became thoroughly discredited after World War Two."

Feeeshboy (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to see an explanation for putting this paragraph back in. I don't find "this is the most appropriate article to provide this information" a convincing reason. Perhaps this belongs more in this article than it does in any other, but that does not mean that it belongs here or anywhere. This paragraph does not provide any information about the actual history of the Han. If these misapprehensions were current, then it would make sense to have content that dispels the various myths that exist, but I don't believe it's sensible for a thorough encyclopedia article to account for the full history of long-forgotten wrong ideas about its topic.Feeeshboy (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The best encyclopedia articles don't just tell us what people are thinking today (which is also subject to change and controversy). They also provide some detail about how people used to think, even if their ideas are no longer followed by anyone today. It's called historiography.  We should not try to cover up the historiography and consign it to the memory hole, or a damnatio memoriae. It's sort of analogous to our making the history of past wikipedia article revisions available instead of hiding them, to allow people to trace the development of thought here on any topic. This paragraph was carefully written to give a sense of some discarded theories of the last century, and also explain the circumstances of how and why and by whom they were discarded.  In that, I think it does a pretty good and encyclopedic job.  So I will only agree to remove this from this article, provided you can find a more appropriate article to present all this encyclopedic information. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the question to ask is whether or not that bit of information is actually notable enough for inclusion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so, is this information notable enough for inclusion? I suggest that it is not, given the facts that it is unsourced, that it discusses rumors and conjectures that were long ago disproven, and that there has been no reason given thus far to suggest that there is any particular importance to the existence of these ideas within the topic's historiography. Furthermore, this seems to give undue weight (within an otherwise balanced article) to specifically Western European perspectives, whereas there is/was no broader worldwide head-scratching about where Chinese people came from so far as I know. What I find most troubling is not the content itself but the reasoning Til Eulenspiegel has offered in support of keeping it. Simply because a piece of information is part of a topic's historiography does not justify keeping it in the article; if we were to keep every similar bad idea ever had about a topic, our articles would be drowning in them. I find it appropriate to reference WP:NOTDIR point #7, which states that Wikipedia is not "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Case in point: why doesn't this and every single other article about an ethnicity mention that biblical literalists believe that these people are descended from one of the Sons of Noah, and hence of Middle Eastern origin? I would even expect that far more people find the Biblical theory interesting than find 19th century European folklore worth mentioning.


 * It is outside the scope of this project to save all information from "the memory hole," and it is certainly not the responsibility of an editor who suggests removing non-noteworthy material to find another place for it. In fact, both of those suggestions seem to fly in the face of WP:OR. I made a few cursory google searches to see if any coverage of these ideas might pop up and suggest that they are notable, but I did not find anything. Perhaps someone who knows more about the topic would have a better idea as to how to find such a source. In the meantime, I believe it is appropriate to remove the paragraph, and I am doing so. Feeeshboy (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been on wikipedia for five years, and I'm pretty familiar with how due process works around here. Notability is a subjective (personal opinion) since what is notable and encyclopedic to one person, another editor may wish to suppress or cover up anyone else from learning the referenced facts about.  This is indeed what significant schools of thought were saying about the controversy at one time, and it should not be suppressed nor covered up.  The subject is certainly fascinating and encyclopedic enough to some folks to warrant a dedicated, well-referenced article on Terrien de Lacouperie's theories, with a mere mentioning link from here - and I predict that will be the end result of all this debate, if it continues.  Trying to brush things under the carpet and out of sight almost always backfires here in the long run, and achieves the opposite result. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, I know you're trying to do the right thing by defending content that you think is valuable. I welcome a good debate on this matter and hope that other people weigh in so that whatever course we take is supported by consensus. But you're not going about this in the right manner. Your continued rhetoric about cover-ups and suppression of information is really beneath the requisite level of assuming good faith, whether you intend for it to come off that way or not. You're right that notability is a subjective matter, and it certainly should be settled by consensus. However, consensus is not about a straw poll, and it's not about my word versus yours, or my opinion versus yours. It's about discussion and considering different ideas. I have explained my reasoning for removing the paragraph, both before I did initially and after reverting your reversion, and you have not countered my claims by demonstrating notability in any way other than your assertion that it is "certainly" notable.


 * I too have been editing Wikipedia for several years, and what I have seen backfire more than anything else is when editors take matters personally and use condescending rhetoric instead of simply giving the other editor what he or she is looking for, e.g. a source. Whatever you may think I'm trying to do here, if challenging this content causes you or another editor to strengthen this paragraph or provide sources for it, thus improving the article, then that is not at all the opposite of the result that I'm hoping for. As I said from the start, I think there might be a way to keep a mention of this fact if it is truncated, as I think the full paragraph gives the matter undue weight. I also think it would be great if you had enough verifiable material to write a separate article on these theories, which would certainly be worth a mention and a link here. For example, consider the way Oxygen mentions the Phlogiston theory in the header. Is there any link between these incorrect theories about the Han people's origin and later research that taught us something true about their origin (similar to the way Phlogiston's disproval led to the discovery of Oxygen)? Finally, as I said before, any references you could provide would go a long way toward supporting your case for notability. Any of these three suggestions would be acceptable to me.


 * What is not acceptable is continuing to revert edits--ones that I have defended with logic and citations of Wikipolicy--with little more than absurd accusations. If you want to have a debate on the notability of the information I have twice removed, then I welcome it. If you like one of my ideas for finding way to satisfy both of our concerns, or if you have an idea of your own, then I welcome it. If, however, you do not even attempt to provide a reasonable explanation for why you think the information is notable, then we are at an impasse. You mention "due process," as if this is a court of law, in which we have to wait around for a verdict before I can delete something. That is not how this works at all. Clearly you have reasons for thinking that the paragraph in question is notable. State your case. Feeeshboy (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel - that content may or may not be discussing what was a mainstream school of thought as to the origins of Han Chinese, personally I don't know if it is. But like you said, we're talking about historiography here. It's not so much whether or not that was the mainstream school of thought, it's whether or not this bit of historiography is notable enough for inclusion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Historiography is always encyclopedic. Suppression of historiographic facts in the name of "notability" is not. Just because you personally don't find it noteworthy, or don't want people to read it, I can assure you there are others who do.  And Feeshboy, I care little about what you inform me is "acceptable" since I don't concede you the authority over me you seem to imagine yourself to have.  In other words, I don't need you to tell me I am behaving unacceptably - again that's totally your opinion, since I don't at all think I am behaving unacceptably here at all, and I reject your presumption that I am, or that you as an editor get to decide what is and is not "acceptable".  It wouldn't take that much research for me to come up with a dedicated article about Lacouperie and his theories that can be linked from here - since there are already tons of easily accessible references outside of wikipedia to provide this same information - if that's really the way you want it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Historiography is always encyclopedic? Err...  Is this some WP policy I'm not aware of?  To me that entire paragraph seems to be more suited to Chinese historiography instead of this article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a policy, it's only common sense, since that is what the purpose of encyclopedias is, at least in the English speaking world. They don't dictate what people are thinking, or "supposed to be thinking" nowadays.  Articles always provide some background on the past development of thought, to show how it got to where it is today.  We also have definitely got a "due process" on wikipedia to resolve such subjective disputes about "notability" etc. and to discourage editors from each trying to impose their personal opinions on it by mere fiat or personal whim, without even discussing beforehand. I always follow due process, no matter how long it takes, but some of Feesh's comments above suggest to me that he isn't terribly interested in due process here.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you have misinterpreted. What I said was that you are not going about "due process" respectfully, assuming good faith, or following established guidelines for building a consensus. When you revert an edit without an explanation, you fail to follow due process by acting as if you are the arbiter of what belongs in an article, and as if you with your 5 years of editing experience get to judge what is "common sense", what is "certainly" worth mentioning, what is "always encyclopedic", and what, in your hyperbolic language, "should not be repressed or covered up." That is why I undid your second revert: under due process, the material in question should remain out of the article until it is, at the very least, referenced. Rather than providing a source, as you say you can easily do, or answering any of my arguments about the notability and relevance of the paragraph, you continue to make comments that seem to suggest that you are above the need for due process. In the case of an unbalanced discussion such as this, I would be well within standard procedures to simply remove the paragraph again until you can at least provide a source for any one of the claims it makes ("the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"); however, I am not interested in getting into an edit war here. So, how about you stop making assumptions about my intentions and my thoughts and start defending your points with something other than blanket statements and commentary directed at me, as I have repeatedly invited you to do? Feeeshboy (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That section is about history though, not historiography specifically, and to be honest, I find it's only common sense we do not include the discussion of a theory that was thought valid for about as long a time as it has actually been discredited. In fact, it's plain irrelevant in that section, especially since the paragraph doesn't say anything to indicate that this theory which has been discredited for more than 50 years has any impact on current thoughts on the origin of the Han Chinese.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Til Eulenspiegel suggests that "Articles always provide some background on the past development of thought", but I don't find this to necessarily be true. Certainly, it is relevant some of the time to discuss outdated ideas, particularly when they demonstrably contributed to the development of current ones, like Phlogiston theory, which I mentioned earlier. However, if we were to include ALL historiography, then we would have to give significant coverage to the Flat Earth theory in articles like Earth and Figure of the Earth. Instead, the latter has only a link in the See Also section and the former two quick one-line mentions in a referenced and appropriate fashion. The other great thing about this kind of a quick mention with a reference is that the information that Til Eulenspiegel wants to preserve would indeed be available to anyone who wanted to learn more about the topic, so his fears of a memory hole would be averted. Feeeshboy (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the paragraph. It simply doesn't belong, for the reasons repeatedly stated above by a number of editors. When I first read this article back in November, it struck me as glaringly out of place, and I'm glad to see that many agree with me. Dlabtot (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Peru
I would strongly advise against using the estimate for Peru. The Chinese have intermarried generations ago and now on the streets of Lima it is rare to even see an Asian face. I think for many countries it should be noted that the estimate includes everyone with minor heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iquitoamaz (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

龙的传人
I remove this tag as I feel that the Manchu dynasty also uses the 龙, so it's not exclusive to the Han Chinese. Also, it stems from a 1978 Taiwan pop song, as such it has a short history, and it seems to refer more to Zhonghua Minzu. And also the 龙 is a monarchic symbol for the Emperor more than for a nation. DORC (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note too I am not the only one who refer to such. See above. DORC (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)